Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 494

;/ "

G ui da nc e
an d
Co nt ro l
of ce an
Ve hi cl es

Thor I. Fossen
Unive rsity of Tron dheim


Chic heste r' New Y6'rk . Brisb ane . Toronto . Singa pore
Copyright © 1994 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Baffins Lane, Chichester
West Sussex P019 lUD, England
National Chichester (0243) 779777 "
International (+ 14) 213 779777 "
Reprinted December 1995

Reprinted May 1998

Hcpdntcd March 1999
All rights reserved :!

No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, OI

transmitted or translated into a machine language without the written
permission of the publisher. iI
Other WHey Editorial Offices Il
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 605 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10158-0012, USA
Jacaranda Wiley Ltd, 33 Park Road, Milton,
Queensland 4064, Australia

John Wiley & Sons (Canada) Ltd, 22 Worcester Road,

Rexdale, Ontario M9W lL1, Canada

John Wiley & Sons (SEA) Pte Ltd, 37 Jalan Pamimpin #05-01,
Block B, Union Industrial Building, Singapor~ 2057

Britisll Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British LibraIY

ISBN 0 171 94113 1

Produced from camera-ready copy supplied by the author using LaTeX,

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham. Wiltshire
This book is dedicated
Heidi and Sindre

Preface xiii

1 Introduction 1

2 Modeling of Marine Vehicles 5

2.1 Kinematics . 6
2.1.1 Euler Angles . 7
2.. 1.2 Euler Parameters . 12
2.1.3 Euler-Rodrigues Parameters 17
2.1.4 Comments on Parameter Alternatives. 17
2.2 Newtonian and Lagrangian Mechanics 18
2.2.1 Newton-Euler Formulation. . . . 18
2.22 Lagrangian Formulation . . . . . 19
2.23 Kirchhoff's Equations of Motion . 20
2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics . . . 21
2.3.1 6 DOF Rigid-Body Equations of Motion 25
24 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments . 30
241 Added Mass and Inertia . . 32
242 Hydrodynamic Dampi]fg 42
24.3 Restoring Forces and Moments 46
2.5 Equations of Motion . 48
2.5.1 Vector Representations . 48
2.5.2 Useful Properties of the Nonlinear Equations of Motion. 49
2.53 The Lagrangian Versus the Newtonian Approach 52
2 6 Conclusions 54
27 Exercises.... 55

3 Environmental Disturbances 57
3.1 The Principle of Superposition . 57
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves. . . 60
32.1 Standard Wave Spectra . 62
3.2.2 Linear Approximations to the Wave Spectra 69
3.2.3 Frequency of Encounter 72
324 Wave-Induced Forces and Moments 73
3.3 Wind. " ' " 7' 76
331 Standard Wind Spectra . 76

332 Wind Forces and Moments. 77

3.4 Ocean Cunents 84
3,41 Current Velocity 84
3.4.2 Current-Induced Forces and Moments 85
3.5 Conclusions 90
36 Exercises 91

4 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles 93

41 ROV Equations of Motion 94
4.11 Thruster Model 94
412 Nonlinear ROV Equations of Motion 99
4.13 Linear ROV Equations of Motion 99
4.2 Stability of Underwater Vehicles. 102
421 Open-Loop Stability 102
4.2.2 Closed-Loop Tracking Control 104
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design. . 105
431 Joy-Stick Control Systems Design 105
4.3.2 Multivariable PID-Control Design for Nonlinear Systems 105
433 PID Set-Point Regulation in Terms of Lyapunov Stability. 107
4.3.4 Linear Quadratic Optimal Control 112 , I
4.4 Decoupled Control Design 114
4.4.1 Forward Speed Control . 115
4,42 Automatic Steering . 117
4.4.3 Combined Pitch and Depth Control . 119
45 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs . 125
4.51 Sliding Mode Control . 125
4.5.2 State Feedback Linearization. . 137 ; I
4.53 Adaptive Feedback Linearization 143
45.4 Nonlinear Tracking (The Slotine and Li Algorithm) 146
4.5.5 Nonlinear Tracking (The Sadegh and Horowitz Algorithm) 151
4.5.6 Cascaded Adaptive Control (ROV and Actuator Dynamics) 152
4.57 Unified Passive Adaptive Control Design 155
45.8 Parameter Drift due to Bounded Disturbances 159
4.6 Conclusions 161
47 Exercises. 162

5 Dynarp.ics and Stability of Ships 167

5.1 Rigid-Body Ship Dynamics . 168
5.2 The Speed Equation 169
5.21 Nonlinear Speed Equation 169
522 Linear Speed Equation 170
5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations . 171
5.3.1 The Model of Davidson and Schiff (1946) . 171
53.2 The Models of Nomoto (1957) 172


533 Non-Dimensional Ship Steering Equations of Motion 177

5 3A Determination of Hydrodynamic Derivatives 179
54 The Steering Machine 181
55 Stability of Ships . . . . . . . . . 185
55.1 Basic Stability Definitions 185
552 Metacentric Stability 190
5.53 Criteria for Dynamic Stability in Straight-Line Motion 193
554 Dynamic Stability on Course. 197
56 Nonlinear Ship Steering Equations . 198
561 The Nonlinear Model of Abkowitz (1964) 198
5.62 The Nonlinear Model of Norrbin (1970) . 199
5.6.3 The Nonlinear Model of Blanke (1981) . . 201
5.7 Coupled Equations for Steering and Rolling 202
5.7.1 The Model of Van Amerongen and Van Cappelle (1981) . 202
57.2 The Model of Son and Nomoto (1981) 203
5.7.3 The Model of Christensen and Blanke (1986) . 204
58 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics . . . . 206
58.1 Full-Scale Maneuvering Trials 207
58.2 The Norrbin Measure of Maneuverability 216
59 Conclusions 218
510 Exercises 218

6 Automatic Control of Ships 221

6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances. 222
6L1 Dead-Band Techniques 223
61.2 Conventional Filter Design . 224
6.1.3 Observer-Based Wave Filter Design. 228
61.4 Kalman Filter Based Wave Filter Design 237
6.1.5 Wave Frequency Tr'acker . . . 242
62 Forward Speed Control . . . . 246
6.2.1 Propellers as Thrust Devices. 246
622 Control of Ship Speed 254
623 Speed Control for Cruising. 257
6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots . . . . 259
6.3.1 Autopilots of PlD-Type 259
6.3.2 Compensation of Forward Speed Effects 263
6.3.3 Linear Quadratic Optimal Autopilot: 265
6.3.4 Adaptive Linear Quadratic Optimal Control 271
6.4 Turning Controllers. 273
6.4.1 PlD-Control. 276
6.4.2 Combined Optimal and Feedforward Turning Controller 277
6.4.3 Nonlinear Autopilot Design . . . . 278
6.4.4 Adaptive Feedback Linearization . 281
6.4 5 Model Reference Adaptive Control 283

B21 Euler's Method .. 406

B2.2 Adams-Bashforth's 2nd-Order Method 408
B2.3 Runge-Kutta 2nd-Order Method (Heun's Method) 409
B 24 Runge--Kutta 4th-Order Method 409
B3 Numerical Differentiation. 410
C Stability Theory 411
C 1 Lyapunov Stability Theory. 411
C.l.1 Lyapunov Stability for Autonomous Systems 411
C.l.2 Lyapunov Stability for Non-Autonomous Systems 412
C.2 Input-Output Stability. 414
C2.1 Some Basic Definitions 414
C.22 Lp-Stability 416
C.2.3 Feedback Stability 417
C.3 Passivity Theory 418
C.3.1 Passivity Interpretation of Mechanical Systems. 418
C.3.2 Feedback Stability in the Sense of Passivity 421
C.3.3 Passivity in Linear Systems 421
C.3A Positive Real Systems 423

D Linear Quadratic Optimal Control 425

D.1 Solution of the LQ Tracker Problem ., 425
TIl.l Linear Time-Varying Systems 426
D.L2 Approximate Solution for Linear Time-Invariant Systems 427
D.2 Linear Quadratic Regulator 429

E Ship and ROV Models 431

El Ship Models. 431
E.l.1 Mariner Class Vessel 431
E12 The ESSO 190000 dwt Tanker. 435
EL3 Container Ship . . . 440
E2 Underwater Vehicle Models . 447
E2.1 Linear Model of a Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle (DSRV)447
E22 Linear Model of a Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (SDV) 448
E2.3 Nonlinear Model of the Naval Postgraduate School AUV II 448

F Conversion Factors 453

Bibliography 455

Index 475

My first interest for offshore technology and marine vehicles started during my
"siviJingeni0r" (MSc) study at the Department of Marine Systems Design at The
Norwegian Institute of Technology (NIT). This interest was my main motivation
for a doctoral study in Engineering Cybernetics at the Faculty of Electrical Engi-
neering and Computer Sciences (NIT) and my graduate studies in flight control
at the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Washington,
Seattle. Consequently, much of the material and inspiration for the book has
evolved from this period. Writing this book, is an attempt to draw the disci-
plines of engineering cybernetics and marine engineering together.
Systems for Guidance and Control have been taught by the author since 1991
for MSc students in Engineering Cybernetics at the Faculty of Electrical Engineer-
ing and Computer Science (NIT) The book is intended as a textbook for senior
and graduate students with some background in control engineering and calculus.
Some basic knowledge of linear and nonlinear control theory, vector analysis and
differential equations is required. The objective of the book is to present and
apply advanced control theory to marine vehicles like remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs), surface ships, high speed crafts and floating offshore structures The
reason for applying more sophisticated autopilots for steering and dynamic po-
sitioning of marine vehicles is mainly due to fuel economy, improved reliability
and performance enhancement, Since 1973, the rapid increase in oil prices has
contributed to this trend. This justifies the use of more advanced mathematical
models and control theory in guidance and control applications,

Ass. Professor Thor 1. Fossen

University of Trondheim
The Norwegian Institute of Technology
Department of Engineering Cybernetics
N-7034 Trondheim, Norway

It is impossible to mention everyone who has contributed with ideas, suggestions
and examples, but I owe you all my deepest thanks I am particularly grateful to
Dr Svein L Sagatun (A BB Industry, Oslo) and Dr. Asgeir S0rensen (ABB Cor-
porate Research, Oslo) for their comments and useful suggestions. Dr. S0rensen
should also be thanked for his sincere help in writing Section 7.1 on surface effect
ships, ,/

I acknowledge the help of Professor Mogens Blanke (Department of Con-

trol Engineering, Aalborg University) for his help in writing Section 6,2 on ship
propulsion and speed control while Dr Eding Lunde (consultant for Dynamica
AS, Trondheim) and ML William C O'Neill (consultant for Advanced Marine
Vehicles, 852 Goshen Road, Newtown Square, PA 19073) should be thanked for
their sincere help in writing Section 7,2 on foilborne catamarans, I am also grate-
ful to Professor Olav Egeland (Department of Engineering Cybernetics, NIT) for
his valuable comments to Sections 2,1 to 2,3 and to Professor Anthony J, Healey
(Mechanical Engineering Department, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey) for
contributing with lecture notes and the underwater vehicle models in Appendix
I want to express my gratitude to ABB Industry (Oslo), Robertson Tritech
AjS (Egersund), the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (Kjeller) and
the Ulstein Group (Ulsteinvik) for contributing with full scale experimental re-
sults" I
Furthermore, ML Stewart Clark, Senior Consultant (NIT) and doctoral stu- I
dents Alf G Bringaker and Erling Johannessen (Department of Engineering Cy-
bernetics, NIT) should be thanked for their careful proofl'eading and comments
to the final manuscript,
The author is also grateful to his doctoral student Ola-Erik Fjellstad and
Astrid Egeland for their useful comments and suggestions, Morten Brekke, Geir
Edvin Hovland, Trygve Lauvdal and Kjetil Ri1Je should be thanked for their help
with illustrations, examples and computer simulations, The book also greatly
benefits from students who took the course in guidance and control at NIT from
1991 to 1993, They have all helped me to reduce the number of typographical
errors to an acceptable level.. Finally, I want to thank Ms, Laura Denny and
ML Stuart Gale (John Wiley & Sons Ltd,) who have provided me with technical
and editorial comments to the final manuscript.

'l'hor L Fossen
January 1994

Chapter 1

The subject of this textbook is guidance and control of ocean vehicles. This title
covers control systems design for all types of marine vehicles like submarines,
torpedoes, unmanned and manned underwater vehicles, conventional ships, high
speed crafts and semi-submersibles. Examples of such systems are:

o control systems for forward speed control

o autopilots for course-keeping and diving
o turning controllers
o track-keeping systems
o dynamic positioning (DP)
o rudder-roll stabilization (RES)
• fin control systems
o wave-induced vibration damping

For practical purposes the discussion will concentrate on three vehicle categories:
small unmanned underwater vehicles, surface ships and high speed craft.

Guidance and Control

The terms guidance and control can be defined so that:

GUIDANCE is the action of determining the course, attitude and speed of the
vehicle, relative to some reference frame (usually the earth), to be followed
by the vehicle.

CONTROL is the development and application to a vehicle of appropriate forces

and moments for operating point control, tracking and stabilization. This
involves designing the feedforward and feedback control laws.
2 Introduction

, :,
Example 1.1 (Automatic Weather Routing) ),
The design of an automatic weatheT' r'outing system faT' a ship TequiT'es insight in
both advanced modeling and optimal contml theory. M oT'e~ver, we need an accu-
rate model of the ship and the environmental fOT'ces (wind, waves and curTents)
to describe the speed loss of the ship in bad weatheT'. Based on the speed loss
computations we can compute a fuel optimal route. Finally, we have to design an
optimal track-keeping controller (autopilot) to enSUT'e that this mute is followed
by the ship.

waves and
t CUfTen~
--1 Feedforward
control system
: Actuators :
I Dynamics h I Kinematics h
-- control
system .- Vehicle

Tl d 1;
I Reference I I Guidance I I Kinematic f-t-
I generlltor I I sensors I I transfonnation I

t weather

Figure 1.1: Guidance and control system for automatic weather routing of ships.

A guidance and contT'ol system for automatic weather routing of a ship is shown
in FiguT'e 1.1. This system uses weather data measurements to compute a fuel
optimal mute faT' the ship which is fed forward to the contT'ol system through a
block denoted as the "feedforwaT'd contml system". In addition to this, feedback is
provided in an optimal manner from velocity v and position/attitude 17 thmugh
the block "feedback control system". The contr-ol force and moment vector T is
pmvided by the actuatoT' via the contm.l variable u, which may be interpreted as
the sum of the feedforward and feedback control action.
We also notice that the 1'efeT'ence gener'atoT' 17d may use weather data t; (wind
speed, wind direction, wave height etc.J together with the ship states (v, 17) to
compute the optimal route. This is usually done by including constraints for
fuel consumption, actuator saturation, fOT'waT'd speed, restricted areas for ship
maneuvering etc.
Introduction 3

, ,
An Overview of the Book ).

This book deals mainly with modeling and control of unmanned untethered un-
derwater vehicles (remotely operated vehicles and autohomous underwater vehi-
cles), surface ships (cargo ships, tankers etc,) and high speed craft (surface effect
ships and foilbome catamarans).
The design of modern marine vehicle guidance and control systems requires
knowledge of a broad field of disciplines. Some of these are vectorial kinemat-
ics and dynamics, hydrodynamics, navigation systems and control theory. To
be able to design a high performance control system it is evident that a good
mathematical model of the vehicle is required for simulation and verification of
the design. As a result of this, the book contains a large number of mathematical
models intended for this purpose. The clifferent topics in the book are organized
according to:

MODELING: marine vehicle kinematics and dynamics in 6 degrees of freedom

(Chapter 2) and environmental clisturbances in terms of wind, waves and
currents (Chapter 3)
UNDERWATER VEHICLES: stability and control system design for small UD-
manned underwater vehicles (Chapter 4).
SURFACE SHIPS: ship dynamics, stability and maneuvering (Chapter 5) and
ship control system design (Chapter 6),
HIGH SPEED CRAFT: control system design for surface effect ships (SES) and
foilcats (Chapter 7) .

It is recommended that one should read Chapter 2 before Chapters 3-7 since
these chapters use basic results from vectoIial kinematics and dynamics.
Chapter 2
Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Modeling of marine vehicles involves the study of statics and dynamics. Statics is
concerned with the equilibrium of bodies at rest or moving with constant velocity,
whereas dynamics is concerned with bodies having accelerated motion. Statics is
the oldest of the engineering sciences. In fact, important contributions were made
over 2000 years ago by Archimedes (287-212 BC) who derived the basic law of
hydrostatic buoyancy. This result is the foundation for static stability analyses
of marine vessels.
The study of dynamics started much later since accurate measurements of
time are necessary to perform dynamic experiments. One of the first time-
measuring instruments, a "water clock", was designed by Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519) This simple instrument exploited the fact that the interval between
the falling drops of water could be considered constant. The scientific basis of dy-
namics was provided by Newton's laws published in 1687. It is common to divide
the study of dynamics into two parts: kinematics, which treats only geometrical
aspects of motion, and kinetics, which is the analysis of the forces causing the

Table 2.1: Notation used for marine vehicles.

forces and linear and positions and

DOF moments angular vel. Euler angles
1 motions in the x-direction (surge) X u x
2 motions in the y-direction (sway) Y u y
3 motions in the z-direction (heave) Z w z
4 rotation about the x-axis (roll) K p <f;
5 rotation about the y-axis (pitch) M q e
6 rotation about the z-axis (yaw) N r 1/J

This study discusses the motion of marine vehicles in 6 degrees of freedom

(DO F) since 6 independent coordinates are necessary to determine the position
and orientation of a rigid body. The first three coordinates and their time deriva-
J.,:_*_,_. ,_~,~_...:I ....., ~l-..n ........... c~t-;'"',.... .,,....ri f..,. ..."....'1el·:::d.. ;nn!:ll l'Tln+lnn :::llnncr t.hp 'r._ 11_ ~nrl
6 Modeling of Mar'ine Vehicles

z-axes, while the last 3 coordinates and time derivatives are used to )describe
orientation and rotational motion, For marine vehicles, the 6 different motion
components are conveniently defined as: surge, sway, heave,,,roll, pitch and yaw,
see Table 2.L

2.1 Kinematics
When analyzing the motion of marine vehicles in 6 DOF it is convenient to define
two coordinate frames as indicated in Figure 2,1 . The moving coordinate frame
XoYoZo is conveniently fixed to the vehicle and is called the body-fixed reference
frame, The origin 0 of the body-fixed frame is usually chosen to coincide with
the center of gravity (CG) when CG is in the principal plane of symmetry or at
any other convenient point if this is not the case.
For marine vehicles, the body axes X o, Y o and Zo coincide with the principal
axes of inertia, and are usually defined as:

.. X o - longitudinal axis (directed from aft to fore)

.. Yo - transverse axis (directed to starboard)

.. Zo - normal axis (directed from top to bottom)




(sway) (heave)


Figure 2.1: Body-fixed and earth-fixed reference frames.
2.1 Kinematics 7
, ,
The motion of the body-fixed frame is described relative to an':inertial refer-
ence frame. For marine vehicles it is usually assumed that the accelerations of a
point on the surface of the Earth can be neglected. Ind~ed, this is a good approx-
imation since the motion of the Earth hardly affects low speed marine vehicles
As a result of this, an earth-fixed reference frame XYZ can be considered to be
inertiaL This suggests that the position and orientation of the vehicle should
be described relative to the inertial reference frame while the linear and angular
velocities of the vehicle should be expressed in the body-fixed coordinate system.
The different quantities are defined according to the SNAME (1950) notation as
indicated in Table 2.1. Based on this notation, the general motion of a marine
vehicle in 6 DOF can be described by the following vectors:
TJl = [x,y,zjTj
v = [v T vTJT.}
l' 2

7"1 = [X, Y, ZJT; 7"2 = [K, lvI, NjT

Here TJ denotes the position and orientation vector with coordinates in the earth-
fixed frame, v denotes the linear and angular velocity vector with coordinates in
the body-fixed frame and 7" is used to describe the forces and moments acting
on the vehicle in the body-fixed frame In marine guidance and control systems,
orientation is usually represented by means of Euler angles or quaternions.. In the
next sections the kinematic equations relating the body-fixed reference frame to
the earth-fixed reference frame will be derived.

2.1.1 Euler Angles

The vehicle's flight path relative to the earth-fixed coordinate system is given by
a velocity transformation:

T]1 = J 1(TJ2) VI (2.1)

where J I (TJ2) is a transformation matrix which is related through the functions
of the Euler angles: roll (,p), pitch (8) and yaw (1(;). The inverse velocity trans-
formation will be written:

VI ~ J 11(TJ2) T]l (2.2)

We will now derive the expression for the transformation matrix J 1(TJ2)'
Consider the following definition:

Definition 2.1 (Simple Rotation)

A motion of a rigid body or reference frame B relative to a rigid body or reference
frame A is called a simple rotation of B in A if there exists a line L, called an
axis of rotation, whose orientation relative to both A and B remains unaltered
8 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Based on this definition Euler stated in 1776 the following theorem' {or rotation
of two rigid bodies or reference frames,

Theorem 2.1 (Euler's Theorem on Rotation)

Every change in t~e relative orientation of two rigid bodies or reference frames A
and B can be produced by means of a simple TOtation of B in A.

Let 0. be a vector fixed in A and b be a vector fixed in B. Hence, the vector b can
be expressed in terms of the vector 0., the unit vector ..\ = [Al' A2' A3JT parallel
to L (the axis of rotation) which B is rotated about and {3 the angle frame B is
rotated. The rotation is described by (see Hughes (1986) or Kane, Likins and
Levinson (1983)):

b = cos {3 0. + (1 - cos (3) ..\..\T 0. - sin {3 >. x 0. (2.3)

Consequently, the rotation sequence from a to b can be written as:

b=Ca (2.4)
where C can be interpreted as a rotation matrix which simply is an operator
taking a fixed vector 0. and rotating it to a new vector Co., From (2.3) we obtain
the following expression for C:

IC = cos {3 I + (1 - cos (3»...\T - sin{3 S(>.U (2.5)

where I is the 3 x 3 identity matrix and S(..\) is a skew-symmetric matrix (see
Definition 2.2) defined such that>. x 0. Cl S(..\)a, that is:


Definition 2.2 (Skew-Symmetry of a Matrix)

A matrix S is said to be skew-symmetrical if:


This implies that the off-diagonal matrix elements of S satisfy Sij - -Sji for
i '" j while the matrix diagonal consists of zero elements.

The set of all 3 x 3 skew-symmetric matrices is denoted by 88(3) while the set
of all 3 x 3 rotation matrices is usually referred to by the symbol 80(3)1
'Special Orthogonal group of order 3.
2.1 Kinematics 9

Another useful interpretation of 0 E 50(3) is as a coordinat~.~ransformation

matrix giving the orientation of a transformed coordinate frame with respect to
a fixed (inertial) coordinate frame This interpretati~n is particularly useful in
guidance and control applications where we are concerned with motion variables
in the inertial and body-fixed reference frames.
Expanding (2.5) yields the following expressions for the matrix elements Ci {

CIl - (1 - cos (3) ),i + cos (3

C22 - (1 - cos (3) ),~ + cos (3
C33 - (1 - cos (3) ),~ + cos (3
C 12 - (1 - cos (3) ),1),2 + )'3 sin (3
C21 - (1 - cos (3) ),2),1 - ),3 sin (3 (2.7)
C23 - (1 - cos (3) ),2),3 + ),1 sin (3
C32 - (1 - cos (3),\3A2 - Al sin (3
C31 - (1- COS(3),3),1 + A2sin(3
C13 - (1- cos (3) Al),3 - ),2 sin (3

Principal Rotations
The principal rotation matrices can be obtained by setting ,\ = [1,0, of, ,\ =
[0,1, of and >. = [0,0, If, respectively, in the general formula for C. This yields
the following transformation matrices:

Ox,</> =[ °°
1 0 0]
c<jJ s<jJ Oy,O =
0 1
° -SB]0 C %,,p =
cl/J S7/;
cl/J 0
_·s<jJ c<jJ
[ sB o cB [ 001
where s . = sinO and c . = cosU. The notation Oi,a denotes a rotation angle a
about the i-a..·'ds. Notice that all Ci,a satisfy the following property:

Property 2.1 (Coordinate Transformation Matrix)

A coordinate transformation matrix 0 E 50(3) satisfies:

det C = 1

which implies that C is orthogonal. As a consequence of this, the inverse coordi-

nate transformation matrix (rotation matrix) can be computed as: C- 1 = C T .

Linear Velocity Transformation

It is customary to describe J 1(TJ2) by three rotations. Note that the order in
which these rotations is carried out is not arbitrary. In guidance and control
applications it is co=on to use the xyz-convention specified in terms of Euler
~Tl1T1.oc flir t.hp rnt~t.inn.c::
10 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Let X 3 Y3 Z 3 be the coordinate system obtained by translating the ea~th-fixed

coordinate system XY Z parallel to itself until its origin coincides with the origin
of the body-fixed coordinate system. Then, the coordinate\system X 3Y;Z3 is
rotated a yaw angle 'if; about the Z3 axis. This yields the coordinate system
X2Y2Z2. The coordinate system X 2Y2Z 2 is rotated a pitch angle 0 about the Y2
axis. This yields the coordinate system X1YIZ I . Finally, the coordinate system
X1YIZ I is rotated a bank or roll angle <jJ about the Xl axis. This yields the body-
fixed coordinate system XoYoZo, see Figure 2.2. The rotation sequence is written
J I(TJ2) = C;:,pC~,oC;;,</> (2.9) r
which implies that the inverse transformation can be written:

J 11(TJ2) = Jf(TJ2) = Cx,</>Cy,oCZ,,p (2.10)

Here we have used the result of Property 2.1- Expanding this expression yields:

c'if;cO -s'if;c<jJ + c'if;sOs<jJ s'if;s<jJ + Cl/JCr/!SO ]

J I (TJ2) = s'if;cO c'if;c<jJ + sr/!sOs'if; -c'if;s<jJ + sOs'if;cr/! (2.11)
[ -sO cOs<jJ cOc<jJ

Angular Velocity Transformation

The body-fixed angular velocity vector 1/2 = fp, q, r]T and the Euler rate vector
TJ2 = [~, B, ~jT are related through a transformation matrix J 2(TJ2) according to:

1]2 = J 2(TJ2) 1/2 (2.12)

It should be noted that the angular body velocity vector 1/2 = fp, q, rjT cannot
be integrated directly to obtain actual angular coordinates. This is due to the fact
that J~ 1/2(r) dr does not have any i=ediate physical interpretation. However,
the vector TJ2 = [r/!, 0, 'if;jT will represent proper generalized coordinates. The
orientation of the body-fixed reference fraIlle with respect to the inertial reference
frame is given by:

V2 ~
= [ ] + Cx,</> [ ~ ] + Cx,</>Cy,o [ ~ ] = J Z1(TJ2) TJ2 (2.13)

This relationship is verified by inspection of Figure 2.2. Expanding (2.13) yields:

[~o -sr/!
c~ cOcr/!
c~::] sr/!tO cr/!tO]
J Z (TJ2) = =} J 2(TJ2) =[ 00 cr/! -s<jJ (2.14)
s<jJ/cO c<jJ/cO
where s . = sin(·), c . = cos(·) and t . = tan(-).
2.1 Kinematics 11


/) (1) Rotation over heading

·· .
: :
:· .:
angle 1jf about Z3
Note that wJ = w,
,· .
:·. :
/V 3
:::::::::;::----r-"""'l:-:-- Y

(2) Rotation over pitch X 2
angle e about Y2
Note that v, = v,

!--i'"r:-y--....--- Y 1
•-- .•; --._, <I> (3) Rotation over roll
: : angle <l> about X,
L/ Note that u,= u,

Figure 2.2: The rotation sequence according to the xyz-convention showing both the
linear (u, v, w) and angular (p, q, r) velocities.
12 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Notice that J 2 (rl2) is undefined for a pitch angle of = e ± 90\and that

J 2(712) does not satisfy Property 2.L Consequently, J":;I (712) 'I Jf (712)' For
surface vessels this is not a problem whereas both underwat\r vehicles and .aircraft
may operate close to this singularity. In that case, the kinematic equations can be
described by two Euler angle representations with different singularities.. Another
possibility is to use a quaternion representation. This is the topic of the next
section. Summarizing the results from this section, the kinematic equations can
be expressed in vector form as:


2.1.2 Euler Parameters

An alternative to the Euler angle representation is a four-parameter method based
on unit quaternions. Consider the following definitions:

Definition 2.3 (Quaternion)

A quatemion q is defined as a complex number (Ghou 1992):

q = ql i + q2 j + q3 k + q4 (2.16)
formed by four units (i,j, k, 1) by means of the real parameters qi (i = 1,2,3,4),
where i, j and k are three orlhogonal unit vectors..
Conseqilently, a quatemion q may be viewed as a linear combination of a scalar
q4 and a vector qo = [ql, q2, Q3]T, that is:

(2 . 17)
If Q4 = 0, q is a purely imaginary number and is called a vector quaternion.
Similarly, q is called a scalar quatemion if qo = o. By applying quatemions,
we will show that we can describe the motion of the body-fixed reference frame
relative to the inertial frame.

Unit Quaternions (Euler Parameters)

From (2.5) we have:

C = cos{3 I + (1- cos{3) .;\..;\.T - sin{3 S(';\') (2.18)

The Euler parameters or unit quaternions are defined as:

le = [c1,c2,c3]T =.;\. sin11 (2.19)

177=cos11 (220)
2.1 Kinematics 13

±_e:_; >. Ve:Te: ,-6 p

=0 (2.21 )
Ve:T e: '
Consequently, the Euler parameters can be expressed in the form:

e =0 [ :~ j
=0 [ >. sin
cos ~
~ ] ., o:::: f3 :::: 2rr (2.22)
This parameterization implies that the Euler parameters satisfy the constraint
eT e =0 1, that is:

Ie:i + e:~ + e:~ + TJ2 11 =0 (2.23)

From (2.18) with (2.19) and (2.20), we obtain the following coordinate transfor-
mation matrix for the Euler parameters:


Linear Velocity Transformation

The transformation relating the linear velpcity vector in the inertial reference
frame to the velocity in the body-fixed reference frame can be expressed as:

h =oE (e) VII

1 (2.25)

where El =0 C T with C defined in (2.24) is the rotation matrix. Hence,

1 - 2(£~ + £5) 2(£1£2 - £31)) 2(£1£3 + £21)) ]

E 1 (e) =0 2(£1£2 + £37)) 1 - 2(£f + £5) 2(£2£3 - £11)) (2.26)
[ 2(£1£3 - £21)) 2(£2£3 + £11)) 1 - 2(£f + £~)
As for the Euler angle representation, Property 2.1 implies that the inverse trans-
formation matrix satisfies Ei 1 (e) =0 Ei(e).

Angular Velocity Transformation

The angular velocity kansformation can be derived by differentiating:

with respect to time, which yields:

C(t)CT(t) + C(t)CT(t) =0 0 (2.28)

Let us define the matrix S(t) as:
14 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

S(t) = C(t) C (t) (2.29)

Hence, it follows from (2.28) that:

ST(t) + S(t) = 0 (2.30)

This shows that the matrix S(t) is skew-symmetrical. Postmultiplying all ele--
ments in (2.28) with C(t) and using the fact CT(t)C(t) = I, yields:

IC(t) + S(t) C(t) = 0 I (2.31 )

Since S(t) is skew-symmetrical it can be represented as:


where w(t) is a unique vector defined as the angular' velocity of the body-fixed
rotating frame with respect to the earth-fixed fr'ame at time t, Introducing the
notation w(t) = [p, q, ry,
we obtain from (2.31)

Substituting the expressions for G;j from (2,24) into this expression, some calcu-
lation yields:


where V2 = [p, q, r'jT and

-C3 c2 ]
17 -cl
Cl 17
-C2 -C3

Consequently, the kinematic equations of motion can be expressed as:

2.1 Kinematics 15

Implementation Considerations .1

In the implementation of Formula (2,36), a normalization procedure should be

used to ensure that the constraint: \,

is satisfied in the presence of measurement noise and numerical round-off errors,
For this purpose, the following simple discrete-time algorithm can be applied:

Algorithm 2.1 (Computation of Euler Parameters)

1 k = 0, Compute initial values of 1'IJ (k) and e(k)

2, Euler Integration (see Section R2):

7h(k + 1) - 7JJ(k) + h EJ(e(k)) vl(k)

e(k + 1) - e(k) + hE 2(e(k)) v2(k)

Here h is the sampling time,

3, Normalization:

e(k + 1)
e(k + 1) = lIe(k + 1)11

4, k = k + L Return to 2,

Transformation Between Euler Angles and Euler Parameters

If the Euler angles are known and therefore the expression for the rotation matrix
J 1 = {Jij }, a singularity free extraction procedUIe can be used to compute the
corresponding Euler parameters, For instance, the initial values of the Euler
par'ameters corresponding to step 1 of Algorithm 2.1 can be computed by means
of the following scheme proposed by Shepperd (1978):

Algorithm 2.2 (Quaternion From Rotation Matrix)

1, Assume that the Euler angles rP, Band 'I/J are given, Hence, the transforma-
tion matrix J 1 corresponding to these values can be written:
16 Mode ling of Mari ne Vehic les

2 The trace of J 1 is computed according to:

J 44 = tr (J l ) = "Z,Jj j \
3. Let 1 ::; i ::; 4 be the index corresponding to:

4· Define:

where the sign ascribed to Pi can be chosen either plus or minus.

5. Compute the other three p-valu es from:

P4 PI = J32 - J 23 P2 P3 = J 32 + J 23
P4 P2 = J l3 - J 3l P3 PI = J 13 + J 31
P4Pa = J2l - J l2 PI P2 = J 2l + J l2
by simply dividing the three equations containing the component Pi
with Pi
on both sides.

(j = LA)
Trans forma tion Betw een Euler Param eters and Euler Angle s
The relationship between the Euler angles rp,8 and 1{; (xyz-conven
tion) and the
Euler parameters ei (i = LA) can be establ ished by requiring that
the rotati on
matrices of the two kinematic repres entati ons are equal. Moreover:

Let the elements of El be denot ed by E ij where the super script s i

and j denot e
the i-th row and j-th column of El' Writin g expression (2.38) in comp
onent form
yields a system of 9 equations with 3 unkno wns (rp,8 and 1{;), that

c1{;c8 -s1{;c,p + c1{;s8srp

s1{;c8 c1{;c,p + srps8s1/!
[ -s8 (2.39)
2.1 Kinematics 17

, ,
One solution to (2.39) is:

e- -asin(E3 d; e 'I ':t90° (240)

I/J - atan2(E32 , E 33 ) (2.41)
'if; - atan2(E2lj Ell) (2.42)

where atan2(y, x) is the four quadrant arctangent of the real elements of x and
y, defined as:

2 7f - acos(x) if y ~ 0
a = atan2(y x)
={ acos(x) (2.43) 7
if y> 0
where -7f ~ a ~ 71". Precautions must be taken against computational errors in
the vicinity of e = ±90°. Also, a convention for choosing the signs of the Euler
angles should be adopted.

2.1.3 Euler-Rodrigues Parameters

A related three parameter description, the so-called Euler-Rodrigues parameters
p = [PI, P2, P3]T, is defined in terms of Euler parameters as follows:

p = - e: = ). tan -
7J 2
For this particular choice, the coordinate transformation matrix takes the form:
C = 1+ 1 + pT P S(p) [S(p) - I] (2.45)

where S(p) is defined in (2,6), This representation presents a singularity at

f3 = 7f', that is 7J = O. Application of Euler-Rodrigues parameters suggests that
the position and attitude vector should be chosen as TJR = [x, y, Z, PI, P2, P3]T.

2.1.4 Comments on Parameter Alternatives

In the previous sections, Euler angles, Euler parameters and Rodrigues param-
eters have been suggested as candidates to describe the orientation of marine
vehicles. It is attractive to use the Euler angle representation since this is a three-
parameter set corresponding to well known quantities like the roll, pitch and yaw
angle of the vehicle. However, no continuous three-parameter description can be
both global and without singularities. In fact, the roll-pitch-yaw representation
is not defined for a pitch angle of e = ±90 degrees. However, during practical
operations with marine vehicles, the parameter region of e = ±90 degrees is not
likely to be entered. This is due to the metacentric restoring forces. Another
problem with the Euler angle representation is the so-called "wraparound" prob-
lem which implies that the Euler angles may be integrated up to values outside
18 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

the normal ±90° range of pitch and ±180° range of roll and yaw. This p~oblem
requires that some normalization procedure is adopted.
One way to avoid singularities and ''wraparound'' probl~ms is by applying
a four-parameter description based on Euler parameters.. Another advantage
with the Euler parameters is their representation and computational efficiency.
The Euler angles are computed by numerical integration of a set of noulinear
differential equations, This procedure involves computation of a large number of
trigonometric functions. For infinitesimal analyses this solution is quite accurate
but problems arise for arbitrary displacements;
The Rodrigues parameter representation is also computationally effective but
this representation has one singularity. Although it is dangerous to generalize,
computational efficiency and accuracy suggests that Euler parameters are the
best choice, However, Euler angles are more intuitive and therefore more used,

2.2 N ewtonian and Lagrangian Mechanics

In the following sections, we will show that the 6 DOF noulinear dynamic equa-
tions of motion can be conveniently expressed as:

Mv + C(v) v + D(v) v + g(1/) = r (2.46)


M = inertia matrix (including added mass)

C(v) = matrix of CorioUs and centripetal terms (including added mass)
D(v) = damping matrix
g(ry) = vector of gravitational forces and moments
= vector of control inputs
Before we derive the 6 DOF dynamic equations of motion, we will briefly review
some principles from N6wtonian and Lagmngian mechanics.

2.2.1 Newton-Euler Formulation

The Newton-Euler' formulation is based on Newton's Second Law which relates

mass m, acceleration Vc and force le according to:

mvc= le (2.47)

If no force is acting (f c = 0) then the body is moving wi~h constant speed

(vc = constant) or the body is at rest (vc = 0). This result is actually known
as Newton's First Law. These laws were published in 1687 by lsaac Newton
(1643-1727) in "Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica". 1
2.2 Newtonian and Lagrangian Mechanics 19

Euler's First and Second Axioms

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) suggested expressing Newton's Second Law in terms
of conservation of both linear Pe and angular momentum he ("Novi Commentarii
Academiae Scientarium Imperialis Petropolitane"). These results are known as
Euler's First and Second Axioms, respectively.

=Cl f e;
• Cl
Pe Pe = mVe (2.48)
• Cl Cl
he =me; he = I e CJ.I (2.49)

Here f e and me are the forces and moments referred to the body's center of
gravity, w is the angular velocity vector and I e is the inertia tensor about the
body's center of gravity (to be defined later). The application of these equations is
often referred to as veetorial mechanics since both conservation laws are expressed
in terms of vectors.

2.2.2 Lagrangian Formulation

An alternative approach to the Newton-Euler formulation is to apply Lagrangian
mechanics. The Lagrangian approach involves three basic steps. First, we need
to formulate a suitable expression for the vehicle's kinetic and potential energy,
denoted T and V, respectively. Then we can compute the Lagrangian L according

L=T-V (2.50)
Finally, we apply the Lagrange equation:

!!- (OL. )
dt OTJ
_ 01,
= J-T(TJ) T
which in component form corresponds to a set of 6 second-order differential equa-
tions. From the above formula it is seen that the Lagrangian meclranics describes
the system's dynamics in terms of energy. It will be shown in Section 2.5.3 that
the noulinear equations of motion can be derived by simple means when 1, is
given. It should be noted that the Lagrange equation is 'valid regardless of the
number of masses considered. Furthermore, Formula (2.51) is valid in any refer-
ence frame, inertial and body-fixed as long as generalized coordinates are used.
For a vehicle not subject to any motion constraints, the number of indepen-
dent (generalized) coordinates will be equal to the number of DOF. The general-
ized coordinates are clrosen as:

TJ = [x, y, z, </I, e, lpjT (2.52)

for a vehicle moving in 6 DOF. It should be noted that the alternative repre-
sentation TJE = {x, y, Z, £1, £2, £3, T/]T using Euler parameters cannot be used in a
20 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Lagrangian approach since this representation is defined by 7 parameters": Hence,

these parameters cannot be viewed as genemlized coordinates, Often it is advan-
tageous to formulate the equations of motion in a body-fixed , reference frame,
Unfortunately, the body-fixed velocity vector:

v = [U,V,W,P,q,T]T (2.53)

cannot be integrated to yield a set of generalized coordinates in terms of position

and orientation. In fact, j~ v dT has no immediate physical interpretation. As a
consequence of this, we cannot use the Lagrange equation directly to formulate the
equations of motion in the body-fixed coordinate system. However, this problem
can be circumvented by applying Kirchhoff's equations of motion or the so-called
Quasi-Lagrangian approach.

2.2.3 Kirchhoff's Equations of Motion

Lagrange's equations of motion in terms of generalized velocities, usually the

body-fixed velocities (u, v, w,p, q, r), can be obtained from the ordinary Lagrange
equations. The derivation is laborious and mathematically involved and will thus
be omitted here.. The interested reader is advised to consult Meirovitch and Kwak
(1989) and references therein. The main results are summarized below:

Kirchhoff's Equations in Vector Form (Kirchhoff 1869)

Consider a vehicle with body-fixed linear velocity VI = [u, v, wIT and angular
velocity V2 = [p, q, 1Y. Hence, the force Tl and moment T2 are related to the
kinetic energy:


by the vector equations:



Kirchhoff's equations will prove to be very useful in the derivation of the ex-
pression for added inertia in Section 2.4.1. Notice that Kirchhoff's equations do
not include the gravitational forces. If gravitation is important, the following
representation of the Lagrange equations can be used.
2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics 21

Quasi-Lagrange Equations of Motion (Meirovitch 1990) ,I

The quasi-Lagrange equations is a more general version of Kirchhoff's equations

where the Lagrangian L = T - V is used instead of th'e kinetic energy T. This
implies that gravitational forces can be included as well (see page 42 of Meirovitch
1990). These equations are:

(2 . 57)


2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics

In this section we will apply Euler's first and second axioms to derive the rigid-
body equations of motion. Consider a body-fixed coordinate system XoYoZ o
rotating with an angular velocity w = [Wl, W2, wa]T about an earth-fixed coordi-
nate system XYZ, see Figure 2.3. The body's inertia tensor 1 0 referred to an
arbitrary body-fixed coordinate system XoYoZo with origin 0 in the body-fixed
frame is defined as:

Ix -Ixy -Ixz]
10 "" -Iyx
[ -I
I y -Iy• j 10 = Ir > 0 (2.59)
zx -Izy Iz
Here Ix. I y and I z are the moments of inertia about the Xo, Yo and Zo-axes and
I xy = I yx , I xz = I zx and I yz = I zy are the products of inertia defined as:

Ix = Iv (y2 + Z2) PAdVj I xy = Iv xy PAdV = Iv yx PAdV = I yx

I y = Iv (x 2 + z2) PAdVj I xz = Iv xz PAdV = Iv zx PAdV = I zx
I z = Iv (x 2 + y2) PAdVj I yz = Iv yz PAdV = Iv zy PAdV = I zy

with PA as the mass density of the body. Consequently, we can represent the
inertia tensor loin vectorial form as:

1 0 w = lv r x (w x r) PA dV (2.60)

Another useful definition of 1 0 is:


Furthermore the mass of the body is defined as:

m= lvPAdV (2.62)
22 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

1/' Volultle

o,~=- x
..... 0


reference frallle

Figure 2.3: The inertial, earth-fixed non-rotating reference frame XY Z and the body-
fixed rotating reference fr'ame XoYoZo·

It will be assumed that the mass is constant in time Cm = 0). For a rigid body
satisfying this the distance from the origin 0 of the body-fixed coordinate system
to the vehicle's center of gravity can be defined as:

ra = -m1 j,'v r PA dV (263)

For marine vehicles it is desirable to derive the equations of motion for an "
arbitrary origin in a local body-fixed coordinate system to take advantage of the ,

vehicle's geometrical properties. Since the hydrodynamic and kinematic forces
and moments are given in the body-fixed reference frame we will formulate New- i
ton's laws in the body-fixed reference frame. j,
When deriving the equations of motion it will be assumed that: (1) the vehicle
is rigid and (2) the earth-fixed reference frame is inertial. The first assumption
eliminates the consideration of forces acting between individual elements of mass
while the second eliminates forces due to the Earth's motion relative to a star-
fixed reference system. In guidance and control applications in space it is usual to
use a star-fixed reference frame or a reference frame rotating with the Earth, while
marine vehicles usually are related to an earth-fixed reference frame, To derive
the equations of motion for an arbitrary origin in a local body-fixed rotating
coordinate system we need the formula:
2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics 23

c=c+wxc (2.64)
which relates the time derivatives of an arbitrary vector c in XYZ and XoYoZo
Here c is the time derivative in the earth-fixed reference frame XY Z and c is the
time derivative in the moving reference frame XoYoZo. Notice that this simple
relation yields:

W '-w+w x w =w (2.65)
which simply states that the angular acceleration is equal in the body-fixed and
earth-fixed reference frames.

Translational Motion
The translational motion of a marine vehicle is described by (2.48). From Figure
2.3 it is seen that:

Te = TO +Ta (2.66)
Hence, the velocity of the centeJ; of gravity is:

Vc = Te = To + Ta (267)
By using the fact Vo = To and ra = 0 for a rigid body,

Ta =ra + w x Ta = W x Ta (268)

Vc = Vo +W x Ta (269)
The acceleration vector can be found as:

which yields

Vc =110 + W x Vo +L:, x Ta + W x (w x Ta) (2.. 71)

Substituting this expression into (2.48) finally yields

Im (110 + w xVo +L:, xTa + w x(w xTa)) = f oI (2.72)

If the origin of the body-fixed coordinate system X oYoZo is chosen to coincide
with the vehicle's center of gravity, we have Ta = [0,0, O]T. Hence, (2.72) with
f o = fe and 110 = Vc, yieids:

Im(11e +", x vc) = fel

24 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Rotational Motion ".

A similar approach can be used to obtain the rotational equations of motion
referred to the origin 0 in Figure 2.3. The absolute angulat.momentum about 0
is defined as:

ho A Iv T X V PA dV (2.74)

Differentiating this expression with respect to time yields:

h o = fv T X i.J PA dV + fv l' x V PA dV (2.75)

The first term on the right-hand side is the moment vector:

mo A fv T X i.J PA dV (2.76)

From Figure 2.3 we see that:

v = To +1' T = V - Vo (2 . 77)
Substituting (2.77) and (2.76) into the expression for ho and using the fact that
v x v = 0, yields

ho = 1110 -
Vo x fv V PA dV (2.78)

or equivalently

ho=rno-vox lv(vo+T)PAdV=mo-vox fvrPAdV (2.79)

This expression can be rewritten by differentiating (2.63) with respect to time,
that is: I
mTa = fv r PA dV (2.80)

Since Ta = W x Ta, Equation (2.80) can be expressed as

fv l' PA dV = m(w x Ta) (2.81)

Substituting this result into (2.79) yields

h o = mo - mvo x (w x Ta) (2.82)

The next step is to write the absolute angular momentum (2.74) as

ho= Iv T X V PA dV = fv T X Vo PA dV + fv T X (w X T) PA dV (2.83)
The first term on the right-hand side of this expression can be rewritten by using
the definition (2.63), that is:
2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics 25


r T x Vo PA dV = (Jrv T PA dV) x Vo == m Ta x Vo
The second term is recognized as the definition (2"60)" Hence, (2.83) reduces to:

h o == 1 0 w + m Ta x Vo
Differentiating this expression according to (2.64) (assuming that 1 0 is constant
with respect to time), yields

ho =Iow+w x (Iow) +m (w x Ta) x vo+mTa x (110 +w x vo) (2.86)

Using the relation (w x Ta) x Vo == -Vo x (w x Ta) and eliminating ho fmm

(2"82) and (2"86) finally yields

IIow +w x (Iow) +mTa x (110 +w x 1'0) = mo (2.87)

If the origin 0 of the body-fixed coordinate system XoYoZo is chosen to coincide

with the vehicle's center of gravity, equation (2"87) simplifies to:

lIe w+ w x (le w) = me I (2.88)

The rotational equations of motion are often referred to as the Euler equations"

2.3.1 6 DOF Rigid-Body Equations of Motion

In the previous sections we have shown how the rigid-body dynamics can be
derived by applying the Newtonian and Lagrangian formalism. In this section we
will discuss useful properties of the nonlinear equations of motion and show how
these properties considerably simplify the representation of the nonlinear model.

General 6 DOF Rigid-Body Equations of Motion

Equations (2.72) and (2.87) are usually written in component form according to
the SNAME (1950) notation, that is:

fo - Tl - [X, Y, ZJT external forces

mo - T2 - [K,M,NJ T moment of external forces about 0
Vo - VI - tu, v, wjT linear velocity of X oYoZo
w - V2 - fp, q, r]T angular velocity of XoYoZo
Ta - [xa, Ya, za]T center of gravity

Applying this notation to (2.72) and (2.87) yields:

26 Modeling of Marine Vehicles


m [u - vr + wq - Xc( q2 + r 2) + Ya(pq - r) + za(pr + q)] - X

m [v - wp + ur - Ya(r + p2) + za(qr - p) + xa(qp + T)] \= Y
m [w - uq + vp - za(p2 + q2) + xa(rp - q) + ya(rq + p)] - Z
1xp + (Iz - 1y)qr - (r + pq)1xz + (r - q2)1yz + (pr - q)1xy
+m [Ya(w - uq + vp) - zG(v - wp + ur)] K (2.89)
1yq + (Ix - 1z)rp - (p + qr)1xy + (p2 - r 2)1zx + (qp - T)lyz
+m [zc(u - vr + wq) - xa(w - uq + vp)] - M
1,1 + (Iy - lx)pq - (q + rp)1yz + (q2 - p2)lxy + (rq - p)1zx
+m [xa(v - wp + ur) - Ya(u - vr + wq)] - N

The three first equations represent the translational motion while the three
last equations represent the rotational motion.

Vectorial Representation of the 6 DOF Rigid-Body Equations of Motion

These equations can be expressed in a more compact form as:

IM RE V + CRE(V) V = TRB I (2.90)

Here v = tu, v, W,p, q, r]T is the body-fixed linear and angular velocity vector and
r RB = [X, Y, Z, K, M, N]T is a generalized vector of external forces and moments .

Property 2.2 (M RE )
The parameterization of the rigid-body inertia matrix M RB is unique and it sat-

M RB =M~B > 0;


= [mI 3x 3
-ms(r a )]
= [ 1
~~o ~fo
-1 11 =
Here I 3x3 is the identity matrix, 1 0 = I'{; > 0 is the inertia tensor with respect
to 0 and S(ra) E 88(3) is defined in (2.6).
On the contrary, it is possible to find a large number of parameterizations for the
C RE matrix which consists of the Coriolis vector term wx v and the centripetal
vector term w x (w x ra). We will use Kirchhoff's equations to derive a skew-

symmetric representation of C RB··

2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics 27

Theorem 2.2 (Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix from Inertia., Matrix)

Let M > 0 be an 6 x 6 inertia matrix defined as;' '
,M = [ M 11 M 12 ] (2,92)
M 21 M 22
Hence, we can always parameterize the Coriolis and centripetal matr'ix such that
O(v) = -OT(v) by defining;

O(v) _ [ 03X3 -S(M 11 V1 + M 12 V2) ] (2,93)

- -S(1\I1 11 V1 + M l2 V2) -S(M 2l Vl +M 22 V2)
Proof: The kinetic energy T can be written as a quadratic form:

T=2v™v (2,94)

Expanding this expression yields:

T = ~ (v[M11Vl + V[M12V2 + vf M 2l l/ l + vfM22V2) (2,95)

Hence, we obtain:


From Kirchhoff's equations (2,55) and (256) we recognize that:

D. [ V2 x aOJ, ] [ 03x3 -S(aOJ,)] [Vl ]

O(v)v= aT aT = aT aT
V2 x av, +vl x av, -S(al/,) -Sew,) V2

which after substitution of (2,96) and (2.97) proves (2,93), This result was ,first
proven by Sagatun and Fossen (1991).

Property 2.3 (ORB)

According to Theorem 2,2 the rigid-body Coriolis and centripetal matrix ORB (v)
can always be parameterized such that ORB(V) is skew-symmetrical, that is:

Application of Theorem 2,2 with M = M RB yields the following expression for

28 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

C () [ -mS(vl) - mS(S(v2)re) ]
V = -mS(vd- mS(S(v2)re) mS(S(vl)rcj) - S(lo V2) (2.98)

Notice that S(VdVl = 0 in this expression. Three other useful skew-symmetric

representations can be derived from this expression (Fossen and Fjellstad 1994):

The first of these three expressions can be written in component form according
to (Fossen 1991):

o o
o o

[-m(yj +
o o
ZGT) m(YGP +w) m(zGP - v)
m(xGq - w) -m(zGr + xGP) m(zGq+u}
m(xGT +v) m(YGT' - u) -m(xop + YOq)
m(YGq + zGr) -m(xGq - w) -m(XGT + v} ]
-m(YGP+w) m(zGT + xGP) -m(YGT' - u}
-m(zGP - v) -m(zGq + u) m(xGP + YGq)
o -IJJ.:,q - I::c::.p + I::T' Iy;:.r + I:r.lIP - [!Iq
IlJzq + I::c.:.p - 1,:,1' o -Iz::T - I:::yq + 1;z;p
-IJJ=T' - I;;r;.lIP + IlIq [::=1' + I:::!Jq - I::cp 0

It will be shown in a later section that the design of a nonlinear control system can
be quite simple if the dynamic properties (symmetry, skew-symmetry, positiveness
etc) of the nonlinear equations of motion are exploited.

Simplified 6 DOF Rigid-Body Equations of Motion

The general rigid-body equations of motion can be simplified by choosing the

orIgin of the body-fixed coordinate system according to the following criteria:

(1) Origin 0 Coincides with the Center of Gravity

This implies that re = [0,0, ojT. The simplest form of the equations of motion
is obtained when the body axes coincide with the principal axes of inertia. This
implies that le = diag{lxc ' l yG , l zc }' If this is not the case, the body-fixed coor-
dinate system XeYeZe can be rotated about its axes to obtain a diagonal inertia
tensor by simply performing a principal axis tTansjormation. The eigenvalues Ai
(i=L.3) of the inertia matrix le are found from the characteristic equation:
2.3 Rigid-Body Dynamics 29

where I axa is the identity matrix. Hence, the modal matrix H = [hr, h 2 , ha] is
obtained by calculating the right eigenvectors hi from:

(Ai I axa - le) hi = 0; (i = 1,2,3)

Consequently, the coordinate system XeYeZe should be rotated about its axes
to form a new coordinate system XcYcZc with unit vectors:

e~ = Hex; e~ = Hey; (2.105)

Here ex, e y and e z are the unit vectors corresponding to XeYeZe . This in turn
implies that the new inertia tensor I~ will be diagonal, that is:

I~ = diag{I~c'!~a'!~c} = diagPr, A2' Aa} (2.106)

The disadvantage with this approach is that the new coordinate system will
differ from the longitudinal, lateral and normal symmetry axes of the vehicle.
This can be compensated for in the control design by transforming the desired
state trajectory to the XcYcZc system. Applying these results to (2.89) yields
the following simple representation:

m( if, - vr + 'IlIq) - X-, 1xcp + (Iza - 1yc)qr - K

m( iJ - wp + ur) - y., 1Ycq + (Ixc - 1zc)rp - M (2.107)
m(w - uq+vp) - Z·, 1zc 1" + (IyC - 1xa)pq - N

(2) Origin 0 Chosen such that I o is Diagonal

If it is often convenient to let the body axes coincide with the principal axes
of inertia or the longitudinal, lateral and normal symmetry axes of the vehicle,
the origin of the body-fixed coordinate system can then be chosen such that
the inertia tensor of the body-fixed coordinate system will be diagonal, that is
1 0 = diag{1x'!y,!z}, by applying the following theorem:

Theorem 2.3 (Parallel Axes Theorem)

The inertia tensor 1 0 about an arbitrary origin 0 is defined as:

1 0 = le - m S(ra) S(ra) = le - m(rar~ - r~ra I axa ) (2.108)

where I axa is the identity matrix, le is the inertia tensor about the body's cent er
of gravity and S(ra) is defined in {2.6}.

Expanding (2.108) with I o = diag{Ix, 1y, 1z }, yields the following set of equations:
30 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Ix = I xc + m(yb + zb)
Iy = I yC + m(x~ + zb)
Iz = I zc + m(x~ + yb) (2.109)

where XG, YG and ZG must be chosen such that:

mlyczC x~ - -IxCyclxczc
rnlxczc yb - - IxCYClyczC
mlxCYC zb - -IxczClyczC (2 . 110)

are satisfied. The proof is left as an exercise.. Hence, the rigid-body equations of
motion can be expressed as:

m [u - vr+ wq - xG(q2 + r 2) + YG(pq - f) + zG(pr + g)] - X

m [v - wp + ur - YG(r 2 + p2) + ZG(qT - p) + xG(qp + r)] - Y
m [w - uq + vp - ZG(p2 + q2) + xG(rp - g) + YG(rq + p)] - Z
(2 . 111)
Ixp + (Iz - Iy)qT + m [YG(w - uq + vp) - za(iJ - wp + UT)] - K
Iyg + (Ix - Iz)rp + m [za(u - vr + wq) - xG(w - uq + vp)] - M
Izr + (I~ - Ix)pq + m [xa(v - wp + ur) - Ya(u - vr + wq)J - N

This representation ensures that the X o, Yo and Zo axes will correspond to the
longitudinal, lateral and normal direction of the vehicle, respectively.

2.4 Hydrodynmnic Forces and Moments

In basic hydrodynamics it is common to assume that the hydrodynamic forces
and moments on a rigid body can be linearly superposed by considering two
sub-problems (see Faltinsen 1990).

Sub-Problem 1 (Radiation-Induced Forces)

Forces on the body when the body is forced to oscillate with the wave excitation
frequency and there are no incident waves.

The radiation-induced forces and moments can be identified as the sum of three
new components:

(1) Added mass due to the inertia of the surrounding fluid

(2) Radiation-induced potential damping due to the energy carried away by gen-
erated surface waves.
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 31

(3) Restoring for~~s due to Archimedes (weight and buoyancy). ,I

The contribution from these three components can be expressed

\ mathematically
. .

TR=-MAv-CA(v)v - Dp(v) v g(TJ) (2.112)

'------.,.---" " .. ; ~
added mass potential damping restoring forces
In addition to radiation-induced potential damping we have to include other
damping effects like skin friction, wave drift damping and damping due to vortex
shedding, that is:

TD = - Ds(v) v - Dw(v) v - DM(v) V (2.113)

'----v--' ~.... '---v-----'
skin friction wave drift damping due to
damping vortex shedding
This implies that the hydrodynamic forces and moments TH can be written as
the sum of 'I R and T D, that is:

TH = -MA V - CA(v) V - D(v) v - g(1]) (2.114)

where the total hydrodynamic damping matrix D(v) is defined as:

D(v)!:. D p (lI) + Ds(v) + Dw(v) + D M(lI) (2.115)

Sub-Problem 2 (Froude-Kriloff and Diffraction Forces)

Forces on the body when the body is restrained from oscillating and there are in-
cident regular waves.

F'roude-Kriloff and diffraction forces will be treated separately in Chapter 3 where

environmental forces are discussed in the context of waves, wind and currents. A
more general discussion on marine hydrodynamics is found in Faltinsen (1990),
Newman (1977) and Sarpkaya (1981).

Model Representation Used in This Text

The right-hand side vector term of (2.89) and (2.90) represents the external forces
and moments acting on the vehicle. These forces can be classified according to:

" Radiation-induced forces (Sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.3)

- added inertia
- hydrodynamic damping
- restoring forces
32 Mode ling of Mari ne Vehic les

o Envir onme ntal forces (Sections 301 to 304):

- ocean curren ts
- waves
- wind
o Propu lsion forces (Sections 4.1, 504, 6.2, 7.1 and 702):
- thrust er/pro peller forces
- contro l surfac es/rud der forces
We will restri ct our treatm ent to a nonlin ear mode l repres entati on
of the dynam ic
equat ions of motio n simila r to that of Fossen (1991), that is:

MRB V + CRB(V) V == TRB (20.116)

TRB= =TB+ TE+T (2.117)
Here TB is defined in (20114), TE is used to describe the enviro
nment al forces
and mome nts acting on the vehicle and 7' is the propulsion forces
and moments.
Subst itutio n of (2.117) into (20116) togeth er with (2.114) yields
the following
repres entati on of the 6 DOF dynam ic equat ions of motion:

!Mzi +C(v )v+D (v)V +9(1 ])== TE+ TI (U18 )

M"M RB+ MAi C(V) "CRB (V)+ CA(v )
We will now be discussing the terms in (2.118) in more detaiL

2.4.1 Adde d Mass and Inert ia

In the previo us section, we have shown that the rigid body dynam
ics of a marin e
vehicle can be derived by apply ing the Newto nian formalism. As
for the rigid-
body dynam ics, it is desimble to separ ate the added mass forces and
mome nts in
terms which belong to an added inerti a matri x M A and a matri x of
hydro dynam ic
Coriolis and centri petal terms denot ed CA(v ). To derive the expres
sions for these
two matri ces we will use an energy approach in terms of Kirchhoff's
The conce pt of added mass is usuall y misun dersto od to be a finite
amou nt
of water conne cted to the vehicle such that the vehicle and the fluid
repres ents a
new system with mass larger than the origin al systemo This is not
true since the
vehicle motio n will force the whole fluid to oscillate with different
fluid partic le
ampli tudes in phase with the forced harmo nic motio n of the vehicle
o However,
the ampli tudes will decay far away from the body and may theref
ore be negligi-
ble. Adde d (virtu al) mass should be under stood as pressure·oinduced
forces and
mome nts due to a forced harmo nic motio n of the body which are
propo rtiona l
to the accele ration of the body. Consequently, the added mass
forces and the
accele ration will be 180 degrees out of phase to the forced harmo nic
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 33

Fluid Kinetic Energy

For completely submerged vehicles we will assume that the added mass coefficients
are constant and thus independent of the wave circular frequency. Together with
this assumption, we will use the concept of fluid kinetic energy to derive the
added mass terms. Moreover, any motion of the vehicle will induce a motion
in the otherwise stationary fluid. In order to allow the vehicle to pass through
the fluid, the fluid must move aside and then close behind the vehicle. As a
consequence, the fluid passage possesses kinetic energy that it would lack if the
vehicle was not in motion.
The expression for the fluid kinetic energy TA, see Lamb (1932), can be written
as a quadratic form of the body axis velocity vector components, that is:

1 T
TA = ZV MAv (2.119)

Here M A is a 6 x 6 added inertia matrix defined as:

x" Xij Xv, Xp Xq Xt

Y" Yij Yv, 1];Yq Yt
Z" Zij Zw Zp Zq Zr
K" Kij Kw Kp Kq Kt
M" Mij Mw Mp Mq Mt
N" Nij Nw Np Nq Nt
The notation of SNAME (1950) is used in this expression; for instance the hy-
drodynamic added mass force YA along the y-axis due to an acceleration if, in the
x-direction is written as:

YA = Y.u'v' where y'. t:.

U -
aiL (2.121)

In some textbooks the notation Aij = -{MA};; is used instead. This implies
that A 21 = - Y" in the example above. It should be noted that the hydrodynamic
derivatives All = -X",A 22 = -Y';;,A 33 = -Zw,A 44 = -Kp,A ss = -!vIq and
A66 = -Nt corresponding to the diagonal of the added inertia matrix, will all be
positive for most applications. However for certain frequencies negative added
mass values have been documented for catamarans, bulb sections and submerged
body sections close to the free surface. For completely submerged vehicles M A
will always be strictly positive, that is M A > 0.

Property 2.4 (MA)

For a rigid-body at rest (U Rj 0) under the assumption of an ideal fluid, no incident
waves, no sea currents and frequency independence the added inertia matrix is
positive definite.'
34 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Proof: Newman (1977/

Remark 1: In a real fluid the 36 elements of M may all be distinct but still
MA > 0> Experience has shown that the numerical values of the added mass
derivatives in a real fluid are usually in good agreement with those obtained fr'om
ideal theory (see Wende11956), Hence, MA = M';; > 0 is a good approximation>

» 0 in
Remark 2: It should be noted that for surface ships movin9 with a speed U
waves, Salvesen, Tuck and Faltinsen (1970) have shown by applying strip theory
that MA(U) =f M';;(U). However, for' underwater vehicles (ROVs) and foilborne
catamarans opemting outside the wave-affected zone, symmetry and frequency
independence have been shown to be reasonable assumptions. This is also a good
appmximation for positioned ships (U ~ 0).
Consider a symmetrical added inertia matrix (without loss of generality) hav-
ing 21 distinct hydrodynamic derivatives. The added mass forces and moments
can be derived by applying potential theory. The method is based on the assump-
tions of inviscid fluid, no circulation and that the body is completely submerged in
an unbounded fluid. The last assumption is violated at the seabed, near underwa-
ter installations and at the surface. However, this is not a practical problem since
double-body theory can be applied (Faltinsen 1990). Expanding (2.119) under the
assumption that M A = M';;, yields:

2TA - -Xuu 2 - Yvv 2 - Z,;,w 2 - 2Y,;,vw - 2X,;,wu - 2Xil uv

_Kpp2 - M qq 2 - N r r 2 - 2Mr qr - 2Kr rp - 2Kqpq
-2p(Xpu + Ypv + Zpw)
-2q(Xqu + Yqv + Zqw)
-2r(X;.u+Y;.v + Zrw) (2122)

Added Mass Forces and Moments

Based on the kinetic energy TA of the fluid it is straightforward to derive the

added mass forces and moments. This usually done by application of Kirchhofl's
equations (Kirchhoff 1869), which simply relates the fluid energy to the forces and
moments acting on the vehicle. Consider Kirchhoff's equations in component form
(see Milne-Thomson 1968):

d 8TA
dt 8u
d 8TA
--- =
dt 8v
d 8TA
--- =
dt 8w
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 35

daTA aT aTA
- -- =
w-- - v-- + TaTA aTA
- - - q-- - KA
dt fJp fJv fJw fJq fJT
daTA aTA aTA aTA aTA
- -- = u-- - w-- + p - - - T - - - MA
dt fJq fJw fJu fJr fJp
daTA aTA aTA aTA aTA
--- = v---u--+q---P---NA (2.123)
dt fJr fJu fJv fJp fJq

Substituting (2.122) into (2.123) gives the following expressions for the added
mass terms (Imlay 1961):

XA = X"u+ X,;,(W + uq) + Xqq + Z,;,wq + Z qq 2

+Xvv + XftP+XfT - YvVT - YftTP - YrT
-XvUT - Y,;,WT
+Y,;,vq + Zppq - (Yq - Zf)qT
YA = Xvu+Y,;,w+Yqq
+Yvv + YftP+ YrT + Xvur - Y,;,up + X f T2 + (Xp - Zf)Tp - Z ftp 2
-Xw(up -WT) + X"ur - Z,;,wp
-Zqpq + XqqT
ZA = X,;,(v. - wq) + Z,;,w + Zqq - X"uq - X qq 2
+Y,;,v + ZftP+ ZiT + Yvvp + Yfrp + Ypp 2
+Xvup+ Y,;,wp
-Xvvq - (Xp - Yq)pq - Xfqr
KA = Xpu + Zpw + Kqq - Xvwu + Xfuq - Y,;,w 2 - (Yq - Zi)wq + M fq 2
+Ypv + Kpp + KfT + Y,;,v 2 - (Yq - Zf)VT + Zftvp - MfT2 - KqTP
+X,;,uv - (Yv - Z,;,)vw - (Yf + Zq)wr - Yftwp - XqUT'
+(Yf + Zq)vq + Kipq - (Mq - Ni)qT
MA = Xq(v. + wq) + Zq(w - uq) + Mqq - X,;,(u 2 - w ) - (Z,;, - X")wu
+Yqv + Kqp + MfT + Ypvr - Yrvp - Kf(p2 - r ) + (Kft - Nf)Tp
-Y,;,uu + Xvuw - (X f + Zp)(up - WT) + (X p - Zi)(Wp + ur)
-Mfpq + KqqT
NA = XfU + ZiW + Mfq + X v u 2 + Y,;,wu - (X p - Yq)uq - Zpwq - K qq 2
+Yfv + KiP + NiT - X vu2 - Xivr - (X p - Yq)up + MfTp + K qp 2
-(X" - Yv)uv - X';'VW + (Xq + Yp)up + YfUT + ZIiWP
-(Xq + Yp)vq - (Kp - Mq)pq - KfqT (2.124)

Imlay (1961) arranged the equations in four lines with longitudinal compo-
nents on the first line and lateral components on the second line The third line
consists of mixed terms involving u or w as one factor. If one or both of these
velocities are large enough -to be treated as a constant the third line may be
treated as an additiomi.! term to the lateral equation of motion The fourth line
36 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

contains mixed terms that usually can be neglected as second order terms It
should be noted that the off-diagonal elements of ]'vIA will be small compared to
the diagonal elements for most practical applications. A more detailed discussion
on the different added mass derivatives is found in Humphreys and Watkinson

Property 2.5 (CA)

For a rigid-body moving through an ideal fluid the hydrodynamic Coriolis and
centripetal matrix CA (V) can always be parameterized such that CA (V) is skew-
symmetrical, that is:

by defining.'

Oaxa -S(A II VI+ A I2 V2) ]

CA(V) = (2.125)
[ -S(A II VI + A I2 V2) -S(A 21 VI + A 22 V2
where A ij (i, j = 1,2) are defined in (2.120).

Proof: Substituting:


into (2.93) in Theorem 2.2 directly proves (2.125).


Formula (2 . 125) can be written in component form according to:

0 0 0 0 -U3 U2
0 0 0 U3 0 -Uj
0 0 0 -u, Uj 0
CA(v) = 0 -U3 U2 0 -b 3 b2
U3 0 -Uj b3 0 -b j
-u, Uj 0 -b2 bj 0


UI = X"u + XiJV + Xww + XpP + Xqq + Xrr

U2 = XiJU + YiJV + Yww + Ypp + Yqq + Yfr
ua = Xwu + Ywv + Zww + ZpP + Zqq + ZfT
bl = Xpu + Ypv + Zpw + Kpp + Kqq + KfT
b2 = Xqu + Yqv + Zqw + Kqp + Mqq + MfT
ba Xru +Yfv + Zrw + Kfp + Mfq + Nrr
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 37

Surface Ships
For surface ships like tankers, cargo ships, cruise-liners etc it is common to
decouple the surge mode from the steering dynamics. Similarly, the heave, pitch
and roll modes are neglected under the assumption that these motion variables
are smalL This implies that the contribution from the added mass derivatives on
a surface ship moving with forward speed U »
0 and thus NI A of M~ is:

YvYr v+ [ 00
-Yvv -
.x:uu~T ] [ U ]
Nil Ni' Yitv + Yrt
"i o T

For ship positioning we have that U ~ 0 and therefore M A = NI~ Hence,

we can replace Nu with Yr in the above expression which yields:

Y;Yr v + [0 0 0
-(YvV+YrT) ] [
Y". N;, r YiJv + YrT -Xuu o r

Underwater Vehicles
In general, the motion of an underwater vehicle moving in 6 DOF at high speed
will be highly nonlinear and coupled. However, in many ROV applications the
vehicle will only be allowed to move at low speed. If the vehicle also has three
planes of symmetry, this suggests that we can neglect the contribution from the
of!~diagonal elements in the added mass matrix NI A Hence, the following simple
expressions for M A and CA are obtained:

M A = -diag{ Xi<, YiJ , Zw, K p, lvIq, Ne} (2.129)

o 0 0 0 -Z",w Yvv
o 0 0 Z"'w 0 -X"u
o 0 0 -Yvv X"U 0
o -Z",w Yvv 0 -NiT Mqq
Z"'W 0 -X"u Nir 0 -[(pp
-Y;v Xuu 0 -Mqq Kpp 0

The diagonal structure is highly attractive since off-diagonal elements are

difficult to determine from experiments as well as theory. In pJ:actice, the diagonal
approximation is found to be quite good for many applications. This is due to
the fact that the off-diagonal elements of a positive matrix (inertia) will be much
smaller than their diagonal counterparts.

Strip Theory
For slender bodies an estimate of the hydrodynamic derivativeB can be obtained
by applying strip theOry. The principle of strip theory involves dividing the
38 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

submerged part of the vehicle into a number of strips. Hence, two-dimensional

hydrodynamic coefficients for added mass can be computed for each strip and
summarized over the length of the body to yield the three-dimensional coefficients.
The two-dimensional added mass coefficients in surge, sway and roll for some
bodies are given in Table 2.2 For a submerged slender vehicle we can use the
following formulas:

_ jL/2 (2D)
All - -Xu - All (y,z) dx ~ O.lOm (2131)
jL/2 (2D)
A 22 = -Yv = A 22 (y, z) dx (2.132)
jL/2 (20)
A 33 = -Zw = A 33 (y, z) dx (2.133)
jL/2 (2D)
Al<l = -Kp = A 44 (y, z) dx (2.134)
jL/2 (2D)
Ass -Mq = Ass (y,z)dx (2135)
jL/2 (2D)
A 66 = -Nr = A 66 (y,z)dx (2.136)
. -L/2

where AgD)(y, z), A~~D)(y, z) and A~~D)(y, z) are usually approximated with val-
ues similar to those of Table 22.

Table 2.2: Two-dimensional added mass coefficients A\i D

) (y, 2) for (i = 2.4)

A Tl: 1tpa 1 An: 1tpa 1

An: 1tpa 1 A lJ: 1tpb1
Au : 0 A ... : 1/81tp(bl~alf


A 1l 4.75 pal Au 1tp [a 1+(b 1_a1)Jbl]

All 4,75 pal All 1tpa 1
A u 4,75 pal A <.4 (unknown)
204 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 39

The two-dimensional added inertia moment in roll, pitch and yaw can be rewritten
according to:

£/2 (2D) c. ;8/2 2 (2D) jH/2 2 (?D)

j A.
14 (y, z) dx
y A 33 (x,z)dy+
' -H/2
z A 22 (x,y)dz

£/2 (2D) C. ;L/2 2 (2D) ;H/2

j A
, -L/2
55 (y,z)dx x A 33 (y, z) dx +
Z2 All (x, y) dz
+ jL/2 x 2 A (?D)
£/2 (2D)
j A
, -L/2
66 (y, z) dx
y2 All (x, z) dy
. -L/2
22 (y, z) dx

where L, Band H are the main dimensions of the vehicle, For a rectangle-shaped
body Table 2,3 can be used to compute two-dimensional added mass derivatives

Table 2.3: Two-dimensional added mass for a rectangular cross-section

2.0 /

I ,


5 10 b/a

For a surface ship we can approximate A 22 and A 66 by treating the submerged

part of the ship as a half cylinder with added mass:

AgD ) = ~ {J1fD 2 (x) (2,137)

where the hull draft D (x) is taken to be the cylinder radius and p is the water
density Hence, the following set of formulas can be used:

All - -Xv. "" 0,05 m (2138)

1 j£/2 D(~=D 1 ?
An - -Y,;=- {J1fD 2 (x)dx '2 prrD "L (2,139)
>" 2, -L/2
40 Modeling of Marine Vehicles


Two-dimensional added mass coefficients AgD) and A~;D) as function of the

circular frequency of oscillation ,w for a circular cylinder is shown in Figure 24
Notice that the (ilinder approximation in the ship example is based on the as-
sumption that A2~D) j(pA) in Figure 24 is equal to one This is only true for a
limited frequency intervaL

~. (::l'D} .....
:4" (w)
, AA
\ :
:" \

\' ~ ~
?4 ····,aA· ..··· ......
: ".
02 ":'::- - ~-- - _. - -

w2 R

Figure 2.4: Two-dimensional added mass in heave and sway for a circular cylinder
(infinite water depth) as a function of wave circular frequency In the figure A = 0511"R 2
where R is the cylinder radius.

Added Mass Derivatives for a Prolate Ellipsoid

Fortunately, many of the added mass derivatives contained in the general ex-
pressions for added mass are either zero or mutually related when the body has
various symmetries, Consider an ellipsoid totally submerged and with the origin
at the center of the ellipsoid, described as:

(2.141) . i
! '

Here a, band c are the semi-axes, see Figure 2,5, A prolate spheroid is obtained
by letting b = c and a > b, Imlay,(1961) gives the following expressions 1'01 the
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 41

Figure 2.5: Ellipsoid with semi-axes a, band c,

diagonal added mass derivatives (cross-coupling terms will be zero due to body
symmetry about three planes):

x" - 2 - ao
m (2142)

Yv - Zw = m (2,143)
2 - (30
Kp - 0 (2.144)
Nr - M q =-5 (2145)

where the mass of the prolate spheroid is:

m = -rrpab 2
Introduce the eccentricity e defined as:

e=1-(b/a)2 (2147)
Hence, the constants ao and (30 can be calculated as:

(30 - (2,149)

An alternative representation of these mass derivatives is presented by Lamb

(1932) who defines Lamb's k-factors as:

2 - ao
42 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

2 - f30

k' (2.152)

Hence, the definition of the added mass derivatives simplifies to:

Xv. - -k1 m (2.153)

Yli - Z,;, = -k 2 m (2.154)
Ni - M q = -k' I y (2.155 )

where the moment of inertia of the prolate spheroid is:

Iy=Iz=-51rpab 2( 2
a +b) 2
1 .
A more general discussion on added mass derivatives for bodies with various
symmetries is found in Imlay (1961). Other useful references discussing methods
for computation of the added mass derivatives are Humphreys and Watkinson
(1978) and Triantafyllou and Amzallag (1984).

2.4.2 Hydrodynamic Damping

As mentioned in the previous section hydrodynamic damping for ocean vehicles
is mainly caused by:

D p(v) = radiation-induced potential damping due to forced body oscillations

Ds(v) = linear skin friction due to laminar boundary layers and quadratic skin
friction due to turbulent boundary layers.

Dw(v) = wave drift damping.

D M(V) = damping due to vortex shedding (Morison's equation).

Consequently, the total hydrodynamic damping matrix can be written as a sum

of these components, that is:

D(v) t;. Dp(v) + Ds(v) + Dw(v) + DM(V) (2.157)

where D(v) satisfies that following property:

Property 2.6 (D)

FaT a rigid-body moving thTOUgh an ideal fluid the hydmdynamic damping matrix
will be real, non-symmetrical and strictly positive (see Appendix A). Hence:

D(v) > 0 'if v E 1R6

2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 43

Proof: The property is trivial since hydrodynamic damping forces qre known to
be dissipative. Therefore, the quadratic form:

v T D(v) v > 0 V v -# 0 '.

In practical implementations it is difficult to determine higher order terms as well
as the off-diagonal terms in the general expression for D (v). This suggests the
following approximation of D(v):

Surface Ships
For low speed slender ships we can decouple the surge mode flOm. the steering
modes (sway and yawl. Hence, the linearized damping forces and moments (ne-
glecting heave, roll and pitch) can be written:

D(v) = - ~ (2.158)

Notice that 1'; -# N~.

Underwater Vehicles
In general, the damping of an underJater vehicle moving in 6 DOF at high speed
will be highly nonlinear and coupled.. Nevertheless, one rough approximation
could be to assume that the vehicle is performing a non-coupled motion, has three
planes of symmetry and that terms higher than second order are negligible.. This
suggests a diagonal structure of D(v) with only linear and quadratic damping
terms on the diagonaL Moreover,

D(v) = -diag{X u, Y v, Zw, K p, Mq, Ne }

-diag{Xulul lul, Yvlvl lvi, Zwlwl Iwl, Kplpl Ip!, Mqlql Iq!, Nrlrl Irl } (2.159)

Potential Damping
We recall from the beginning of Section 2.4 that forces on the body when the body
is forced to oscillate with the wave excitation frequency and there are no incident
waves will result in added mass, damping and restoring forces and moments.
The radiation-induced damping term is usually referred to as potential damping.
However, the contribution from the potential damping terms compared to other
dissipative terms like viscous damping terms are negligible for underwater vehicles
operating at great depths. However, for surface vehicles the potential damping
effect may be significant. For ships linear theory suggests that the radiation-
induced forces and moments can be written according to (see Equation 2.112):
44 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

= -A(w) 1] - B(w) r,- Cry

TR (2.160)
where A = -MA is the added inertia matrix, B = - D p represents linear
potential damping, C represents the linearized restoring forces and moments and
w is the wave circular frequency,
The frequency dependenc;y for the 2D damping coefficients in sway and heave
for a floating cylinder is illustrated in Figure 2.6. 3D linear damping coefficients
in sway and yaw for a slender ship with length L can thus be estimated by using
the value for Bg D
) according to:

- l
-Yv = -21
L 2
B 22 (y,z) dx (2,161)

-N =-21 l
L 2
/ (?D)
- r x 2 B 22 (y,z)dx (2.162)

2 ,
1,8 \
Hi \
1,4 \' '~" .. ",.;

12 ,. ... \ .. "~ ,.. ""'''1''

, ,, . ",,-,.,.~




02 . ~,.,.,
.""'.~,,., ,., . , .. " .. ,'" ~ ,. ,.

---- --

Figure 2.6: Two-dimensional linear damping in heave and sway as a function of

wave circular frequency for a circular cylinder (infinite water depth), In the figure
A = 0,5 7rR 2 where R is the cylinder radius..

It should be noted that most ship control systems are based on the assumption
that A(w) and B(w) are frequency-independent (w = 0) because the control
system is only designed to counteract for low-frequency motion components.

Skin Friction

Linear skin friction due to laminar boundary layer theory is important when
considering the low-frequency motion of the vehicle. Hence, this effect should
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 45

be considered when designing the control system. In addition t9 linear skin

friction there will be a high-frequency contribution due to turbulent boundary
layer theory. This is usually referred to as a quadratic o~ nonlinear skin friction.

Wave Drift Damping

Wave drift damping can be interpreted as added resistance for surface vessels
advancing in waves. This type of damping is derived from 2nd-order wave theory
Wave drift damping is the most important damping contribution to surge for
higher sea states. This is due to the fact that the wave drift forces are proportional
to the square of the significant wave height. Wave drift damping in sway and yaw
is small relative to eddy making damping (vortex shedding). A rule of thumb
is that 2nd-order wave drift forces are less than 1% of the 1st-order wave forces
when the significant wave height is equal to 1 m and 10% when the significant
wave height is equal to 10 m.

Damping Due to Vortex Shedding

D'Alambert's paradox states that no hydrodynamic forces act on a solid moving

completely submerged with constant velocity in a non-viscous fluid. In a viscous
fluid, frictional forces are present such that the system is not conservative with
respect to energy. The viscous damping force due to vortex shedding can be
modeled as:

f(U) = -2 P GD(Rn) A IUI U (2.163)

where U is the velocity of the vehicle, A is the projected cross-sectional area,

GD(Rn) is the drag-coefficient based on the representative area and P is the wa-
ter density. This expression is recognized as one of the terms in Morison's equa-
tion (see Faltinsen 1990). The drag coefficient GD(Rn) depends on the Reynolds
number (see Figure 2.7):

Rn= UD (2.164)
where D is the characteristic length of the body and v is the kinematic viscosity
coefficient (v = 1.56.10- 6 for salt water at 5° C with salinity 3.5%), see Appendix
F. Quadratic drag in 6 DOF is conveniently expressed as:

IvlT Dj V
Iv IT Dzv
IvlT D 3 v (2.165)
IvlT D 4 V
IvlT D 5 V
IvlT D 6 V
46 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Here D i (i = L.6) is 6 x 6 matrices depending on p, CD and A Notice that CD

and A will be different for the different matrix elements.

.: kiD = 900 .8.;s,


0.8 , .;. :. : :..:

· ... "

B . .·... .
. .....
· .....
0.4 :': ; ; ,,;. .. .. ., ...
. ..


Figure 2.7: Drag coefficient CD versus Reynolds number Rn for a rough circular
cylinder in steady incident flow. Three different surface roughness curves k/ D where k
is the average height of the surface roughness and D is the cylinder diameter are shown
(Faltinsen 1990).

2.4.3 Restoring Forces and Moments

In the hydrodynamic terminology, the gravitational and buoyant forces are called
restoring forces. The gr'avitational force f G will act through the center of grav-
ity rG = [xG' YG, zG]T of the vehicle. SiInilarly, the buoyant force f B will act
thwugh the center of buoyancy rB = [XB, YB, ZBJT. The restoring forces will have
components along the respective body axes.

Underwater Vehicles
Let m be the mass of the vehicle including water in free floating spaces, V' the
volume of fluid displaced by the vehicle, 9 the acceleration of gravity (positive
downwards) and p the fluid density. According to the SNAME (1950) notation,
the submerged weight of the body is defined as: W = mg, while the buoyancy
force is defined as: B = pgV'. By applying the results fwm Section 2.. 1.1, the
weight and buoyancy force can be transformed to the body-fixed coordinate sys-
tem with:


where J 1(TI2) is the Euler angle coordinate transformation matrix defined in

Section 2.1.1. According to (2.118), the sign of the restoring forces and moments
g(7J) must be changed since this term is included on the left-hand side of Newton's
2nd law. Consequently, the restoring force and moment vector in the body-fixed
coordinate system is:
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 47


Notice that the z-a.xis is taken to be positive downwards . Expanding this expres-
sion yields:

(W - B) se
(W - B) cesr/>
(W - B) cecr/>
(yaW - yBB) cecr/> + (zaW - zBB) cesr/>
(zaW - zBB) se + (xaW - xBB) cecr/>
(xaW - xBB) cesr/> (YaW - yBB) se

Equation (2.168) is the Euler angle representation of the hydrostatic forces and
moments. An alternative representation can be found by applying quaternions.
Then E1(e) replaces J 1(7J2) in (2.166), see Section 212 A neutrally buoyant
underwater vehicle will satisfy:

W=B (2..169)

Let the distance between the center of gravity CG and the center of buoyancy
CB be defined by the vector: I


Hence, (2.168) simplifies to:

o (2..171)
-BGyW cecr/> + BGzW cesr/>
BGzW se + BG"W cecr/>
-BG"W cesr/> - BGyW se

Surface Ships

The general expression (2.168) should only be used for completely submerged
vehicles. For surface vessels, the restoring forces will depend on the vessel's meta-
centric height, the location of the center of gravity and the center of buoyancy.
Metacentric stability and restoring forces for surface ships are treated separately
in Section 5.5.2.
48 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

2.5 Equations of Motion

In this section we will' discuss different representations. and properties of the
marine vehicle equations of motion. Moreover, we will show how various body-
symmetries can be used to simplify the equations of motion.

2.5.1 Vector Representations

The equations of motion can be represented in both the body-fixed and earth-
fixed reference frames. We will discuss both these representations.

Body-Fixed Vector Representation

In Section 2.3 we have already shown that the nonlinear equations of motion in
the body-fixed frame can be written as:

IM 1/ + C(v) v+~(v) v + g(TJ) = rl (2.172)

!i7=J(TJ)v! (2.173)

M = MRB + l'vI A (2.. 174)

D(v) = Dp(v) + Ds'(v) + Dw(v) + DM(v) (2.175)

Earth-fixed Vector Representation

The earth-fixed representation is obtained by applying the following kinematic
transformations (assuming that J ( TJ) is non-singular):

i7 = J(TJ) v -<==? v = r1(TJ) i7

ij = J(TJ) 1/ + j(TJ) v-<==? 1/ = r1(TJ) [ij - j(TJ)r1(TJ)i]] i
to eliminate v and v from (2 . 172). Defining:
M~(TJ) - rT(TJ)M r1(TJ) 'I
C~(v,TJ) - f-T(TJ) [C(v) - MJ-l(TJ)j(TJ)] r1(TJ) I
D~(v, TJ) - rT(TJ) D(v) r1(TJ)
g~(TJ) - rT(TJ) g(1])
7"~(TJ) - rT(TJ) 7" (2.177)
yields the earth-fixed vector representation:
2.5 Equations of Motion 49

2.5.2 Useful Properties of the Nonlinear Equations of Motion

We have seen that the 6 DOF nonlinear equations of motion, in their most gen-
eral representation, require that a large number of hydrodynamic derivatives are
known. From a practical point of view this is an unsatisfactory situation. How-
ever, the number of unknown parameters can be drastically reduced by using
body symmetry considerations.
We will fust discuss some useful properties of the nonlinear equations of
motion and then show how symmetry can be exploited to reduce the complexity
of the modeL

Properties of the Body-Fixed Vector Representation

The following properties are observed for the body-fixed vector representation:

Property 2.7 (M)

For a rigid body the inertia matrix is strictly positive if and only if j\,If A > 0, that


1f in addition we require that the body is at rest (or at least moves at low speed)
under the assumption of an ideal fluid (see Property 2.. 4) the inertia matrix will
also be symmetrical and therefore positive definite, that is:


Hence, M takes the form:

m-X" -XiJ -X,;, -X p mza -X q
-myc - Xi ]
-xv m-Yii -Yui -mzG - Yp -Yq mxc - Yf
M- -x,;, -Yui m-Zw mYG - z.p -mxG -Zej -Z,.
- -X p -ffiZG - Yp mYG - Zp I; - I<p -1:1:11 - K q -la - Kf
[ mZG -Xq -Y.; -mxa - Zri -1;:;v - K.; Iv - M, -[y::: -/vIr
-mYG -x,. mxa - Y,. -Zi- -J:::;r: - Kf -I!Jz - ivlf I:. - Ni

Proof: M = M RE + M A is positive definite under the assumptions that j\,If RE

and j\,If A are positive definite matrices.

Property 2.8 (C)

For a rigid body moving through an ideal fluid the Coria lis and centripetal matrix
C(lI) can always be pammeterized such that C(lI) is skew-symmetrical, that is:

Proof: C(lI) is skew-symmetrical under the assumptions that C RE(ll) and C A(V)
are skew-symmetrical.
50 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

The Assumption of Wave Fz'equency-Independence

For a marine vehicle, M, 0 and D will depend on the wave frequency wand
thus the speed of the vehicle (frequency of encounter). This relationship has not
been established for a general vehicle in 6 DOF. However, for control systems
design asymptotically values can be used since only the low-frequency motion
components are of interest. Hence, we will assume that:

M = limM(w)j
0= lim O(w)j
D = limD(w)

in all control system analyses. This assumption implies that M = 0 (frequency-

independent) such that the following holds:

This relationship has its analogy in the dynamic description of robot manip-
ulators where the 0 matrix can be calculated by using the so-called Christoffel
symbols (see Ortega and Spong 1988), Christoffel symbols, however, are not
defined for vehicles in terms of body-fixed velocities ~

Properties of the Earth-Fixed Vector Representation

AB in the body-fi."'Ced vector representation it is straightforward to show that:

(1) M~(TJ) = M~(TJ) > 0 V TJ E lR6

(2) sT [1Vl~(TJ) - 20~(v,TJ)] s = 0 V sE lR6 , V E lR6 , TJ E lR 6

(3) D~(v, TJ) > 0 V v E lR6 , TJ E lR6

if M = M'T > 0 and M = O. The proofs are left as an exercise. It should

be noted that O~(v, TJ) will not be skew-symmetrical although O(v) is skew-

Simplicity Considerations of the Inertia Matrix

The general expression for the inertia matrix M can be considerably simplified by
exploiting different body sy=etries. It is straightforward to verify the following
cases (notice that mij = mji):
(i) xy-plane of symmetry (bottqm/top symmetry)

m I::! 0 0 0

[ m21
m"0 m22
m" m:H
0 0
] , "
- 0 0 m43 mol4 m,t5 0
0 0 mOJ mM m" 0
mal m6' 0 0 0 moa '.

2.5 Equations of Motion 51

(ii) xz-plane of symmetry (port/starboard symmetry)_

mu 0 mlJ 0 ml5

!vI = m'l







(iii) yz-plane of sy=etry (fore/aft symmetry)_

mU 0 0 0
o m22 m23 m:a-t o
m15 m16]
!vI = 0 m32 m:J3 ma4 o 0
o m4:! rn.i3 mu o 0
[ ffi1'il 0 0 0 m55 mG6
m6l 0 0 0 IDes mes

(iv) xz- and yz-planes of symmetry (port/starboard and fore/aft sy=etries)_

0 0 0 ml5
[ m;' m22
0 m24
!vI = 0 m"
0 .1]
More generally, the resulting inertia matrix for a body with ij- and j k-
planes of sy=etry is formed by the intersection !vIij n jk = !vIij n IvJ ik
(v) xz-, yz- and xy-planes of symmetry (port/starboard, fore/aft and bot-
tom/top symmetries).

Simplicity Considerations of the Damping Matrix

For the linear time-invariant system:

!vIv+Dv=r (2_181)
the sy=etry properties of the damping matrix D will be equal to those of the
inertia matrix IvI.

Example 2.1 (Horizontal Motion of a Dynamically Positioned Ship)

The horizontal motion of a dynamically positioned ship (U = 0) is usually de-
scribed by the motion components in surge, sway and yaw_ Therefore, we choose
v = tu, 11, rjT and 1] = [x, y, 'l/JjT _ This implies that the dynamics associated with
the motion in heave, roll and pitch are neglected, that is w = p = q -:- 0 _ Further-
more, we assume that the ship has homogeneous mass distribution and xz-plane
symmetry_ Hence,

52 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

Let the coordinate origin be set in the center line of the ship such that: YG = 0.
Under the previously stated assumptions, matrices (2.91) and (2.102) associated
with the rigid-body dynamics reduce to: '.

o o -m(xar + v) ]
m o mu (2183)
mxa -mu o

This motivates the following reduction of (2.120) and (2.127).'

l'vI A = -X. 0 0] o Y,v + Yi' ]

[ 0
U _Y,

Hence, M =MT and C(v) = -CT(v), that is:

0 m-Yit
o mxc -Yf
0] (2 . 185)
o mxc -¥f J; - Nf

0 o -(m - Y,)v - (mxa - Yi)r ]

C(v) = [
0 o (m - Xu)u (2.186)
(m - Y,)v + (mxa - Yi)' -(m - Xu)u o

For' simplicity, we assume linear damping' and that surge is decoupled from sway
and yaw. This implies that:

D = [-~O -Nu
-~" -N
U -~,] (2.187)

A model that is well suited for ship positioning is then obtained by writing:

Mv+C(v)v+Dv=Bu (2.188)
where B is the control matrix describing the thruster configuration and u is the
control vector. During station keeping, u, v and r are all small which suggests
that a further simplification could be to neglect the term C(v)v.

2.5.3 The Lagrangian Versus the Newtonian Approach

One advantage with the Lagrangian approach is that we only have to deal with
the two scalar energy functions T and V. The Newtonian approach is vector-
oriented since everything is derived from Newton's second law. This often leads
to a more cumbersome derivation of the equations of motion. We will illustrate
this by applying the Lagrange equations of motion to derive the earth-fixed vector
2.5 Equations of Motion 53

Lagrangian Derivation of the Earth-Fixed Vector Representation

Recall that:

!!.- (8L) _ oL 8Pd _ . (2.189)

dt oil 017 + 8i1 - Try
Here we have included an additional term:


to describe the dissipative forces. Pd can be interpreted as a power function. The

Lagrangian for the vehicle-ambient water system is given by:

where TRB is the rigid-body kinetic energy, TA is the fluid kinetic energy and V
is the potential energy defined implicit by:

07] = 9ry(17) (2.192)

Hence, the total kinetic energy can be expressed as:

T = TRB + TA = ~ i1 T J-T(M RB + MA)r iI
= ~ i1T Mry(17) iI (2.193)

Furthermore, we can compute:



The next step involves computing:

8L = 8T _ 8V = ~ i1T 8Mry(17) i1- 9 (17) (2.196)

817 817 817 2 817 ry

Using these results together with:

( ) _ 'T 8Mry(17)
M· ry17-17 (20197)
implies that (2.189) can be written:

54 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

From this expression, the definition of the Coriolis and centripetal matrix is
recognized as:
!l 1· .
C~(LJ, 1])~ 2 M~(1])'J], (2.199)

which has its analogous definition in the skew-symmetric property:

x T [lI!I~(1]) - 2C~(LJ,1])] x = 0 'if x (2200)

Hence, we
, have shown that:
+ C~(LJ,1]) iJ + D~(LJ,17) iJ + g~(1]) = T~
M~(1]) ij (2201)
by applying the Lagmnge equations with 1] = [x, y, z, rP, e, 1/'V as generalized
coordinates. A similar derivation can be done in the body-fi,'Ced reference frame
with LJ = [u,v,w,p,q,rjT by applying the Quasi-Lagrangian approach described
in Section 2.2.3. A more detailed discussion on Lagrangian dynamics and its
applications to marine vehicles is found in Sagatun (1992).

2.6 Conclusions
In this chapter, we have used a general framework in terms of the Newtonian and
Lagrangian formalism to derive the nonlinear dynamic equations of motion in 6
DOF. The kinematic equations of moti6n are mainly discussed in terms of the
quatemion and Euler angle representation. Emphasis is placed on expressing the
multivariable nonlinear equations of motion such that well known properties from
mechanical system theory can be extended to the multivariable case.. The main
motivation for this is that certain nonlinear system properties can be used to
simplify the control systems design. In other words, a systematic representation
of a complex model is necessary for a good exploitation of the physics and a priori
information of the system. It should be noted that the resulting mathematical
model does not include the contribution of the environmental disturbances ljl~
wind, waves and currents. However, environmental modeling will be discussed in
the next chapteL
For the interested reader the development of the kinematic equations of mo-
tion are found in Kane, Likins and Levinson (1983) and Hughes (1986). Both
these references use spacecraft systems for illustration. An altemative deriva-
tion of the Euler angle representation in the context of ship steering is given by
Abkowitz (1964) An analogy· to robot manipulators is given by Craig (1989}-
A detailed discussion on kinematics is found in Goldstein (1980) while a man:
recently discussion of quatemions is found in Chou (1992).
The nonlinear model structure presented at the end of this chapter is mainl,r
intended for control systems design in combination with system identification a.ml.
parameter estimation. Hence, the extensive literature on basic hydrodynamics
should be consulted to obtain numerical values for the hydrodynamic derivatives
2.7 Exercises 55

which are necessary for accurate prediction and computer simulations. Some
standard references in hydrodynamics are Faltinsen (1990), Newman (1977) and
Sarpkaya (1981). A detailed discussion on Lagrangian ,!-nd Newtonian dynam-
ics can be found in Goldstein (1980), Hughes (1986), Kane et aL (1983) and
Meirovitch (1990), for instance.

2.7 Exercises
2.1 A marine vehicle is moving in the x-direction with a speed u(t) = 2 (m/s) and in
the y-direction with a speed vet) = a sin(t) (m/s). The heading angle is '/J(t) (rad) .
Assume that the heave, roll and pitch modes can be neglected. Calculate both the
body-fixed and earth-fixed acceleration in the x- and y-directions.

2.2 Calculate the inertia moment with respect to che center of gravity for a sphere
with radius r and mass density p. Show that the sphere's products of inertia are zero.

2.3 Use the parallel axes theorem to prove Expressions (2.109) and (2.110).

2.4 Given a rigid-body with a coordinate frame XcYcZc located in the center of
gravity. The body's inertia tensor is:

(a) Rotate the given coordinate system XcYcZc such that the axes of the new coor-
dinate system XcY,jZc coincides with the principal axes of inertia.

(b) Instead of rotating the coordinate system XcYcZc find the distance between the
coordinate system XcYcZc and a new coordinate system XoYoZo located at a
point 0 such that the inertia tensor 1 0 becomes diagonal.

2.5 Find a continuous linear approximation to the quadratic damping force:

J(t) = -Xulul u(t)lu(t)1

where Xulul < 0 and -Uo :::; u(t) :::; uo.

2.6 Derive the equations of motion for an underwater vehicle in surge, sway, loll and
yaw by applying the bodycfixed vector representation.. Assume linear damping and that
all terms including Coriolis and centripetal forces can be neglected. Write the expres-
sions for M, D, g and J according to the SNAME notation for hydrodynamic deriva-
tives. The control force and moment vector are assumed to be T = [71' TZ, 73, T4jT·

2.7 Compute the added inertia matrix for a prolate spheroid with mass m and semi-
axes a = 2r and b = c = r.
56 Modeling of Marine Vehicles

2.8 Given the Euler angles <p = 100, B = 60 0 and 7f; = 48 0

(a) Compute the corresponding Euler parameters ei for (i = LA)

, by applying Algo-
rithm 2.2. ..

(b) Repeat the computation with B = 89.9° and <p and 7f; unchanged.
(c) Use the inverse transformation to compute the Euler angles corresponding to the
solutions from (a) and (b). Comment on the results.

2.9 Consider a surface ship in surge, sway and yaw with added inertia:

Xii. 00]
MA = - 0 Yu Yr.
[ o Nu Ni
Find an expression for the fluid kinetic energy TA and use Kirchhoffs' equations to
derive a skew-sy=etric matrix CA (v) for this system.

2.10 Assume that M = M T > 0 and D(v) > O'r/ v'f O. Show that:

(a) M~(TJ) = M;;(TJ) > 0 'r/ TJ E]R6

(b) D~(v,TJ) > 0 'r/ v E ]R6, TJ E]R6

2.11 Compute Yu, N r, Yu and N, for a surface ship with main dimensions D = 8 (m)
and L = 100 (m) at a wave circular frequenj;y w = LO (rad/s) by applying strip theory.

2.12 Derive (2.98) and (2.99) from (2.72) and (2.87) by using the formulas:

a x (b x c) - S(a)S(b)c
(a x b) x c - S(S(a)b)c

where S(a)S(b) =I S(S(a)b). Another useful formula is the Jacobi identity:

a x (b x c) +b x (c x a) + c x (a x b) = 0

which can be expressed in terms of the skew-symmetric operator S(-) E 88(3) according

S(a)S(b)c +S(b)S(c)a + S(c)S(a)b = 0

Fina]]y show that (2.100) and (2.101) can be derived from (2.98) and (2.99).

2.13 Derive the nonlinear body-fixed vector representation for a marine vehicle moving
in 6 DOF by applying the Quasi-Lagrangian approach. All terms should be expressed
by matrices and vectors.

- - - - - - - - _ .. ---- - - - - - ---
Chapter 3
Environmental Disturbances

In the previous chapter a general model structure for marine vehicles was derived.
In this chapter we will look further into details on the modeling aspects in terms of
environmental disturbance models. Moreover, the following type of environmental
disturbances will be considered:

e Waves (wind generated)

• Wind

• Ocean currents

In general these disturbances Will] be both additive and multiplicative to the

dynamic equations of motion. However, in this chapter we will assume that the
principle of superposition can be applied. For most marine control applications
this is a good approximation.

3.1 The Principle of Superposition

The previous chapter has shown that the nonlinear dynamic equations of motion
could be written:

In the analysis below it is convenient to write the damping matrix as a sum of

the radiation-induced potential damping matrix Dp(v) and a viscous damping
matrix Dy(v) = Ds(v) + Dw(v) + DM(v) containing the remaining damping
terms" Hence we can write:

D(v) = Dp(v) + Dy(v) (3.2)

Based on this model we will apply the principle of superposition to derive the
linear and llOnlinear equations of motion in terms of environmental disturbances.
58 Environmental Disturbances

Linear Equations of Motion

Linearization of the Coriolis and centripetal forces C RB(V)V and C A(V)V about
zero angular velocity (p = q = T = 0) implies that the Coriolis and centripetal
terms can be removed from the above expressions, that is C RB(V)V = C A(V)V =
0. If we also linearize D(v)v about zero angular velocity, and u = uo, v = vo
and w = wo, we can write (3.1) as:

[M RB +M A]v+ [N p + N v ]V+ G1] = TE +T (33)

where N p, N v and G are three constant matrices given by:

8[D v (v)v] 8g(1]) :
N p = 8[D p (v)v] (3.4) 1
N = 8v G=
8v v=vo 81]

Linear Equations of Motion Including the Environmental Disturbances

Furthermore, the principle of superposition suggests that the environmental dis-
turbances can be added to the right-hand side of (3.3) to yield:

lYI RB v+N v v + lYI A v + N p v

~ --..".
+ G 1] = T wave
+ Twind + Tcurrent +T
... I
radiation-induced forces environmental forces
In the previous chapter the mdiation-induced forces were referred to as sub-
problem one, Section 2.4. In this chapter sub-problem two is considered. Moreover, I
we want to find the forces on the body when the body is restrained from oscil-
lating, and there are incident regular waves. These forces are recognized as the
Fmude-KTiloff and diffmction forces. Generally, the forces of sub-problem two
are computed by integrating the pressure induced by the undisturbed waves and 1•
the pressure created by the vehicle when the waves are reflected from the vehicle
over the wet body surface (Faltinsen 1990). Since this procedure is mathemat-
ically involved and not to well suited to control systems design, we will restrict
our treatment to the following approximate solution for the Froude-Kriloff and
diffraction forces.

Approximate Solution for the Froude-Kriloff and Diffraction Forces

If the body is totally submerged, has a small volume and the whole body surface
is wetted, a special solution to sub-problem two exists. By small volume we mean
that a characteristic cross-sectional dimension of the body is small relative to the
wavelength A. For a vertical cylinder small volume means that A > 5D, where
D is the cylinder diameter. ROVs are usually within this limit. Let the fluid
velocity vector be defined by Vc = tuc, vc, Wc, 0, 0, ojT where the last three fluid
motion components are zero (assuming irrotational fluid) we can write (Faltinsen
3.1 The Principle of Superposition 59

TcurrentM FK VC + MA li c + N p 1/c.---.........--.
= '---..----'....
+ .N v 1/c ".
Froude-Kriloff diffraction forces viscous forces
where M FK may be interpreted as the Froude-Kriloff inertia matrix, that is
the inertia matrix of the displaced fluid. Moreover, let 'V be the volume of the
displaced fluid and p the fluid density, hence the mass of the displaced fluid can
be written:

m=p'V (3.7)
The moments and products of the inertia of the displaced fluid are:

Ix = Jv (y2 + z2)pd'V l xy = Jv xypd'V

l y = Jv (x 2 + z2)pd'V Ix: = Iv xzpd'V (3.8)
I. = J" (x 2 + y2)pd'V l y • = J" yzpd'V
We can now establish the concept of displaced fluid inertia for a completely
submerged body by defining the FK-inertia matrix M FK = M~K > 0 similar to
MRB (see Section 2.3.1). Moreover,

MFJ(= [ mI 3x3
-m~(rB) ]
10 - ~
[. 0
ffiz B

-rn"0 ]

-mYB ffiXB 0 -I=, -7'1::' I,
where rB = [XB, YB, zB]T is the center of buoyancy.

Linear Equations of Relative Motion

If we assume that M FK = M RB, that is the vehicle is neutrally buoyant and
the mass is homogeneously distributed, the linear equations of motion can be
combined to give:

..+ MAl. V, + [N p + N v ] 1/, + G 1] = + Twind + T

[MRB T wave (3.10)
... "--'-..,...-----'
where 1/, = 1/ - 1/ c can be interpreted as the relative velocity vector In this case
1/c should contain the contribution from the currents.

Nonlinear Equations of Relative Motion

For underwater vehicles, an extension to the nonlinear case could be to write
(Fossen 1991):

JIII V, + C(1/,.) 1/, + D(v,) 1/, + g( 1]) = T wave + T wind + T (3.11)

60 Envi ronm ental Distu rbanc es

and simple
Often this appro ximat ion is also used for ships due to its intuiti ve
In the next
way of treati ng slowly-varying CUITents in terms of relative velocity,
sections we will discuss mathe matic al models for vc, 'T wav~ and 'T wind.

3.2 Win d-G ene rate d Wa ves

ets appea ring
The process of wave generation due to wind starts with small wavel
allows short
on the water surface. This increases the drag force which in turn
break and
waves to grow. These short waves continue to grow until they finally
starts with
their energy is dissipated. It is observed that a develo ping sea or storm
frequency. A
high frequencies creating a spectr um with peak at a relative high
developed sea.
storm which has been blowing for a long time is said to create a fully
swell is being
After the wind has stopp ed blowing, low frequency decaying sea or
frequencyl. If
formed. These long waves form a wave spect rum with a low peak
, a wave
the swell from one storm intera cts with the waves from anoth er storm
we will only
spectr um with two peak frequencies may be observed. For simplicity
consider wave spectr a with one peak frequency, see Figure 3L Wind
waves are usually represented as a sum of a large numb er of wave
wave spectr al
The wave ampli tude Ai of wave comp onent i is relate d to the
density furlction S(Wi) as (Newman 1977):
Af = '2S(Wi) /::,w (3,12)
nt differ-
where Wi is the wave frequency of wave comp onent i and /::,w is a consta
ence between successive frequencies,

Figur e 3.1: Figure showing wave spectrum with one peak Wi is
chosen as a random
frequency in the frequency interval Aw.,
k . Hence,
Let the wave numbe T of one single wave comp onent be denoted by i

k, = 271" (3.13)
, )"
lThe peak frequency of the wave spectrum is often referred to as the modal fr~quen
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 61

where Ai is the wave lengtp, see Figure 3.2. The wave elevation ((x, t) of a long-
crested inegular sea propagating along the positive x-a.xis can be written as a
sum of wave components (Newman 1977): '.

1; (x,t)

t 1

T , ;.

1; (X,t)


Figure 3.2: Characteristics of a wave traveling with speed c = AfT = w/k. In the
figure A = wave length, H = wave height, A = wave amplitude, T = wave period and
( = wave elevation.

((x, t) - :L A; cos (Wit - kix + <Pi)

~ 1 ki Ai
+ L.."2 0
cos 2(Wi t - kix + <Pi) + O(A i3) (3.14)

where <Pi is a random phase angle uniformly distributed and constant with time
in [0 271} From regular wave theory it can be shown that the connection between
the wave number ki and the circular frequency: uJi = 27f ITi is:

. w; = k g tanh(k d)
i i (3 . 15)
Here d is used to denote the water depth. This relationship is often referred
to as the dispersion relation. For infinite water depth, that is dI Ai > 1/2, the
dispersion relation reduces to w;
= ki g since tanh(ki d) -> 1 as d/ Ai -> co.
Unfortunately, Expression (3.14) repeats itself after a time 27f/ 6.uJ This
suggests that a large number of wave components should be used, typically N =
1000. However, this problem can be circumvented by simply choosing Wi as a
random frequency in the frequency interval b.w.
62 Environmental Disturbances

Linear wave theory or Airy, theory represents a 1st-order approximation of

the wave elevation ((x, t). This corresponds to the first term Ai in Formula
(3.14). Furthermore, 2nd-order theory implies that an additional term 1/2 ki Ar
is included in the expression for (x, t). This is done by applying a so-called
Stoke's expansion to solve the wave theory problem up to second order. Similarly, ,
forces caused by these terms are usually referred to as 1st-or-deT and 2nd-or-der-
wave forces, respectively. 2nd-order theory is usually sufficient to describe the
response of most marine vehicles in a seaway. 1st-order wave disturbances will
describe the oscillatoric motion of the vehicle while the 2nd-order term represents
the wave drift forces. The next section shows how to compute S(Wi) and thus Ai
in (3.12).

3.2.1 Standard Wave Spectra

The earliest spectral formulation is due to Neumann (1952) who proposed the 'i
one-par'ameter- spectrum:

SeW) = c w- 6 exp (-2l w- 2 V- 2 ) (m 2s) (3.16)

where C is an empirical constant, V is the wind speed and 9 is the acceleration
of gravity. More recently, the tendency has gone towards another class of spectra
motivated by the early work of Phillips (1958) who showed that the high frequency
form of the sea spectrum was asymptotically limited by (w» 1):

Sew) (3.17)
where c< is a positive constant. We will concentmte our discussion on this type
of spectra.

Table 3.1: Description of wind, p. 162 of Price and Bishop (1974). Reproduced by
permission of Chapman and Hall, Ltd.

Beaufort number Description of wind Wind speed (knots)

o Calm 0-1
1 Light air 2-3
2 Light breeze 4-7
3 Gentle breeze 8-11
4 Moderate breeze 12-16
5 Fresh breeze 17-21
6 Strong breeze 22-27
7 Moderate gale 28-33
8 Fresh gale 34-40
9 Strong gale 41-48
10 Whole gale 49-56
11 Storm 57-65
12 Hurricane More than 65
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 63

Bretschneider Spectrum ,

A more sophisticated spectrum than the Neumann spectrum has been proposed
by Bretschneider (1959). The two-parameter Bretschneider spectrum is written:

w5 H,2 exp (-1.25 (wo/w) 4)

1.25 W6
8(1.<1 ) = -4- (m 2s) (318)
where Wo is the modal frequency and H, is the significant wave height2 (mean
of the one-third highest waves). This spectrum was developed for the North
Atlantic, for unidirectional seas, infinite depth, no swell and unlimited fetch.

Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum

Independently of this work Pierson and Moskowitz (1963) developed a wave spec-
tral formulation for fully developed wind-generated seas hom analyses of wave
spectra in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Pierson-Moskowitz (PM) spectrum is
5(0) (m 1s)

. 0,2 0.3 0.,4 0..5 0,,6 0,7 '

frequency (rndls)

Figure 3.3: Figure showing the PM-spectrum for different values of H,.


A - 8.1· 10- 3 l (3.20)

B - 0.74 (~r (3.21)

'In some textbooks tbe significant wave height is denoted by HI!,'

64 Environmental Disturbances

Here V is the wind speed at a height of 1g.4 m over the sea SUIface and 9 is the
gravity constant. By assuming that the waves can be represented by Gaussian
random processes and that S(w) is narrow-banded, the PM,.spectmm can be
reformulated in terms of significant wave height, that is:

A - 8.1· 10- 3 l (3.22)

B _ 0.0323 (-L)
2 = 3.11

Table 3.2: Description of sea, p. 147 of Price and Bishop (1974). Reproduced by
permission of Chapman and Hall, Ltd. Notice that the percentage probability for sea
state code 0, 1 and 2 is summarized.

Percentage probability
Sea state Description Wave height World North Northern
code ofsea observed (m) wide Atlantic North Atlantic
0 Calm (glassy) 0
1 Calm (rippled) 0-01 1L2486 83103 6.0616
2 Smooth (wavelets) 0.1-0.5
3 Slight 0.5-L25 3L6851 28.1996 2L5683
4 Moderate L25-2.5 40.1944 42.0273 409915
5 Rongh 25-40 12.8005 15.4435 2L2383
6 Very rough 4.. 0-6.0 3.0253 4.2938 7m01
7 High 6.0-90 \ 09263 L4968 2.. 6931
8 Very high 9.0-140 1 0.1190 0.2263 0.4346
9 Phenomenal Over 14.0 0.0009 0.0016 0.0035
A description of significant wave height with percentage probability is given i n l
Table 3.2. This implies that the wind speed V and significant wave height H, 1
will be related through: ~
2 j
H, = 0.21 - (3 . 24) J

9 \
This relationship is plotted in Figure 3.4. The modal fTequency Wo for the PM-
spectmm is found by requiring that:

(dZ) t;wo = 0 (3.25)

I 1I

Straightforward computation yields:

Wo -
t: (3.26)

To - 2
1f (4B
£ (3.27) II
. I
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 65

Hs (m)



0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V (knots)

Figure 3.4: Significant wave height H, = 0.21 y2 / g (m) versus wind speed Y (knots)
(1 knot = 0.51 m/s).

where To is the modal period. Substituting the values for A and B into (3 . 26),

Wo = 0.88
V = 0.40 V(9
If, (3.28)
Hence, the ma.'dmum value of S(w) is:

Srn"Aw) = S(wo) = - - exp (-5/4) (3.29)
The Bretschneider spectnim is described by two parameters H, and Wo and
is t)lus referred to as a two-parameter spectnJm. Notice that if Wo is chosen
as 0.40 vg/ H, the Bretschneider spectrum reduces to the one-parameter PM-

Wave Spectrum Moments

The different wave spectra can be classified by means of so-called wave spectrum
moments to illustrate some of the statistical properties of their parameterization.
The spectrum moments are defined as:

rn. = f" w· S(w) dw (k = O...N) (3 . 30)

For k = 0, we obtain:

mo = S(UJ) dw = - (3.31)
o 4B
66 Environmental Disturbances

This simply states that the instantaneous wave elevation is Gaussian-distributed

with zero mean and variance a 2 = A/4B. Hence, y'7iiO can be interpreted as the
RMS-value of the spectrum. Furthermore, we obtain: '.

mr - 0306 B3j,j (3.32)
m2 - (3.33)
For the PM-spectrum the average wave period is defined as:


while the aver'age zeTO-cTOssings period is defined as:


Furthermore, by assuming that the wave height is Rayleigh distributed it can be

shown that (Price and Bishop 1974):

H, = 4y'7iiO (3.36)

Modified Pierson-Moskowitz (MPM) Spectrum

For prediction of responses of marine vehicles and offshore structures in open sea,
the International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, 2nd ISSC (1964), and
the International Towing Tank Conference, 12th ITTC (1969b) and 15th ITTC
(1978) have recommended the use of a modified version of the PM-spectrum, that

411"3 H 2 (-1611"3) (3.37)

Sew) = T;ws' exp T;w 4

This representation of the PM-spectrum has two parameters H, and Tz . Alter-

natively, we can substitute:

T z = 0.710 To = 0.921 Tr (3.38)

if To and T r are more convenient to use. This representation of S(w) should only
be used for a fully developed sea with infinite depth, no swell and unlimited fetch.
For non-fully developed seas the following spectrum has been proposed by the
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 67

In 1968 and 1969 an extensive measurement program w\lS carried out in the North
Sea, between the island Sylt in Germany and Iceland. The measurement program
is lmown as the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) and the results from
these investigations have been adopted as an ITTC standard by the 17th ITTC
(1984) Since the JONSWAP spectrum is used to describe non-fully developed
seas, the spectral de'nsity function will be more peaked than the those for the
fully developed spectra. The proposed spectral formulation is representative for
wind-generated waves under the assumption of finite water depth and limited
fetch The spectral density function is written:

S(w) = 155 T4IH;u)5 exp (-944)

T4 4 (-y) y
I w

where Hasselmann et aL (1973) suggest that I = 3.3 and:

. _
Y -exp [(0.191WTI-1)2]
- M (3.40)

007 for w:S; 5.. 24/T1

a- { (3.41)
- 009 for W > 5.24/T1
This formulation can be used with other characteristic periods like To and Tz by
substituting: I

T1 = 0.834 To = 1.073 Tz (3.42)

The peak value of the JONSWAP spectrum can be related to the PM-spectrum
by the ratio:

"(= (3.43)
This value is usually between 1 and 7.

Example 3.1 (Experimental Wave Spectrum Results)

A full-scale experiment was performed west of Bergen in order to measure the
motion components in surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw for a moving supply
vessel (Far Scandia). Both time-series and power sp~ctral density functions P(w)
are shown in Figure 3.5. The motion components corresponding to the figures
u = surge acceleration (m/s 2 ) t/J = roll angle (deg)
v - sway acceleration (m/s 2 ) f) - pitch angle (deg)
w - heave acceleration (m/s 2 ) 'if; = yaw angle (deg)
68 Environmental Disturbances i

u( t) Fuu(w) •
2 150 ~
100 j
0 .~ 1

-1 .. 50
0 50 100
0.05 0.1 015 02 i
sec Hz ~
v( t) F",,(w) -~
5 ~

600 .~
0 400


-5 0
0 50 100 005 01 0.15 0.2
sec Hz
w(t) Fww(w)


-4 0
0 50 100 0.05 01 0.15 0.2
sec Hz
F"",,(w) I
q;(t) X 10'
20 2



-40 0
0 50 100 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
sec Hz
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 69

e(t) POO(W)
15 6000 ...


~ I~

·10 0
0 50 100 0.05 0.1 0.15 02
sec Hz
'f;( t) P,p,p (w)


·15 0
0 50 100 0.1 02 03 004 05
sec Hz

Figure 3.5: Experimental time-series and wave spectra in 6 DOF for a moving ship in
sea state code 8 (measured with a Seatex MRU sensor unit) . Notice that the yaw signal
is highly affected by the feedback signal from the autopilot. Reproduced by permission
of ABB Industry in Oslo.

3.2.2 Linear Approximations to the Wave Spectra

A linear approximation to the PM spectral density function 5("1) can be found
by writing the output y(s) from the wave model as:

y(s) = h(s) w(s) (3.44)

where w(s) is a zero-mean Gaussian white noise process with power spectrum:'

Pww(w) = LO (345)
and h( s) is a transfer function to be determined. Hence, the power spectral
density (PSD) function for y(s) can be computed as:
70 Environmental Disturbances

The ultimate goal is to design an approximation Pyy(w) to Sew), for instance

by means of linear regression, such that Pyy(w) reflects the energy distribution
of S(w) in the actual frequency rangeo We will in the forthcoming discuss some
linear approximations well suited for this purpose.

2nd-Order Wave Transfer Function Approximation

Linear wave model approximations are usually preferred by ship control systems
engineers, owing to their simplicity and applicability. The first applications were
reported in 1976 by Balchen, Jenssen and Srelid (1976) who proposed to model
the high-frequency motion of a dynamically positioned ship in surge, sway and
yaw by three harmonic oscillators without damping Later Srelid, Jenssen and
Balchen (1983) introduced a damping term in the wave model to better fit the
shape of the PM-spectrum. This model is written:

h( ) Kw s (3.47)
s = S2 + 2 ( Wo s + wJ
where it is convenient to define the gain constant according to:

Kw = 2(woow (3.48)
Here Ow is a constant describing the wave intensity, ( is a damping coefficient
while Wo is the dominating wave frequency. Hence, substituting s = jw yields:

' )_ j 21((wo ow)w

h(JW - (3.49)
(wo - w2) + j 2 (wo w

This in turn implies that:

Ih(jw) [ = 2 (( Wo Ow) w (3050)

V(wJ - W2)2 + 4 (( Wo W)2
From (3.46) we recall that:
. ) 2 4 (( Wo ow)2w ( )
( [ (
Pyyw)= hJw [ = (WJ-W 2)2+4((wow)2 3.51

This expression for Pyy(w) is shown in Figure 3.6 From this it is seen that the
maximum value of [Pyy(w)1 is obtained for w = Wo, that is:

State-Space Model

A lineal' state-space model can be obtained from (3A7) by transforming this

expression to the time-domain by:

yet) + 2 (wo yet) + w6 yet) = Kw wet) (3.53)

3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 71

Defining Xhl = Xh2 and Xh2 = Yh as state variables, this implies that the state-
space model can be written:

XH - AHxH+EHwH (3.54)
YH - CHXH (355)

where W H is a zero-mean white noise process. Writing this expression in compo-

nent form, yields:


Yh = [0 1] [ :~~ ] (3.57)

This model is highly applicable for control systems design due to its simplicity.
Applications will be discussed in later chapters..

10 \ ....


.... ...

5 . . ;

o 05 1.5 2 3 3.5 4 45 5
Frequency (rad/g)

20 ... ; .. i·.· .



-20 .. i .. .. "'--. .

,, ' ","-
. ''-. .
10-2 10-' 100 10' 10 2
Frequency (rad/g)

Figure 3.6: Power spectral density Pyy(w) and amplitude Ih(jw)1 as a function of
frequency for the linear wave spectrum (wo = 1.0, ( = 0.1 and cr~ = 10).

72 Environmental Disturbances

Higher-Order Wave Transfer Function Approximations

An alternative wave transfer function based on five parameters has been proposed
by Grimble, Patton and Wise (1980a) and Fung and Grimble (1983) This model
is written:

h(s) = K s (3 . 58)
S4 + als 3 + a2s2 + a3S + a4
where ai (i = LA) are four parameters. Hence, four differential equations are
required to describe the wave modeL Moreover,

1 0
0 1
0 0
-a3 -a2

Yh = [0 0 1 0] [ ~~~ ], (3.60)

The number of unknown parameters can be reduced by assuming that the de-
nominator can be factorized according to:
h(s) = Kws (3.61)
(s2+2(wos+WJ)2 .~ ;

More recently, Triantafyllou, Bodson and Athans (1983) have shown by ap-
plying a rational approximation to the Bretschneider spectrum that a satisfactory .; i
, i
approximation of the high-frequency ship motion can be obtained by using the
transfer function:
K 2
h(s) = (s2 + 2 (:: s + WJ)3 (3 . 62)
which only has three unknown parameters (, Wo and Kw. The advantage of
the higher order models to the simple 2nd-order system (347) is that they will
represent a more precise approximation to the wave spectrum. The disadvantage,
of course, is higher model complexity and often more parameters to determine.

3.2.3 Frequency of Encounter

For a ship moving with forward speed U, the wave frequency Wo will be modified
according to:
2 .
w.(U, Wo,!}) = Wo - Wo U cos f3 (3.63)
where w~ = k 9 (assuming deep water) and:
3.2 Wind-Generated Waves 73

We = encounter frequency (rad/s)

Wo = wave frequency (lad/s)
9 = acceleration of gravity (m/s 2 )
U = total speed of ship (m/s)
fJ = the angle between the heading and the direction of the wave (rad)
Notice that the encounter frequency can be negative for large values of U. The
definition of the encounter angle fJ is shown in Figure 3 7
This suggests that the wave spectrum for a heading-controlled ship moving
at speed U > 0 should be modified to incorporate the frequency of encounter.
For instance, we can rewrite (3.47) as:

h( ) Kw s ( )
.s = S2 + 2( te', S + w; 3 64
However, it should be noted that the wave frequency of a dynamic positioned
ship can be perfectly described by uJ e = te'o since U is close to or equal to zero

Beam sea

Quartering sea Bow scn

p = 30°.
Following sea Head sea

Figure 3.7: Definition of ship's heading (encounter) angle (Reid et at 1984).

3.2.4 Wave-Induced Forces and Moments

In order to simulate the motion of ocean vehicles, in the presence of irregular
waves we will consider the effect of Ist- and 2nd-order wave disturbances.

Superposition in Terms of Ist- and 2nd-Order Wave Disturbances

The responses of an ocean vehicle in a seaway are usually computed by applying
the principle of superpQsiiion.. Assume that the 1st-order wave disturbances can
74 Environmental Disturbances

be described by the damped oscillator (3 . 54)-(357) . Alternatively, Y H can be

computed by using the spectral densit.y function S(w). Furthermore, we assume
t.hat 2nd-order wave drift forces in the X-, y- and z-directions can be modelled by
t.hree slowly-varying parameters: d = [dJ, d 2 , d 3 jT' Hence,

1st-order wave disturbances XH - AH XH + EH wH

(oscillatoric motion) YH - CHXH
2nd-order wave drift d - Wd

Here Wd is a vect.or of zero mean Gaussian white noise processes . Moreover, the
principle of superposition suggest.s that. the vehicle dynamics and the 2nd-order
wave disturbances can be combined t.o yield:

M v + C(v) v + D(v) v + 9(TI) = d + T (3 . 66)

ij = J(TJ) v (3.67)
The measurement equation is modified to include the 1st-order wave induced
motion, that is:
Y=YL+YH (3.68) I
where the low-frequency position and attitude components usually are given by
Y L = TJ Notice that we have included 1the wave drift forces in the dynamic
equation of motion (process noise) while the oscillatoric motion is added to the
model output (colored measurement noise). In many practical operations like
ship steering and positioning this simple model is sufficient
A more intuitive and physical approach would be to model 1st-order wave
forces and moments as process noise as well This can be done by applying the "i
following model description
1st-Order Wave Forces and Moment on a Block-Shaped Ship
Consider the expression (i(X, t) in (3.14) for the wave elevation The wave slope
Si for wave component i is defined as:

Si (X, t ) = d(i(x,
= Ai ki sm(wit - kix + rpi) + O(A i2) (3 . 69)

The wave elevation and wave slope can be expressed in terms of We for a moving
ship. For simplicity, we assume that x = 0 and that higher order terms can be
neglected. Hence,

(i(t) = (i(O, t) := Ai COS(Weit + <Pi) (3.70)

This implies that the wave slope-can be computed according to:
3.2 Wind -Gen erate d Wave s

5i(t) = 5i(O, t) = A; ki sin(weit + <Pi) (3.71)

nent i Based
Here Wei is the encou nter frequency corresponding to wave compo
on these expressions we can derive the forces and moments:

(1970) makes
induced by a regular sea on a block-shaped ship. To do this Zuidweg
from water
the following assumptions: (1) the forces and mome nts only result
bed by the
pressure acting on the wetted surface, (2) the wave field is not distur
a fluctuating
ship and (3) the influence of the waves is accounted for by assuming
e itself is
pressure distrib ution below the water surface, whereas the water surfac
assumed to be undist urbed . Moreover, the principle of superp osition

M v + O(v) v + D(v) v + 9(71) = 'wave +, (3.73)

length L,
For a ship where the wetted part is a rectan gular parallelepiped with
der wave
breadt h B and draft T, we obtain the following formulas for the 1st-or
disturbances (Kalls trom 1979):

Xwave(t) = L'p 9 BLTcos (3 Si(t) (3.74)
Ywave(t) - L -p 9 BLTsin(3 Si(t) (3.75)
Nwave(t) = L.2.. 2
pg BL(L - B 2) sin 2(3 S[(t) (3.76)
i;1 24

if the ship
where fJ is defined in Figure 37. These equations will only hold
the hull can
is small compared to the wavelength and the water surface across
removing the
be approximated as a plane surface. An altern ative approach,
that (k i L),
assumption of the plane water surface, can be derived by assuming
X and
(k i B) and (k i T) are smalL This results in the same expressions for wave
Ywave while N wave is modified to:

Nwave(t) = :f, 214 pg BL(L

- B 2 ) T k[ sin 2fJ (i(t) (377)

eg (1970).
More detailed analyses of wave forces and mome nts are found in Zuidw
algorithm to
In order to imple ment the above formulas we can use the following
compute the wave elevation (i and slope Si-
76 Environmental Disturbances

Algorithm 3.1 (Wave Elevation and Wave Slope)

L Divide the spectral density function Sew) into N intervals with length !:"w, see ,
Figtrre 3, L }
2, Pick a random frequency Wi in each of the frequency intervals and compute S(Wi)"
3, Compute the wave amplitude Ai = !2S(Wi) !:"w and the wave number ki = wf/g
for (i = LN),
4, Compute Si and Si by applying Formulas (3,70) and (3,71),

3.3 Wind
Wind forces and moments on a vessel can usually be described in terms of a mean
wind speed in combination with a wind spectrum describing the variation of the
wind speed (gusting), We will first describe some standard wind spectra for this
purpose and then relate the wind speed and direction to the forces and moments
acting on the vehicle,

3.3.1 Standard Wind Spectra

One the most used spectral formulations for wind gust is the Davenport (1961)

S - k i 916700w
w(w) - [1 + (191 wjVw(10)J2l 4 / 3
= 0,05 (turbulence factor)
= average wind speed at a level of 10 m above the water surface (knots)
w = frequency of the wind oscillations (rad/s)

Another attractive spectral formulation is the so-called Harrls (1971) spectrum

which is written:

S ( )- k 5286 Vw(lO) (
ww - [1 + (286wjVw(10))2]5/6 3,,79)
These spectra are based on land-based measurements More recently Ochi and
Shin (1988) presented a spectral formulation relying on wind speed measurements
carried out at sea, This spectrum is written in non-dimensional form according

o::; f.
583 f. for < 0003
420 ~O,70
sU.) (1+/F') 11 ,
for 0,003 ::; f. ::; 0,1 (3,80)
838 f.
(1+ 12,3 )".6 for f. > 0,1
3.3 Wind

f. - 10 f /vw (10)
8(f.) = f· 8(f)/O lO' V~(1.o)
f = frequency of oscillation (Hz)
OlO - surface drag coefficient, see Ochi and Shin (1988)
8(f) - spectral density

(1972), Simiu
Other useful spectr al formulations are Hino (1971), Kaima l et aL
pp. 15-18 and
and Leigh (1983) and Karee m (1985); see the 10th ISSe (1988)
references therein.

Linea r Appro ximat ion to the Harris Spect rum

der approx-
The above wind spectr a are nonlin ear appro ximat ions. A linear 1st-or
imatio n for the Harris spectr um is:
K (3 . 81)
h(s) = T
1+ s
which implies that:

Sw(w) ~ IhCiwW = 1 +~~T)2 (3.82)

Hence, we can choose the time and gain consta nt accord ing to:

T = J286/ Vw (10) (3.83)

Wind Veloc ity Profil e

e we can use
In order to determ ine the local velocity z (m) above the sea surfac
the bound ary-la yer profile (see Bretsc hneide r 1969):

Vw(z) = Vw(lO) . (z/10)'/7 (3.84)

where Vw(lO) is the relative wind velocity 10 (m) above the sea surfac

3.3.2 Wind Force s and Mom ents

n a slowly-
As menti oned in the previous section the total wind speed will contai
nent (wind
varying compo nent (average wind speed) and a high-frequency compo
e vessel are
gust). The result ant wind forces and mome nt acting on a surfac
angle 'YR (deg)
usually defined in terms of relative wind speed VR (knots ) and
according to:
1 (3.. 85)
VR = JUh + Vk 'YR = tan- (vR/UR)

where the compo nents of VR in the x- and y-dire ctions are:

78 Environmental Disturbances

UR - VW COS(fR) - u +U c (3..86)
VR - Vw sin('/R) - v + Vc (3.87)

Here (u,v) and (U c,vc) are the ship and current velocity components while iR =
7/Jw - ,p is the angle of relative wind of the ship bow, see Figure 38

x r----- j
I v. i1

L.- . Y

Figure 3.8: Definition of wind speed and direction.

We can simulate time-series for Vw and ,1pw by adding a mean and a turbulent
component according to: I

Xl - Wl X3 - W3
X2 - -~ (X2 -Kwz) X4 - -~ (X4 -le W4)
VW Xl +X2 7/Jw - X3 +X4

where Wi (i = LA) are zero-mean Gaussian white noise processes and T and K
are the time and gain constants of the Harris spectrum, for instance.
For most ships the wind gust cannot be compensated for by the control sys-
tem since the dynamics of the ship is too slow compared with the gusts. However,
slowly-varying wind forces can be fed forward to the controller by measuring the
average wind speed and direction. This requires the wind force and moment coef-
ficients to be known with sufficient accuracy. We will now describe two attractive
methods for computation of the wind force and moment vector:

acting on a surface ship.
3.3 Wind 79

Wind Resistance of Merchant Ships (Isherwood 1972).

Isherwood (1972) suggested that one write the wind forces (surge and sway) and
moment (yaw) according to:

Xwind - ~ OXh'R) Pw vi AT (N) (3 . 89)

Ywind - ~ Oy( IR) Pw vi A L (N) (3.90)

Nwind - "21 CN ( IR) Pw VR2 A L L (Nm) (3.91 )

where Cx and Cy are the force coefficients and CN is the moment coefficient,
and where Pw is the density of air in kgjm 3 , AT and AI, are the transverse and
lateral projected areas in m 2 and L is the overall length of the ship in m. Notice
that VR is given in knots
Based on these equations measured data were analyzed by multiple regression
techniques in terms of the following 8 parameters:

L = length overall
B = beam
AL = lateral projected area
AT = transverse projected area
Ass = lateral projected area of superstructure
S = length of perimeter of lateral projection of model
excluding waterline and slender bodies such as masts and ventilators
C = distance from bow of centroid of lateral projected area
M = number of distinct groups of masts or kingposts seen in lateral
projection; kingposts close against the bridge front are not included

Moreover, Isherwood found that the data were best fitted to the following three

2AI, 2AT L S 0
Cx - Ao + Al V + A 2 B2 + A 3 B + A4 L + As L + A6 M (3.92)
2A L 2A L S 0 Ass
Cy - Bo + B I -
+ B 2 -B2-T + B 3 -B + B4~L + B s-L + B6 -A (3.93)
2A L 2AT L S C
CN - Co + 0 1 12 + O2 B2 + 0 3 B + C4 L + Cs L (3 . 94)

where A; and B i (i =:' 0....6) and OJ (j = 0...5) are tabulated below together with
the residual standard errors (S.E.).

80 Environmental Disturbances

'I'able 3.3: Surge induced wind force parameters (Ishelwood 1972).

iR(deg) Ao Al A2 A, A.I As A,
0 2.152 -5.00 0.243 -0.164 0086
10 1.714 -3.33 0145 -0.121 0104
20 1.818 -3,97 0.211 -0143 0.033 0096
30 1.965 -4.81 0.243 -0.154 0.041 0117
40 2.333 -5.99 0.247 -0.190 0.042 0.115
50 1.726 -6.54 0.189 -0173 0348 0048 0.109
60 0.913 -4.68 -0.104 0482 0052 0.082
70 0457 -2.88 -0.068 0.346 0043 0.077
80 0341 -091 -0.031 0.032 0.090
90 0.355 -0.247 0.018 0.. 094
100 0.601 -0.372 -0020 0096
110 0651 129 -0.582 -0.031 0.090
120 0.564 254 -0748 -0.024 0100
130 -0.142 358 0047 -0.700 -0.028 0105
140 -0677 364 0.069 -0529 -0.. 032 0123
150 -0.723 3.14 0064 -0.475 -0.032 0.128
160 -2.148 2.56 0.081 127 -0027 0.123
170 -2707 3.97 -0.175 0126 1.81 0.115
180 -2.529 3.76 -0.174 0.128 1.55 0.112
Mean S.E. 0.103

'!'able 3.4: Sway induced wind force parameters (Ishelwood 1972)..

iR (deg) Bo BI B2 B, B, Bs Bo S.E.
10 0.096 0.22 0.015
20 0176 0.71 0.023
30 0225 138 0.023 -029 0.030
1.26 0121
0.043 -059
-0.242 -0.95
60 1.163 0.96 0.101 -0177 -0.88 0.049
70 0.916 053 0.069 -0.65 0.. 047
80 0844 0.55 0.082 -0.54 0.046
90 0.889 - 0.138 -0.66 0051
100 0.799 0.155 -055 0.. 050
110 0.797 0.151 -0.55 0049
120 0.996 0.184 -0.212 -0.66 0.34 0.047
130 1.014 0191 -0280 -0.69 0.44 0.051
140 0.784 0.166 -0.209 -0.53 0.38 0.060
150 0.536 0.. 176 -0.029 -0163 0.27 0.055
0.251 0.106 -0.022 0036 ,
0.022 ;1
170 0.125 0.046 -0.012
Mean S.E. 0.044 .,,


3.3 Wind 81

Table 3.5: Yaw induced wind moment para.meters (Isherwood 1972).

IR (deg) Co Cl C2 C3 C.. . C, S.B.

10 0.0596 0061 -0074 00048
20 0.1106 0204 -0170 0.0074
30 0.2258 0245 -0380 Oal05
40 0.2017 0457 00067 -0472 0.0137
50 0.1759 0573 0.0118 -0523 0.0149
60 0.1925 0480 0.0115 -0546 0.0133
70 0.2133 0315 00081 -0526 O.Ol25
80 0.1827 0254 00053 -0443 00123
90 0.2627 -0508 0.0141
100 0.2102 -0.0195 0.0335 -0492 00146
110 0.1567 -0.0258 0.0497 -0457 00163
120 0.0801 -0.0311 0.0740 -0396 0.0179
130 -O..Ol89 -0.0488 00101 0.1128 -0420 00166
140 0.0256 -0.0422 0.0100 0.0889 -0463 00162
150 0.0552 -0.0381 0.0109 00689 -0476 0.0141
160 0.0881 -00306 00091 0.0366 -0415 0.0105
170 0.0851 -0.0122 0.0025 -0.220 0.0057
Mean S.E. 0.0127

Wind Resistance of Very Large Crude Carriers (OCIMF 1977).

Wind loads on very large crude carriers (VLCCs), that is vessels in the 150000
to 500 000 (dwt) class, can be cociputed by applying the following approach.

X wind - CXw(''/R) ;~
vi AT (N) (3 . 95)

Ywind - CYwC"!R) ;~ vi A L (N) (3.96)

N wind - CNwC"!R) ;~ vi ALL (Nm) (3.97)

Here the non-dimensional force and moment coefficients C Xw , CYw and C Nw aTe
given as a function of iR in Figures 3.9-3.1L Pa is the density of air in kg/m 3 ,
see Appendb: F, while 7.6 is a conversion factor. For ships that are not too
asymmetrical with respect to the xz- and yz-planes, we can approximate:

CXwC"!R) ~ Cxw COSC"!R) (3.98)

CYwC"!R) ~ CYw sinC"!R) (3.99)
CNwC"!R) ~ CNw sin(2iR) (3.100)
Figures 3.9-3.11 indicate that CXw E {-La, -0.8}, CYw E {-ID, -07} and
CNw E {-0.. 2, -0.05}. However, the figures also indicate that these approxima-
tions should be used with care.
82 Envir onme ntal Distu rbanc es

O.B~-~-~-~~-~- ....-~- -~- ~"-
.... : --
; ....

O.B .
. ,
:"'l' ...

, "."

0.. 2



-0.6 "
ted tanker. ,

FuIIy loaded t~nkel
e_--' _ _~_..L ..._~ _-'
o M ~ W 00 100 lM 1~ lW 100
'Yr (deg)

Figur e 3.9: Longitudinal wind force coefficient Cxw as a functio

n of relative wind
angle of attack 7R (OCIM F 1977).

-0.1 'i. , ..
-02 ~.
.\\ ." .. ' : ~
. .. ; ~

'\ ;Fully.; load~.: d tanke r ,/
\ ;
-0.4 ..\ : ' "~" ';'" .~ . ": I
~ . I
: \
: I
-0.5 .: .\. .:.E •

~ " \ : , /j.
. ,,: '"1"''-;'''

,. ,.;-, ~"f' : "':":': r':':''':':'~'~

• I •
: "

-o..B i'" ". i";'

/, (deg)

Figur e 3.10: Latera l wind force coefficient Cyw as a functio n of

relative wind angle
of attack 7R (OCIM F 1977).
3.3 Wind 83

. , '.

015 . . . .
Fully lbadecl tan~er
.. ..~

0.1 'r"-'-'~""T'

,: ~' :


BaUasted tanker

o 20 40 ~ 80 100 lW 140 lW 180

" (deg)

Figure 3.11: Wind yaw moment coefficient GN", as a function of relative wind angle
of attack "YR (OCIMF 1977).

The following example adopted from OCIMF (1977) illustrates how the wind
forces and moment on a 280 000 (~wt) tanker with cylindrical bow configuration
can be computed. '

Example 3.2 (Wind Load Calculations for a 280000 dwt Tanker)

Consider a tanker in fully loaded condition with:

£=325 (m)

From Figures 3.9-3.11 for a wind angle of 30 (deg) we obtain:

CXw = -0.73; Cy ", = -0.31;

Assume that the wind speed at a 20 (m) elevation is V",(20) = 66 (knots). Hence,
we can compute (see Equation (3.84)):

V",(10) = Vw (20)(10/20)1/7 = 60 (knots)

which according to Formulas (3.95)-(3.97) with VR = V",(lO) results in.

../Ywind - -073· (1224/76) .60 2 .1130'" -478 (kN)

Ywind - -031· (1224/7.6) , 60 2 .3160'" -568 (kN)
Nwind - 0032· (1223/7.6) .60 2 .3160 . 325", 19054 (kNm)

84 Environmental Disturbances

Here the density of air is taken to be Pw = 1.224 (kg/m 3 ) corresponding to 20°

(e), see Appendix F. If the ship's heading is changed, the above calculations must
be repeated for the new incident wind angle "(R.
Another usefUl reference discussing wind resistance on large tankers in the 100 000
to 500 000 (dwt) class is Van Berlekom, Triigardh and Dellhag (1974). For
medium sized ships of the order 600 to 50 000 (dwt) it is advised to consult
Wagner (1967). Finally, an excellent reference for moored ships is De Kat and
Wichers (1991).

3.4 Ocean Currents

Currents in the upper layers of the ocean are mainly generated by the atmospheric
wind system over the sea surface; see pp. 3S-44 of 10th ISSC (19SS). Besides
wind-genemted currents, the heat exchange at the sea surface together with the
salinity changes develop an additional sea current component, usually referred to
as thermohaline currents. This process also explains why varying water types are
observed in different climatic regions. The oceans are conveniently divided into
two water spheres, the cold and warm water sphere, which again are separated by
the So C isotherm.. Since the earth is rotating, the Coriolis force will try to turn
the major currents to the right in the northern hemisphere and opposite in the
southern hemisphere. Finally, the major I
ocean circulations will also have a tidal
component arising from planetary interactions like gravity. In coastal regions
and fjords tidal components can obtain very high speeds, in fact speeds of 2 to 3
m/s or more can be measured. A world map showing most major ocean surface
currents is found in Defant (1961).

3.4.1 Current Velocity

The 10th ISSC (19SS) proposed that one write the surface current velocity Vc as
a sum of the following velocity components:


Vi = tidal component
Viw = component generated by local wind..
If, = component ge!1erated by nonlinear waves (Stokes drift).
Vm = component from major ocean circulation (e.g. Gulf Stream)
V3et-up = component due to set-up phenomena and storm surges .
Vd = local density driven current components governed by strong density
jumps in the upper ocean.
3.4 Ocean Currents 85

Tidal Component
Let the vertical component z (m) be measured positive downwards.. Hence, the
velocity profile of the tidal component can be written: '

V,(O) for 0::; z ::; d - 10

V, ()
z = { V,(O) 10glO 1 + d-io (9' ) for d - 10 < z < d

Here V,(O) (m/s) is the surface speed of the tidal and d > 10 (m) is the water

Component Generated by Nonlinear Waves (Stokes Drift)

As mentioned in Section 32, 2nd-order wave disturbances or so-called wave drift
forces can be treated as an additional current component. The contribution to
the surface drift (Stokes theory) resulting from the irrotational properties of the
waves is written:

N N 4 7f2 A~
l;.(z) = I: ki Wi A~ exp(-2 ki z) = I: )" ' exp( -4 7f z/ A;) (3.103)
i=l i=l 1;, 1

The derivation of this expression is found in Sarpkaya (1981),

Component Generated by Local Wind

The component generated by the local wind is written:

v,w(z) = { V,w(O) d~~z for 0::; z ::; do (3,104)

o for do < z
Here do is the reference depth for the wind-generated current usually taken to be
50 (m), Collar (1986) has shown that V,w(O) can be approximated as:

V,w(O) = 002 VlO (3.105)

where VlO (m/s) is the wind velocity measured 10 (m) above sea level.

3.4.2 Current-Induced Forces and Moments

This section shows that the current-induced forces and moments can be included
in the dynamic equations of motion by two methods, Both methods are based on
the assumption that the equations of motion can be represented in terms of the
relative velocity:

where Vc = tuc, Vc> Wc> 0, 0, Or is a vector of irrotational body-fixed current veloc-

86 Environmental Disturbances

Method 1:
Section 2.L I has already shown that the earth-fixed linear velocity could be
transformed to body-fixed linear velocities by applying the principal rotation
matrices. Let the ear th-fixed current velocity vector be denoted by [u~, v~, w~].
Hence, we can compute the body-fixed components as:



c1{;cll -s1{;cq, + c1psllsq, s1{;sq, + c1{;cq,sll ]

J 1 ( r/J, e, 1{;) = s1{;clI C1PCq, + Sq,SIlS1P -C1pSq, + SIIS1PCq, (3.108)
[ -sll clIs,p cllcq,

Let us assume that body-fixed CUIrent velocity is constant or at least slowly-

varying such that the following holds:

Hence, the nonlinear relative equations of motion (3.11) take the form:

IM v + C(v T) V r + D(v,) V T + 9('1]) = T I (3.110)

\iJ = J(1]) vi (3.111)

Notice that this model representation is based on the state variables (v, vc, 1])
with v,. = v - Vc

Method 2:
An alternative representation of the nonlinear equations of motion is obtained by
defining (v r , v~, 1]) as the state variables. Moreover, from (3.11) we have that:

IM v + C(v,)
T V T + D(v r) v, + 9(1]) = T I (3.112)
Furthermore, we can write:

i] = J(1]) v = J(1]) (v r + vc) (3.113)

We recall that:

where v~ = [u~,v~,w~,O,O,ojT Hence,
3.4 Ocean Currents 87

(3.. 115)

Next, the kinematic equations can be modified to include the new state variable
1/, and a vector I/~ describing the earth-fixed current velocity, that is:


Three-Dimensional Current Model (Submerged Body)

If the vertical velocity profile Vz (z) is lmown, the average current velocity Vc over
the draft of the vehicle can be computed as:

Vc = -1 foT Vz(z) dz (3.117)

where T is the hull draft. The earth-fixed fluid velocity components (u~, v!;, w~)
can be related to Vc by defining two angles Cl< (angle of attack) and f3 (sideslip
angle) describing the orientation of Vc about the y- and z-axis, respectively (see
Figure 3.12).

Figure 3.12: Orientation of average current velocity with earth-fixed X, Y, and Z


Using the results from Section 2.1.1, we can write:

[ :~ ] = Cy,a Cz,-~ [~ ] (3 . 118)

where Ci,j is the transformation matrix defined in (2.8) and Vc is the average
current velocity in the earth-fixed reference frame. Expanding this expression

Uc - Vc cos Cl< cos f3 (3 . 119)
Vc - Vc sin f3 (3.. 120)
c - Vc sin Cl< cos f3 (3.121)
88 Environmental Disturbances

Two-Dimensional Current Model (Sur'face Vessel)

For the 2-D case, the earth-fixed cunent components can be described by two
parameters only, that is average current speed Vc and direction of cunent 13.
Consequently, the above 3-D expressions reduce to:

- Vc cos 13 (3.122)
Vc sinfJ (3123)

Since we ale considering the horizontal motion of the vehicle, we can assume that
both if; and e are zero which implies that (u c, vc) can be computed flom (3.107)

[ ~: ] = [ - ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ] [ ~~ ] (3.124)

Substituting the expressions for u;; and v;; into (3.124) finally yields 3

Uc Vc cos(fJ - 1ft) (3.125)

Vc - Vc sin(fJ - 1ft) (3.126)


Figure 3.13: Definition of average velocity Vc and direction f3 of the CUlTent for a
surface vesseL

'Here we have used the trigonometric formulas: (1) costa - b) =cosacosb+ sinasinb and
(2) sin(a - b) = sinacosb - cosasin b.
3.4 Ocean Currents 89

Generation of Ocean Currents

For computer simulations the average CUIIent velocity can be generated by using
a 1st-order Gauss-Markov Process For instance Ve(t) can be described by the
following differential equation:

V;,(t) + Ito v;,(t) = wet) (3.127)

where wet) is a zero mean Gaussian white noise sequence and Ito ~ 0 is a constant.
In many cases it is sufficient to choose Ito = 0 which simply corresponds to a
random walk, that is time integration of white noise. For details on Gaussian
processes see Gelb, Kasper, Jr., Nash, Jr, Price and Sutherland, JL (1988).
This process must be limited such that Vmin :s; Ve(t) :s; Vma:< in order to simu-
late realistic ocean currents. The following algorithm utilizing Euler integration
and a simple limiter can be used for this purpose:

Algorithm 3.2 (Current Generator)

1. Initial value: vetO) = 0 5 (Vma:< + Vmin).
2. Euler Integration with sampling time h (see Appendix B.2):

3. Limiter: if (Ve(k + 1) > Vma.,) aT (Ve(k + 1) < Vmin) then

4. k = k + 1, return to step 2

Similar algorithms for aCt) and (3(t) can be used to simulate time-varying direc-
tions. We will now show how current disturbances and 1st-order wave distur-
bances can be included in the ship steering equations of motion.

Example 3.3 (Augmented Model for Ship Steering)

The linear sway-yaw dynamics of a ship with single screw propeller can be written
in terms of (see Section 5.3.1):

0] [
VL -
v, ]
b ]
b2 lJ (3 . 128)
1 0 1/JL 0
where VL is the sway velocity, rL is the yaw rate, lPL is the heading angle, lJ is
the rudder angle and V e is a parameter representing slowly-varying currents (see
Equation 3.126). The subscript L is used to denote the low-frequency motion
components. The high-frequency oscillatoric motion 7/JH of the waves can then be

90 Environmental Disturbances

added to the model by simply augmenting (3.128) to the linear wave model (356)
and (3.57), which yields:

VL all a12 0 -all sin(,IJ -,pL -,pH) 0 0 VL

h a" a22 0 -a21 sin(,IJ -,pr -,pH) 0 0 TL
,pL =
0 1 0 0 0 0 ,pL
V, 0 0 0 -1'0 0 0 V,
,pH 0 0 0 0 -w; -2(w, 1j; f!
. {H 0 0 0 0 1 0 {f!

b, 0 0 Ywind
b, 0 0 Nwind

0 0 0 0
+ 0
6+ 1 0 [ ]+ 0
(3 129)
0 0 Kw 0
0 0 0 0

where Wl and W2 are zero mean Gaussian white noise pr'ocesses and Y wind and
N wind are two additional terms used to describe the wind force and moment in
sway and yaw. For' this system the compass measurement equation is written:
, I
where v is zero mean Gaussian white noise process This particular way of mod-
eling the ship-wave interactions is attractive for' control systems design and state

3.5 Conclusions
In this chapter, we have discussed simple models for wave, wind and current-
induced forces and moments in terms of the 6 DOF marine vehicle equations
of motion. This is done by applying spectral formulations of wind and waves I'

whereas currents are modelled as random walks.

The models discussed in this chapter are mainly intended for simulation and
design of model-based control systems . Consequently, accurate prediction of ma-
rine vehicles in the presence of wind, waves and currents require more advanced
modeling techniques.. A more detailed discussion on regular and irregular Airy
(linear) wave theory can be found in Newman (1977) and Faltinsen (1990) while
a detailed discussion on 2nd- and 5th-order Stokes theory is given by Sarpkaya
(1981). In addition to this, it is recommended that one consults Ochi and Bales
(1977) for a comparison and discussion of different wave spectra.
Some standard references on wave, wind and current models with application
to ship control are Zuidweg (1970), Kallstrom (1979), Jenssen (1980) and Blanke
(1981); De Kat and Wichers (1991) and references therein is an excellent reference
for moored ships.
3.6 Exercises 91

3.6 Exercises
3.1 Plot the wave frequency w as a function of depth d for a wave with wave length
A = 100 m. Show that if the ratio d/ >. is large enough, w win approach -Ikii, where 9
is the acceleration of gravity. This result should also be verified theoretically.

3.2 Show that:


is the modal frequency for the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum Find an analytical ex-
pression for the peak frequency of the JONSWAP and the modified Pierson-Moskowitz
(MPM) spectrum.

3.3 Plot the spectral density function for the Harris spectrum together with a linear
approximation of the same spectrum in a dB-Iog10(w) diagram for Vw (10) E {ID (knots),
20 (knots), 50 (knots) }. Is the linear approximation valid for the whole frequency

3.4 Compare the spectral formulations for the Harris, Davenport and, Ochi and Shin
spectra by plotting Sew) versus w in a dB-Iog lO (w) diagram. Comment on the results

3.5 Plot the frequency of encounter as a function of negative and positive speeds U
with fJ = 0 and wo = 06 (rad/s). Repeat the computation with U = 1 (m/s) and
fJ E [00 3600). Comment on the results.
Chapter 4
Stability and Control of
Underwater Vehicles

Conventional autopilot design based on linear theory starts with the assump-
tion that the 6 DOF underwater vehicle equations of motion can be described as
a linear model linearized around a point of equilibrium. This may be a rough
approximation for many control applications Indeed, underwater vehicles per-
forming coupled maneuvers at some speed are known to be highly nonlinear in
their dynamics and kinematics" In such cases autopilots based on linear control
theory can yield poor performance_
It is a common assumption that linear control design is much simpler than its
nonlinear counterpart" However, exploiting the structure of the nonlinear equa-
tions of motion often yields a relatively simple and intuitive nonlinear autopilot
design" This will clearly be shown in this chapter which emphasizes the following

e Remotely oper ated vehicle (ROV) equations of motion

e Stability of underwater vehicles

e Conventional and nonlinear autopilot design of PID-type

e Linear quadratic optimal autopilot design

.. Decoupled autopilot design

.. Sliding mode control

e Feedback linearization

e Nonlinear tracking

o Adaptive autopilot design

This involves the design of automatic speed control systems, systems for dynamic
positioning and tracking, as well as autopilot systems for automatic steering and
depth controL

---------------------- 1
94 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

4.1 ROV Equations of Motion

This section discusses different representations of the linear and nonlinear ROV
equations of motion.

4.1.1 Thruster Model

Bilinear Thruster Model
In the general case, the thruster force and moment vector will be a complicated
function depending on the vehicle's velocity vector v E JR6 and the control vari-
able n E JRP (p;::: 6). This relationship can be expressed as:


where b(·) is a nonlinear vector function. A 1st-order approximation of the devel-

oped thrust T and torque Q for a single-screw propeller can be derived from lift
force calculations (see Blanke 1981). Let n denote the propeller revolution, D the
propeller diameter, p the water density and Va the advance speed at the propeller
(speed of the water going into the propeller). Hence the following expressions for
the propeller thrust can be established:


where J o = Va/(nD) is the advance number and KT is the thrust coefficient; see
Section 62.1 for details. In the general case KT will be a four quadrant nonlinear
function as shown in Figure 4.1.


n>O n>O
Va <0 Va > 0

n<O n<O "
v;. > 0 v.< 0


Figure 4.1: Four quadrant positive KT curve as a function of Jo For positive values .,
of Jo experiments verify that KT is approximately linear in Jo while the results for
negative Jo-values often show a nonlinear behavior; see Van Lammem et aL (1969) and
Fossen (1991), pp 45-47.
4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 95

In the general case the forward and bac.kward thrusts will be non-symmetricaL
However, many ROV thruster systems are designed to give symmetrical thrust.
Furthermore, KT usually shows linear behavior in J o such that the following
approximation holds:

KT = 0<1 +0<2;; (43)

where 0<1 and 0<2 are two constants given by the curves shown in Figure 4.L This
implies that the thruster force (4.. 2) can be written:

T(n, Va) = 71nln Inln + TlnlV.lnl Va (4.4)

where 71nln > 0 and 71nlV. < 0 By using a similar approach it can be shown that
the thruster torque can be written:

Here Qlnln > 0 and QlnlV. < 0 are design parameters depending on propeller
diameter, shape of the duct, water density etc

Figure 4.2: Schematic drawing of propeiler.

The above coefficients will also depend on nand Va since (44) and (4,5) are only
first-order approximations to a more general expression. However, experiments
have shown that this dependency can be neglected for most practical conditions
of operation, The advance speed Va is related through the speed of the vehicle V
according to (see Figure 4,2):

Va = (1- w) V (4.6)
where w is the wake fraction number (typically: 0.1-04), Using the result, (44)
implies that the propeller force developed by a single propeller can be described
by the nonlinear function:

96 Stabi lity and Cont rol of Unde rwate r Vehic les

v<o v=O v>o

---- n

v<o v=o v>o

n and speed of the

Figur e 4.3: Propel ler force r as a functio n of propel ler revolu tion
vehicle v.

where bl = 1]nln > 0, b2 = -1]nl V.(l- w) > °and v = V. An extension to the

multiv ariabl e case could be to write:

Ir=B l u-B 2 (u)v! (4.8)

and u E lR P is
where B l and B 2 (u) are two matrices of appro priate dimensions
a new contro l variable defined as:

Ui = Inil ni (i = L.p) (4,,9) ,i

Section 6 2.1.
A simila r discussion on propeller forces can be made for ships, see 1

Affine Thrus ter Mode l

ed by an
In many practi cal applications the bilinear mcidel can be appro ximat
ce, we can
affine model , that is a system which is linear in its input, For instan
appro ximat e (4.8) as:

by letting B = B I and:
Ir=B ul (410) I
Moreover, this
Notice that for zero velocity, that is v = 0, this will always be true,
j-th prope ller
implies that the propeller force in the i-th DOF developed by the
can be descri bed by:

ri = B ij Uj; B ij = Tjnjn (4.12)

the theory
In the rest of this chapter, we will mainl y consider affine systems since
an active area
of non-affine control systems is quite limite d. In fact, this is still

4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 97

of research However, regulation of non-affine systems will be discussed briefly in

Section 4,3.3,

Actuator Dynamics
Most thruster systems are driven by small DC motors designed for underwater
operating conditions The dynamic model of a speed-controlled DC motor can
be written:

L adia
dt -
- 'a i a 2rr
NI n + Ua (4.13)
2rrJm dt - KM i a - Q(n, Va ) (4.14)

where Da is the armature inductance, Ra is the armature resistance, U a is the

armature voltage, KM is the motor torque constant, Jm is the moment of inertia
of motor and thruster, n is the velocity of the motor in revolutions per second
and Q(n, Va) is the load from the propeller defined in (4,5).

,j Q (Nm)
,~. ~prDpeJrer- - - -- - - --
,~ : ~-L~..,

1 Ua (voltage): n (rps)


Figure 4.4: Propeller transfer functions

Due to physical limitations of the DC motor, hard nonlinearities like actuator

saturation, Coulomb friction, dead-zones and hysteresis should also be included in
the complete model. Neglecting these effects, implies that we can apply Laplace's
transformation to (4.13) and (4.14). Moreover,

n(s) = h".(s) ua(s) - hQ(s) Q(s) (4.15)

where s is the Laplace variable and:

Kr K 2 (1 + T 3 s)
h".(s) = (1 + T rs)(l + T2 s); hQ(s) = (l + T rs)(l + T2 s) (4.16)
Here K i (i = 1,2) are two gain constants and Ti (i = 1,2,3) are three time
constants depending on the parameters in (4.13) and (4.14)
98 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Optimal Distribution of Propulsion and Control Forces

For underwater vehicles where the control matrix B is non-square and P 2: n,
that is there are equal or more control inputs than controllable DOF, it is possible
to find an "optimal" distribution of control energy, for each DOF (Fossen and
Sagatun 1991a), Consider the quadratic energy cost function:

J= ~uTWu (4,17) I
which can be minimized subject to: II
r - Bu = 0 (418)
Here W is a positive definite matrix, usually diagonal, weighting the control I
energy, For underwater vehicles which have both control surfaces and thrusters,
the elements in W should be selected such that using the control surfaces is much
more inexpensive than using the thrusters, that is providing a means of saving
battery energy" Define the Lagrangian:

L(u, A) = ~UTWU + AT(r - Bu) (419)

where A denotes the Lagrange multipliers Hence, differentiating the Lagrangian
L with respect to u yields:
8L T \
-=Wu-B A=O (4,20)
From this expression we obtain: \I
By using the fact that:

r = Bu = BW- 1BTA (4,22)

and assuming that BW- 1B T is non-singular, we find the following optimal so-
lution for the Lagrange multiplicators:
A = (BW-1BT)-lr

(4,23) ,',. :

Substituting this result into (4,21) yields the genemlized inverse: ,~,

IBt" = W- B T(BW- BT)-l I

1 1
which suggests that u can be computed as:

u = Bt" r (4,,25)
In the case when all inputs are equality weighted, that is W = I, (4,24) simplifies
4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 99

This simplified result is known as the Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse" Notice that
for the square case (p = n), Bt is simply equal to B- 1

4.1.2 Nonlinear ROV Equations of Motion

The nonlinear ROY equations of motion can be represented both in the hody-fixed
and the earth-fixed reference frames. This has already been shown in Section 25"
The body-fixed and earth-fixed vector representations are as follows:

Body-Fixed Vector Representation

IM v+ C(v) v + D(v) v +g(ry) = rl (4.27)

(4" 28)

Earth-Fixed Vector Representation

IM~(1)) ij + C~(v, 1)) r, + D~(v, 1)) r, + g~(ry) = r T

(1)) r I (4,"29)
The state vectors are v = tu, v, w, p, q, r]T and 1) = [x, y, z, if, 0, 1p]T The different
matrices and their properties are discussed more closely in Section 2 5"

4.1.3 Linear ROV Equations of Motion

The linear equations of motion are obtained by linearization of the general expres-
sions (4.27) and (4.28) about a time-varying reference trajectory or an equilibrium
point, for instance:

vo(t) - [uo(t), vo(t), wo(t),Po(t), qo(t), To(tW (4,.30)

1)o(t) - [xo(t), yo(t), zo(t), ifo(t), Oo(t), 1/Jo(tW (4",31)

6 DOF Perturbed Equations of Motion

Let the perturbations from the reference trajectory lIo(t) and ryo(t) be described
by the differentials:

.6.lI(t) = vet) - vo(t); .6.ry(t) = 1)(t) -1)o(t); M(t) = r(t) - TO(t) (4.32)

Introducing the following vector notation:

f Av) = C(v) v; (4"33)

100 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

implies that (4,27) can be linearized according to:

M b.v + 8tc(v) I
b.v + 8td(V) b.v + 8g(TJ)I b.TJ = b.T I (4,34)
8v v o 8v v 0 8TJ TJ 0
Perturbating (4.28) yields:

ryo + b.ry = J(TJo + b.TJ) [vo + b.v) (4 . 35)

Substituting ryo = J (TJo) Vo into this expression implies that:

b.ry = J(TJo + b.TJ) b.v + [J(TJo + b.7/) - J(TJo)] Vo (4 . 36)

Linear theory implies that 2nd-order terms (b.1/i b.Vj "'" 0) can be neglected,

Ib.ry = J(TJo) b.v + J*(vo, TJo) b.TJ I (4.37)

Here we have rearranged the last term in (4.36) according to:

[J(TJo + b.TJ) - J(TJo)] Vo £ J*(vo, TJo) b.TJ (4.38)

The following two special cases of (4 . 37) are particularly useful:
(1) Vo = 0 --> b.ry = J(TJo) b.v
(2) Vo = TJo = 0 --> b.ry = b.v
Linear Time-Varying ROV Equations of Motion

Defining Xl = b.v and X2 = b.TJ, yields the following linear time-varying model:

M Xl + C(t) Xl + D(t) Xl + G(t) X2 = T (4,39)

X2 = J(t) Xl + J*(t) X2 (440)


C(t) = 8 t c (v)1 G(t) = 8g(TJ) I J(t) = J(TJo(t))

8v Vo(t) 8TJ TJo(t)
D(t) = 8td(V) I r(t) = J*(vo(t), TJo(t)) (441)
8v Vo(t)

Defining X = [xi, x[]T and u = T, we obtain the following state-space model:

-M-IG(t) ] [
X2 +
[ M-I]
0 u (442)

4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 101

which can be written in abbreviated form as:

:i; = A(t) x + B(t) u (4.43)

Linear Time-Invariant ROV Equations of Motion

In many ROY applications it is reasonable to assume that the ROY is moving in
the longitudinal plane with non-zero velocity components Uo and Wo in the x- and
z-directions, respectively. Furthermore, let us assume that the steady-state linear
and angular velocity components: Vo = Po = qo = TO = 0 and that the equilibrium
point is defined by the zero roll and pitch angles, that is: ,po = eo = O. Hence,
the time-varying matrices in (4.42) simplify to the following constant matrices:

m-X. -xv -xw -Xp m=G - Xrj -mYG -Xi-

-xv m-YiJ -Yw -m=c - Yp -Yq mXG -Y"
mZa - X q
mYG - Zp
-mXa - Zq
mYG - Zp
1= - K.
-1;:;v - 1<.;
-m:tG -
-1;:;y - K4
J y - A-fq
-I;::r;: - Kf
-Iv;:. - M f
-mYG -Xf. m::z::c -Yf -Zf -1"= - K, -Iy ; - Mf I;:. - NI'
Xv Xw Xp X,
[ X. Yv Yw Yp Yq Y, ]

[ -~r2 ]
Zv Zw Zp Z, Z, C 12
D = - ~: Kv Kw Kp K, K, C=
C 22
Mu Mv Mw Mp M, M,
Nu Nv Nw Np N, N,
0 -Xwuo + (m - Zw)wo As!>vff\;l\j tho.t
XwuQ - (m - ZtiT)wo 0
[ -X{,uQ - Ywwo -(m - Xli )uo + Xwwo X"':lG-';C&~ 0

0 -(X"uo + ZfWO) + ZqWO

XqUo ]
"« "'1 (2. \02)
X,:uo +Z,:wo o -(XpuQ + Zpwo)
[ -(XqUo + Z<jwo) XpuQ + Zpwo 0

G = [~ ~ ~ (z:~~-z:~) (W fB) ~ ] (4.44)

o 0 0 0 (zOW-zBB) 0
o 0 0 -(xoW - xBB) -(VoW - YBB) 0

If we assume that ~'o = constant and ,po = eo = 0, the kinematic transformation

matrix J takes the form:

[~1 ~];
co'>!'o -sin>!,o
J = J1 = sinwo cos1/Jo 0 (4.45)
[ o 0 1

whereas J' = O. Consequently, the linear time-invariant model can be written


:i: - Ax+Bu (4.46)

102 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

where A and B are constant matrices. Notice that C will be zero if we require
that Uo = Wo = 0 in addition to Vo = o.

4.2 Stability of Underwater Vehicles

Stability of an underwater vehicle can be defined as the ability of returning to
an equilibrium state of motion after a disturbance without any corrective action,
such as use of thruster power or control surfaces. Hence, maneuverability can be
defined as the capability of the vehicle to carry out specific maneuvers. Exces-
sive stability implies that the control effort will be excessive while a marginally
stable vehicle is easy to control. Thus, a compromise between stability and ma-
neuverability must be made. Furthermore, it makes sense to distinguish between
controls-fixed and controls-free stability. The essential difference between these
terms is that:
o Controls-fixed stability implies investigating the vehicle's stability when
the control surfaces are fixed and when the thrust horn all the thrusters is
o Controls-free stability refers to the case when both the control surfaces
and the thruster power are allowed to vary. This implies that the dynamics
of the control system must also be considered in the stability analysis.
These terms will be described more closely in the next sections.

4.2.1 Open-Loop Stability


Open-loop (controls-fixed) stability analysis of marine vehicles concerns the prob-

lem of finding static stability criteria based on the hydrodynamic derivatives For
linear models this is quite simple thanks to the well known techniques of Routh
and Hurwitz. This section shows that an alternative approach based on Lya-
punov's direct method can be applied in the nonlinear case. For marine vehicles
the Lyapunov function V can be chosen to represent the system's total mechanical
energy. Consider the Lyapunov function candidate

V(1],il) = ~ ilT Mry(1]) il + f g~(z) dz (4.48)


where Mry and gry are defined in Chapter 2. Here V can be interpreted as the
sum of the kinetic and potential energy of the vehicle. Hence, zero energy corre-
sponds to the equilibrium point 1] = 0 and il = O. Instability corresponds to a
growth in mechanical energy while asymptotic stability ensures the convergence
of mechanical energy to zero. Differentiating V with respect to time (assuming
Mry = M~ > 0) yields:

11 = il T [Mry(1])ij + g,,(1])J + ~ il T Mry il (4.49)

4.2 Stability of Underwater Vehicles 103

Hence the expression for V can be rewritten as:

Applying the skew-symmetric property: iJT (!VI~ - 2C~) iJ = 0 V iJ, yields

11 = iJT [M~ij + C~(v, rJ)iJ + g,/(1J)] (451)

In controls-fixed stability analyses, the dynamics of the control inputs is neglected
Hence, we simply consider the system:

M,/(1J)ij + C~(ll, 1J)iJ + D~(v, 1J)iJ + g~(1J) = 0 (4.52)

Applying this equation to the expression for 11, finally yields:

Theorem 4.1 (Controls-Fixed Stability)

According to Lyapunov stab,i[ity theory, Appendix Cl, sufficient conditions for
controls-fixed stability are:

(1) V > 0 for all iJ, 1J E JRn whereas iJ #0 and 1J # 0. Hence:


if and only if the inertia matrix:

M>O (4.55)

Notice that J-l(1J) is defined for all1J E JRn while J(1J) is undefined for
0= ±90°

(ii) V < 0 for all v E IRn if and only if the damping matrix:

D(v) > 0 V v E IR.n (4.56)

(iii) V -> co as 1I1J1I -> co and lIiJlI -> co. This is satisfied for (4.48).

The first condition simply states that the inertia including hydrodynamic added
mass must be strictly positive. For underwater vehicles we can assume constant
added mass (independent of the wave frequency) which implies that !VI = 0 and
M = M T > O. The second condition simply states that the system must be
104 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

dissipative which is also true for an uncontrolled undisturbed ROV Moreover,

energy should not be generated by the system itself.
The uncontrolled system above is said to be autonomous since it does not
explicitly depend on time t. Hence, we can apply Lyapunov's direct method
to prove stability (see Appendix C.1.1), If tracking of a time-varying reference
trajectory is of interest, the new dynamics associated with the tracking error will
be non-autonomous. By non-autonomous we mean a system with state equation:

:i: = j(x, t) (4.57)

where the nonlinear function j(x, t) explicitly depends on time. In order to prove
convergence or stability of this system non-autonomous theory must be applied.

4.2.2 Closed-Loop Tracking Control

In this section, it will be shown how Barbiilat's lemma can be used to derive a
non-autonomous tracking control law" The design methodology is best illustrated
by considering a simple example.

Example 4.1 (Velocity Tracking Control)

Assume that we want to contml the vehicle's linear and angular velocities. Let
the error dynamics be denoted by v(t) = v(t) - Vd(t) where Vd(t) is the desired
state vector. For' marine vehicles as well as mechanical systems in general, we
can define a Lyapunov function candidate,;

V(V,t)=~VTMV (4,58)
which can be interpreted as the ''pseudo-kinetic'' energy of the vehicle. Differen-
tiating V with respect to time (assuming M = M T and M = 0) yields:

V= vT MD (4.59)
Substituting (4.27) into the expression for V yields:

V= vT[r - MVd - C(V)Vd - D(V)Vd - g(1])] - vTD(v)v (4.60)

Here we have used the skew-symmetric p1'Operty: vTC(v)v =0 'if v E]Rn This
suggests that the control law could be be selected as! ,:

where K d is a positive r'egulator gain matTix of appmpriate dimension, Hence:'

type of control action is usually referred to as the Slotine and Li algorithm in robotics
(Slotine and Li 1987). However, in this case the special structure of the underwater vehicle
dynamics is exploited in the design.
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 105

Notice that V ::; 0 implies that Vet) ::; V(O) V t ::::: 0, and therefore that v i.s
bounded. This in-turn implies that if is bounded. Hence, If must be uniformly
continuous Finally, application of Barbalat's lemma (see Appendix Cl) shows
that V ..... 0 which implies that v ..... 0 as t ..... (Xl

4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design

This section starts with a brief review of PID-control design before we discuss
extensions to nonlinear control theory.

4.3.1 Joy-Stick Control Systems Design

It is common to classify control systems into two fUndamental types, open-loop
and closed-loop (feedback) control systems. Figure 45 shows an open-loop ROY
autopilot system where the commanded feedforward force and moment vector
re is generated by the RaY piloL The output from the joy-stick system u is
computed by applying the generalized inverse Btv of the input matrix. Open-
loop systems work satisfactory if the environmental disturbances are not too large
and if the numerical expression for B is known with sufficient accuracy.
Improved robustness and performance in the presence of environmental dis-
turbances can be obtained by applying a closed-loop control system of PID-type
(proportional, derivative and integral) instead, see Figure 45 In this case, the
pilot joy-stick is used to generate the commanded position and attitude 'TIc (or
alternatively linear and angular velocity). Closed-loop control requires that sen,
sor/navigation data are available for feedback.
In Figure 4.5 a reference pre-filter is included to smooth out the commanded
input. This is done to avoicl saturation in the actuator as a result of large tracking
errors caused by steps in the commanded input. For a second-order system, the
reference pre-filter is usually chosen as:


where TJd E JR6 is the desired output from the pre-filter, 'TIc E JR6 is the com-
manded input, A = diag{ (I> .,., (6} is the desired damping ratios and n =
diag{wr, ... , W6} is the desired natural frequencies. The design of the PID-control
law for tracking of the desired state 'TId is the topic for the next section.

4.3.2 Multivariable PID-Control Design for Nonlinear Systems

Most existing RaY-systems use a series of single-input single-output (SISO) con-

trollers of PID-type where each controller is designed for the control of one DOF.
This implies that the control matrices K p , K d and K i in the PID-controllaw:

106 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles


pilot ~

; feedforward
;: ROY d .
g(.) , t;
!; ..


lSQ~lr9.1.§1~l~W ji 1.~~~~~: " ;l~2~.~]!!.~!!1.~~i5:~.

AOpen·loop (feedforward) force/moment control

environmental sensor
disturbances noise


BClosed·loop (feedback) position/attitude control

Figure 4.5: Open-loop and closed-loop ROV control systems design. r.


T PID = K p e(t) + K d e(t) + K i t e(-r) d-r (4.64)

should be chosen positive and diagonaL Here e = TJd - TJ is the tracking error.. .'

However, most ROV systems for offshore applications use only simple P- and
PI-controllers for automatic heading and depth control since it is difficult to
measure (estimate) the velocity vector v. A standard PID-control design can be
improved by using the vehicle kinematics together with gravity compensation..
Moreover, we will show that perfect set-point regulation can be achieved in terms '~
of Lyapunov stability theory if TpID is transformed according to:

In addition, we will assume that the control input vector is related to the thruster
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 107

forces and moments according to (4.l0)c Hence, the inverse mapping:

u = Btv T (4.66)
where Btv is the generalized inverse (see Section 4.Ll), can be used to calculate
the desired controls u
In the next section we will also show that excellent performance can be ob-
tained for the whole flight envelope by including the vehicle kinematics and restor-
ing forces in the PID-control designc Moreover, it is not necessary to perform a
gain-scheduling technique to counteract the time-varying behavior of the dynam-
ics and kinematicsc However, precautions against saturation and integral wind-up
should be made. This is illustrated in Figure 4c6 where the PID-controllaw of the
EAVE-EAST vehicle at the University of New-Hampshire is shown. This design
is performed under the assumptions (without loss of generality) 'TJd = constant,
J('TJ) = I and g('TJ) = o.

Vehicle 11

"::' Reset function

Figure 4.6: The EAVE-EAST Proportional Integral Derivative Controller (Venkat-

achalam et al. 1985)

4.3.3 PID Set-Point Regulation in Terms of Lyapunov Stability

In this section, we will investigate the closed-loop dynamics of the control law
(464) and (4.65) under the assumption that the desired state vector:

'TJd = constant (4.67)

This control problem will be referred to as regulation as the opposite of tracking
control which involves the design of a feedback and feedforward controller for
tracking of a time-varying smooth reference trajectory 'TJAt). Consider an affine
108 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

M v + C(v) v + D(v) v + 9(17) = B 'U (4.68)

where 17 E JR n, V E JRn and 'U E JRT Let us assume that the input matrix Band
gravitational forces 9(17) are known whereas M', C and D are unknown. Hence,
the following considerations may be done:

PD-Control of Nonlinear Square System (r = n)

Assume that B is invertible and let the control law be chosen as a PD-controllaw
where the term g( 17) is included to compensate for gravity and buoyancy, that is:

'u = B-
[J 7 (17) K p e - K dv + 9(17)] I (4 . 69)

Notice that (4 . 64) and (4.65) are equivalent to (4.69) if K d = JTKdJ > 0 and
K i = O. This control law is motivated from time differentiation of a Lyapunov
function candidate:

which yields

11 = v 7 [Mv - J7(17) K p e] (4 . 71)

Here we have used the fact that e= -7] = -J(17) v. Substituting (4.68) into
this expression for 11, yields:

11 = v 7 [B u - D(v) v - 9(17) - JI(17) K e] p (472)

Notice that vI C(v) v = 0 for all v E JRn . From this it is seen that the proposed
PD-controllaw with appropriate cboices of K p = K~ > 0 and K d > 0 ensures

This means that the power is dissipated passively by the damping matrix D and
actively by the virtual damping matrix K d We now only have to cbeck that the
system cannot get "stuck" at 11 equal to zero, whenever e # 0 . From (4.. 73) we
see that 11 = 0 implies that v = O. Hence, (4.68) with (4.69) yields: '/

Consequently v will be non~zero if e # 0 and 11 = 0 only if e = O. Therefore the
system cannot get "stuck" and the system state vector 17 will always converge to
17d in view of V --t O.
This result was first proven by Tagegaki and Arimoto (1981) who applied the
result to robot manipulator controL However, nonlinear control of underwater
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 109

vehicles in terms of Euler angle feedback was first discussed by Fossen and Sagatun
(1991b)0 Later this work has been extended to quaternion feedback regulation in
terms of vector quatemion, Euler rotation and Rodrigues parameter feedback by
Fjellstad and Fossen (1994b)0

PID-Control of Nonlinear Square System (r = n)

Arimoto and Miyazaki (1984) have shown that the results above can be general-
ized to include integral action, Let:


denote the generalized momentum of the vehicle, Hence, it can be shown by time
differentiation of a Lyapunov function candidate:

1 T
~ a
pK i X (4,76)
2 [ 0 K aK
i i

where a is small positive constant and

x = rp, 17, l err) drf (4,77)

that V .:; 0 and that 17 converges to 17d = constant. This is based on the assump-
tion that the PID-control law is taken to be:


where K p, K i and K d are matrices satisfying:

K d > M~ (4079)
K i > 0 (4.80)
Kp > Kd+-K i (4.81)
where a is a small positive constant chosen so small that:

1 a 6 81\!I~
-(1- a)K d - aM ~ + - 2::;(T)i - T)id)-- >0 (40.82)
2 2 i=1 8T)i

It should be noted that this solution only guarantees local stability in a limited
region about the origin, For details on the proof see Arimoto and Miyazaki (1984).
110 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Overdetermined System (r > n)

If we have more control inputs than states to be controlled, we showed that B- 1
could be replaced by the generalized inverse Btv defined in Section 4 1.1. Hence,
it is straightforward to show that the above results are valid for the non-square
case T > n,

Non-Affine Systems (r > n)

For the regulation problem it is straightforward to extend the above results to
non-affine systems where the control input is given by (see (4.8)):

r=B l u-B 2 (u)v (4,83)

In fact the nonlinear control law:

tu = Bt [J (7]) K
p e - v
K'd + 9(7])] I (4.84)

applied to (4.68) implies that V can be written:

(4.. 85)
where K'd > 0 must be chosen such that this e..xpression becomes negative. Notice
that the additional coupling term B 2 ( u)v only contributes to the system damping
if B 2 (u) > O. If B 2 (u) < 0 we must choose K'd > -B 2 (u) to ensure stability

Perfect Collocation (r = m)
In some cases, we can design an output feedback control law that overcomes the
problem that all states must be measured. This design is based on the assumption
that the number of inputs u E lH" are equal to the number of measured outputs
yE lR m . To do this, we will apply passivity theory; see Appendix C.3 for details.
This suggest that the plant and control system can be described by two blod<s
according to Figure 4.7.

0 u y
- (passive)

control law ---.,.


Figur'e 4.7: Passive and strictly passive block

For simplicity, we will assume that the ROV can represented by a linear model !
which is quite realistic if only positioning is of concern The model is:
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 111

Mil+Nv+GT/=Bu (486)

T/=V (4.87)
Here the inertia matrix M, Coriolis, centripetal and damping matrix N = G +D,
gravitational matrix G and input matrix B are assumed to be constant (the earth-
fixed coordinate system is orientated such that J(T/) = I whenever the ROV is
perfectly positioned). Hence, we can write the above system in state-space form

x= A x +B u (4.. 88)
where x = [v T , T/TJT and A and B are given in (4.47). Consider the Lyapunov
function candidate:
V = 2" x T P x (4 . 89)

with P = pT > O. Hence

v = ~xT(ATp+ PA)x + xTpBu (4.90)

Let us assume that the sensors and actuators can be located such that:

y=Gx (4.91)
where G is a constant lmown matrix defined by:

and P satisfies the Lyapunov equation:


with Q = QT 2: o. Hence:
. 1
V=yTu--xTQX (4 . 94)
This is referred to as perfect collocation between the sensors and actuators This
result is also known as the Kalman- Yakubovich lemma (see Appendix C.3) which
is used to check if a system is positive real. For linear causal systems positive
realness is equivalent with passivity.
We now turn ou~ attention to the last block representing the output feedback
control law. According to Appendix 0.3 a system is strictly passive if and only
if there exists a scalar Cl< > 0 and some constant f3 such that:

112 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

For a linear output feedback control law:

where H(s) = diag{hi(sn (i = L.T) to be strictly passive the transfer functions
hi ( s) must satisfy:

Re{hi(s - un ~ 0 'r/ w~ 0 (4.97)

for some u > 0 and:

Lhi(jW) < 90° 'r/ w ~ 0 (4.98)

This is satisfied, for instance, if hi(s) is chosen as a PID-controllaw with limited
derivative and integral action, that is:

h(s)-K f3 I+Ti s I+Td s (4.99)

, - 1 + f3 Tis 1 + Cl< Tds

Here K p > 0, T i > Td, Cl< < 1 and f3 > 1. Finally, Definition G8 ensures
that y E LT. It should be noted that it is straightforward to generalize these
results to a nonlinear ROV model by using the general framework of passivity.
A related work on collocation is found in S!ilrensen (1993) who has applied this
design methodology to control high-speed surface effect ships (see Section 7.1).

4.3.4 Linear Quadratic Optimal Control

Linear quadratic (LQ) optimal control design is based on minimization of a linear
quadratic performance index representing the control objective. Consider the
linear state-space model:

:i:: - Ax+Bu+Ew (4.100)

y - ex (4101)

where x is the state vector, u is the input vector, w is the disturbance vector
and y is used to describe the control objective. Let J be a performance index
weighting the tracking error vector against the control power, that is:

min J= ~ (T(fJTQfJ + uTpu) dr (4102)

2 la
Here P > 0 and Q 2: 0 are the weighting matrices and fJ = y - Y d is the tracking
error vector. The commanded input vector is denoted Yd' An approximate opti-
mal solution to the tracking problem (4.102) for 0 « T < <Xl is given in Athans
and Falb (1966) as:


4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 113

x x y
B c

Figure 4.8: Linear Quadratic Optimal Autopilot

A block diagram of the control system is shown in Figure 48 Under the assump-
tion that Yd = constant and w = constant, the following steady-state solution is
obtained; see Appendix D for details:

G1 _ _p-l B T R
oo (4.104)
G2 - -P-1BT(A+BG1)-TCTQ (4.105)
G3 - P-lBT(A+BGltTRooE (4.106)

Here R oo is the steady-state solution of the matrix algebraic Riccati equation:

Optimal state estimation (Kalman filtering) can be used to realize the autopilot
in the case when not all states are measured. For instance, the LQG/LTR (Loop
Transfer Recovery) design methodology have been applied to underwater vehicles
by Milliken (1984) and Triantafyllou and Grosenbaugh (1991). Loop shaping
techniques like the LQG/LTR design methodology allow the designer to deal with
robustness issues in a systematic manner. Moreover, robust stability (RS) can
be guaranteed if bounds on the uncertainties are known. On the contrary, robust
performance (RP) is still an unsolved problem. A linear controller design can be
checked for RP by performing a structured singular value analysis. This technique
is often referred to as the M-analysis technique in the technical literature (see e.g.
Maciejowski 1990). Nevertheless, the design of a so-called M-optimal controller is
still an active area for resear ch.
114 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

4.4 Decoupled Control Design

Healey and Marco (1992) suggest that the 6 DOF linear eq@tions of motion can
be divided into three non-interacting (or lightly interacting) subsystems for speed
control, steering and diving Each systems consists of the state variables:
1) Speed system state: u(t) .
2) Steering system states: v(t), r(t) and 1f;(t).
3) Diving system states: w(t), q(t), e(t) and z(t).
The rolling mode, that is p(t) and q,(t) is left passive in this approach. This
decomposition is motivated by the slender form of the Naval Postgraduate School
(NPS) AUV (see Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9: Schematic drawing of the NPS AUV II (Healey and Lienhard 1993) The
mathematical model and specifications of the vehicle are given in Appendix E. 2.

Healey and Lienard (1993) have applied the theory of sliding regimes to control the
NPS AUV IL This control system has been successfully implemented and tested
at the NPS in Monterey A related work discussing the problems on adaptive '
sliding mode control in the dive plane is found in Cristi, Papoulias and Healey
(1990) We will discuss this design methodology in a later section.
The above configuration suggests that the three subsystems can be controlled
by means of two single-screw propellers with revolution n(t), a rudder with de-
flection 8R (t) and a stern plane with deflection 8s (t). This particular choice of
actuators is inspired by those used in flight and submarine control. Of course
other combinations of control surfaces, thrusters etc. can be used to control the
above subsystems. Nevertheless, we will use this simple actuator configuration
to illustrate how a decoupled control design can be performed in terms of: (1)
proportional, derivative and integral control and (2) sliding mode controL
The AUV examples in this section are based on the NDRE-AUV (see Figure
4.10). This is a test vehicle designed by the Norwegian Defence Research Estab-
lishment where the main purpose has been to test a propulsion system using sea
water batteries (Jalving and St0rkersen 1994)

4.4 Decoupled Control Design 115

Figure 4.10: Schematic drawing of the NDRE-AUV (Jalving and Stilrkersen 1994).
Specifications: length of hull = 4.3 m, maximum hull diameter = 0.7 m, propeller
diameter = 0.6 rn, cruise speed = 2.0 m/s and hull contour displacement = LO m3 .

4.4.1 Forward Speed Control

Neglecting the interactions from sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw suggests that
the speed equation can be written as:

(m - X u) iL = X 1u1u lulu + (1 - t) T + X ext (4.108)

Here we have assumed that quadratic damping is the dominating dissipative ef-
fect. Furthermore n represents the propeller revolution, u is the surge velocity,
X ext is external disturbances due to waves and currents and t is the thrust deduc-
tion number t. Recall that the thruster force T and moment Q can be written:

T = 71nln Inln + TlnlVo InlVa; Q = Qlnln Inln + QlnlVo InlVa (4.109)

For simplicity, we will assume that 71nlVo = 0 (affine system) Introducing, the
notation Xlnlnl = (1 - t)71nln, finally yields:

I(m - X u) iL = X 1u1u lulu + X 1n1n Inln + X exl I (4.110)

We will now demonstrate how a speed control sY2tem can be designed for this

Inner Loop PI Control System

The propeller revolution n( s) can be measured with a pulse counter Or a tacho-
generator. Hence, an inner loop feedback control system can be designed by
applying a PI-controller (see Figure 4.. 11).

h ( ) ua(s) Kp (1 + Tis)
'''1' S - = (4.111)
, - nd(s) - n(s) Tis
Here nd( s) is the desired propeller revolution and Ua (s) is the armature voltage
(see Section 4.11). This implies that (4.15) can be written:

116 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

...... ............. " ...• " " " " ..

' "."""." .. ~ ., ".... .. " ,., ", " " ".
Outer loop velocity control system


" .

\ " • • •" " ~" • • . ,, • .. • • • • • • • • .. • ..• • • • • • • • • .. • • • .. • . . " • ••••• H •••• "" "
" ••

Figure 4.11: Speed Control System



PIOper tuning of the PI-contIOl parameters will ensure that n( s) tracks the desired
propeller revolution nd(s). The main advantages with an inner servo loop is
that sensitivity to varying load conditions Q(s), nonlinear actuator dynamics
and hysteresis are reduced. The desired forward speed Ud corresponding to the
propeller revolution nd can be solved from (4110) under the assumption that
X ext = 0 and that all model parameters are known. Unfortunately, it is quite
obvious that this result will be uncertain.. If accurate speed is important, an outer
loop control system must be design in addition to the inner servo loop.

Outer Loop Velocity Control System

If u is measured or at least estimated, an outer velocity servo loop can be de-

signed for proper tracking of .the desired velocity Ud. This is illustrated in Figure
4.11, where the nonlinear term Inln is generated by a PI-control law under the ,;
assumption that n tracks nd perfectly, that is:


(4114) i
4.4 Decoupled Control Design 117

Here ii = Ud - u is~_he tracking error and Cl > 0 and C2 > 0 are the regulator
proportional and integral gains, respectively,

Example 4.2 (The NDRE-AUV Speed Control System)

The performance of the inner-loop speed controller, Equation (4111), has been
demonstrated by NDRE 2 who has designed a long-range AUV for testing of new
battery technology and advanced control theory, Figure 4,10. The NDRE-AUV
has a low drag hull and a battery capable of delivering energy jor a long mission
In May 1993 the NDRE-A UV was successfully tested in the open sea between
Norway and Denmark It then traveled a distance of 109 nautical miles

, 34r---,.-----,---,----,-----,-----,--~--_,_--,

'1200! ;----'OCO'-.S---;-----".-',.,-S--"'2----,2",S,,----*---,;,,""',S---!4

Figure 4.12: Desired and actual propeller revolution versus time for the NDRE-AUV.

The propeller revolution n for a typical mission is shown in Figure 412 where
the desired propeller revolution is held constant at nd = 127 rpm,

4.4.2 Automatic Steering

Automatic steering or heading control can be done by means of a rudder or a pair
of thrusters In the next section we will show how a rudder control system can
be designed for course-changing maneuvers and then illustrate the performance
of the control system by considering a small example

Steering Equations of Motion

According to (4.44), the linear steering equations of motion can be expressed in
a compact form as:

m - Yu mxe - Y;
mxe - Nu I, - N r
[ o 0

2The Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Norway

118 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

where v. is the sway velocity, T is the angular velocity in yaw, 'ljJ is the heading
angle and oRis the rudder deflection. ReaITanging this expression into state-space
forID, yields:

:i;= Ax+boR (4.116)

Y = eT x (4.117)
where x = [v, T, ,p]T and y =,p. Moreover,


where the choices of aij and bi should be quite obvious. Consequently, the transfer
function between ,p and oRis obtained as:

:!L(s) = eT(sJ _ A)-lb = (a21 bl - allb2) + b2s (4.119)

OR S[S2 - (all + a22)S + alla22 - a12a21]
or equivalently:

:!L(s = K(l + Tas) (4.120)

OR) s(1+T1 s)(1+T2 s)
where K is a gain constant and T j (j = 1,2,3) are three time constants.

Autopilot Design
The heading contIOI system can be designed by applying a PID-controllaw:

OR(S) = K~ 1 + Tis 1 + Tds [,pd(S) _ ,p(s)] (4.121)

Tis 1 + Tfs
where K p (controller gain), Ti (integral time constant), Td (derivative time con-
stant) and Tf ~ 0,1 Td (low-pass filter time constant). The loop transfer function

I(s) = KKp (1 + 1is)(l + Tds)(l + Tas) (4.,122)

TiS 2 (1 + Tf s)(l + T 1 s)(1 + T2 s)
Hence, the closed-loop dynamics is described by:

,p(s) = 1 + I(s) 7j;d(S) (4.123)
It is seen from the final value theorem that the yaw angle will converge to the
desired value for a step response: ,pd(S) = ,po/s, that is:

lim ,p(t) = limslj;(s) = lim

t-lOO,_o 5-0
1+ s
=,po (4,124)
404 Decoupled Control Design 119

The yaw angle can be measured by a compass while rate measurements usually
are obtained by a rate gyro or a rate sensor, If the compass measurements are
of good quality, rate estimates can be obtained from numerical differentiation or
state estimation (Kalman filtering),

Example 4.3 (The NDRE-AUV Heading Control System)

A simpl~fied version of (4·121) without integral action has shown to perform sat-
isfactory for the NDRE-A UV This control law is simply taken to be:

where K p and K d are the proportional and derivative gain, respectively, Hence,
steady-state errors due to environmental disturbances and neglected dynamics can-
not be compensated for.
The main reason for omitting integral action is that the rudder servo has an
on-off or relay nonlinearity which would cause a limit-cycle (chattering) if integral
action is added. However, the magnitude of the steady-state errors, 1-2 degrees,
was in the same order as the accuracy of the flux-gate compass. Consequently,
there is not much gained by including integral action. For the PD-controllaw the
loop-transfer junction (4·122) reduces to:

__ K(Kp + K d s)(1 + T 3 s) (4.126)
s(1 + Trs)(1 + T2 s)
Hence, tuning ojthe yaw controller (4.125) in terms of the controller parameters
K p and K d can easily be done by plotting l(jw) in a Bode-diagram.
The performance of the autopilot is shown in Figure 4,13 for a long time
mission where the course is changed in steps of 10 degrees each 10 minutes.
A typical step response is shown in Figure 4- J4 where the heading angle is changed
from .1 9S to 185 degrees.

4.4.3 Combined Pitch and Depth Control

In this section we will design a control system for decoupled pitch and depth
controL This design will also be based on a linearized model of the vehicle..

Diving Equations of Motion

The diving equations of motion should include the heave velocity w, the angular
velocity in pitch q, the pitch angle 0, the depth z and the stern plane deflection Os
Assume that the forward speed is constant and that the sway and yaw modes can
be neglected. Hence, the pitch and heave kinematics can be perturbed according

(Ba + t:.B) = cos( </>0 + t:.</» (qo + t:.q) (4.127)

120 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles


-;;;, 250

"" 200

0 50 100 150 200
time (min)

,• .1
.1. ,"",
r 'f"') , r:: I "
,,;. '" ..
:1 '! 11' I -I Jl
uN ~,; A.
' rt'IT

o 50 100 150 200
time (min)

Figure 4.13: Long time mission [or the NDRE-AUV where the heading is changed in
steps of 10 degrees each 10 minutes.


195 ou,',

ID ~.O.5
:s!. 190 ID

"2. ~ ~1

-1 5

1 800.':---;:5::::0----,1"'0'::0,--1"'5'::0,----,2:::l00 -2!.----f::.-----:;:'::;---:-::::;----,:::l
o 50 100 150 200

" :
time (s) time (s)


, ,
, ,
" ,
':' :
" ,
" '
" ,

•.. J.I1iv~
. . . .

-2 .':---==---:':,---:6.;;0,---:!=--:-O-:,---:-:':-=----:1.':4::-0----.=-----,:-:---::::l
0 20 40 80 100 120 160 180 200
time (s)

Figure 4.14: Full-scale experiment showing one typical step response for the NDRE-
AUV. The heading angle is changed 10 degrees fr'om 195 to 185 degrees.
4.4 Decoupled Control Design 121

In steady-state we have that 00 = constant, qo = 0 and rjJo = 0, Hence:

If::"O = cos f::"rjJ f::"q "" f::"q I (4.128)

for small f::"rjJ. Similarly, the perturbed heave dynamics is:

(io+f::"z) = - sin(Oo+M)( uo+f::"u)+cos(Oo+f::"O) cos( rjJo+f::"rjJ)(wo+f::"w) (4.129)

Using the trigonometric formulas:

sin( 00 + f::,,0) - sin 00 cos f::,,0 + cos 00 sin f::,,0 "" sin 00 + cos 00 f::,,0 (4,130)
cos( 00 + f::,,0) - cos 00 cos f::,,0 - sin 00 sin f::,,0 "" cos 00 - sin 00 f::,,0 (4.131)

together with rjJo = 0 yields:

(io+f::"z) = -(sin Oo+cos 00 f::,,0)( Uo +f::"u) +(cos 00 -sin OoM)(Wo + f::"w ) (4.132)

Applying the steady-state condition:

Zo = - sin 00 Uo + cos 00 Wo (4.133)

to tills expression together with the assumption that 2nd-order terms in f::" can
be neglected, finally yields:

If::"z = -sinOo f::"u - cos 00 uof::"O+cosOo f::"w -sinOo Wo f::" 0 I (4.134)

Tills suggests the following linear model (dropping the f::,,-notation for notational

U (>11 0'12 0'13 0 0 U /31

W (>21 (>22 (>23 0'24 0 W /32
q = (>31 (>32 (>33 (>34 0 q + /33 Os (4135)
iJ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
z -sOo cOo 0 -(sOowo + cOouo) 0 z 0

where aij is found from the general expression for the 6 DOF linear equations of
motion and Pi should be determined for the actual stern plane.

Simplified Diving Equations of Motion (Zero Pitch Angle)

A further reduction could, be to assume zero pitch (0 0 = 0) constant forward

speed (uo = constant) Hence, the above state-space model reduces to:
122 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

[~ ] = [~~: ~~~ ~~: ~] [;]e + [~~ ]

0 0
-uo 0 Z
Os (4.136)

with obvious definitions of aij and bi . Alternatively, we can write this model in
terms of the hydrodynamic derivatives a.s:

m -
mXG -
mXG - Zq
I. - M q
00 0]
o 0 1 0
o 0 0 1
-Zw muo - Zq o
mXGUO - Mq
o l][f].[T]" (' m:
Here BG z = Za - ZB is used to denote the vertical distance between the center
of buoyancy and center of gravity.

Pitch-Depth Control Design

The pitch-depth controller can be designed with background in the linear model
(4.136), by simply choosing y = z. Hence:

x - Ax + bos (4.138)
y - eT x (4.139)


eT=[OOOl] (4.140)
Applying the Laplace transformation to this model yields the tr ansfer function:

':"(s) = b1s2 + (b 2a 12 - b1a 22 - b2Uo)s + (b 2u oall - b1a 21 u O - b1a 23 + b2a 13)

OS S[S3 - (all + a22)s2 + (alla22 - a23 - a21a12)s + (alla23 - a21a13)]
For simplicity, we will a.ssume that the heave velocity during diving is small and
that Xa = O. This is quite realistic since most small underwater vehicles move
slowly in the vertical direction. This a.ssumption implies that the linear model
(4.137) reduces to:

e + [~]
(=a-ZB) IV
o o [q]
0] 0 Os (4.142)
-uo o Z 0



4.4 Decoupled Control Design 123

Consequently, the transfer functions 8/6s and z/ 6s are obtained as follows:

8 Ko ~(s) = -'- UQ 8(s) (4,143)

2( ,;
s- + 0 Wo s + 0.1 0 6s s 6s (s)

where the gain constant is Ko = Mo/(Iy - M q) The natural frequency Wo and

relative damping ratio (0 for the pure pitching motion are defined as:

,. -Mq
= (4144)
2 VBGzW(Iy - M q)
Consequently, the natural period in pitch is:


From this expression it is seen that a reduction in the moment of inertia (Iy - Mq)
or an increase of the vertical distance between the center of gravity and the
center of buoyancy BC., and the vehicle's weight W, will reduce the natural
pitch period,
The terms Mqq and BC z W8 are often referred to as passive damping and
restoring forces, respectively, since modifications of these parameters require the
vehicle to be redesigned, Similar effects can be obtained by designing an active
feedback control system of PID-type for combined pitch and depth control, For
instance, the control law:

allows the designer to modify the damping and the restoring forces through the
derivative and proportional action in the controller, that is, adjusting the con-
troller gains C; (i = 1..,5), Notice that feedback from w is omitted since this
state is not usually measured,
In the implementation of the controller, the depth z can be measured by
a pressure meter, the pitch angle 8 can be measured by an inclinometer while
the pitch rate q requires a rate gyro or a rate sensor. If heave velocity w is
measured in addition, the more complex model (4,.137) can be used in the control
design instead. One way to obtain velocity measurement in the vertical plane is
by simply combining a pressure meter with an accelerometer to form a velocity
state estimator. Kalman filter algorithms are well suited for this purpose. A
more expensive solution is using a Doppler log for directly obtaining velocity

124 Stability and Control of Underwater' Vehicles

Example 4.4 (The NDRE-AUV Depth Control System)

The NDRE-A UV depth contr'olleT was designed without integml action accoTding

85 = C) (Zd - z) - C 3 () - C4 q (4.147)
We also notice that ()d = 0 in this implementation. Substituting this expTession
into (4.143) yields.:


Z (m) () (deg)
60 5



00 -20
2 4 6 8 0 2 468
(minutes) (minutes)
8 (deg) q (degjs)
4 2

2 1 ..


-4 -2
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 "

(minutes) (minutes)

Figure 4.15: Full-scale depth changing maneuver for the NDRE-AUV. The bias in
the pitch rate time series is due to a small off-set in the rate sensor.

Hence, we can choose C 3 and C 4 such that the closed-loop pitch dynamics is
stable. Next, we can use the Telationship.:

Z(s) = _ uo ()(s) (4 . 149)

to tune C). MaTeoveT, the cubic characteristic equation:
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for RaVs 125

must have all its roots strictly in the left half-plane to ensure that (z = Zd =
constant) in steady-state. However, environmental disturbances can cause steady-
state erron for this approach since integral action is omitted. A full-scale depth
changing maneuverfor the NDRE-AUV is shown in Figure 4·15.

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs

4.5.1 Sliding Mode Control
Sliding control has been applied successfully in the control of underwater vehicles
by Yoerger and Slotine (1984, 1985) who propose to use a series of single-input
single-output (SISO) continuous time controllers. Recent work by Yoerger and
Slotine (1991) discusses how adaptive sliding control can be applied to underwater
vehicles. Cristi et al. (1990) have applied an adaptive sliding mode controller to
control an AUV in the dive plane. Sliding mode controllers have been successfully
implemented for the JASON vehicle, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by
Yoerger, Newman and Slotine (1986) and the MUST vehicle at Martin Marietta,
Baltimore by Dougherty, Sherman, Woolweaver and Lovell (1988) and Dougherty
and Woolweaver (1990). Besides this, successful implementations have been re-
ported for the NPS AUV II at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey by Marco
and Healey (1992) and Healey and Lienard (1993) All these experiments show
that sliding mode controllers have significant advantages to traditional linear
control theory.

Single-Input Single-Output (SISO) Affine Systems

Yoerger and co-authors propose to use a simplified ROV model:

MiiVi + ni(vi) = Ti and iJi = Vi (i = 1..6) (4.151)

where all kinematic and dynamic cross-coupling terms terms are neglected. Here,
ri is the input, M ii is the diagonal element of the inertia matrix M and ni
corresponds to the quadratic damping term in the nonlinear vector n, that is:
0 0 0 0
m-Y,j 0 0 0
0 m-Ztit 0 0
.M= (4.. 152)
["1" 0
Ix -
J(p 0
Iy- M,
0 0 0 0
Uncer tainties in the model are compensated for in the control design.. For nota-
tional simplicity, let us write the ROV model according to:

- ._-- -------
126 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

mx + d Ixlx = T where m> 0; d> 0 (4.154)

Here x = 7)i, T = Ti, m = NIii and d Ixlx = ni(vi). We also assume that both x
and x are measured.




slope ).

Figure 4.16: Graphical interpretation of the sliding surface.

Define a scalar measure of tracking:

where x = x - Xd is the tracking error and ,\ > 0 is the control bandwidth. For
s = 0 this expression describes a sliding surface with exponential dynamjcs:

!i(t) = exp( -'\(t - to)) !i(ta) (4..156)

which ensures that the tracking error x(t) converges to zero in finite time when
s = 0 (sliding mode). In fact, the error trajectory will reach the time-varying
sliding surface in finite time for any initial condition x(t a) and then slide along the
surface towards x(t) = 0 exponentially Hence, the control objective is reduced
to finding a nonlineaI control law which ensures that: ..
lim set) - 0
A graphical interpretation of the sliding surface is given in Figure 4.16. In the
design of the sliding control law, it is convenient to define a virtual reference x,

Hence, the following expression for m s is obtained:

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 127

m!; = m x- m x = ( T - d Ixlx ) - mx,


= -d IXIs + (r - mx, - d Ixlx,) (4.159)

Consider the scalar Lyapunov-like function candidate:

V(8, t) = ~m 8 2 , m> 0 (4.160)

Differentiating V with respect to time (assuming m= 0) yields

v = m!; 8= -d Ixl8 2
+ 8(T - mx, - d Ixlx,) (4 . 161)

Xr - Xd - Ai:
Ih- - ..
xr' = Id - .Ai x.L,.-

s = X - xr


I K sgn() I

Figure 4.17: 8180 sliding control applied to underwater vehicles

Taking the control law to be:

IT = mx, +dlxlx, - K d s - K sgn(s)! (4.162)

where m and d are the estimates of m and d, respectively, and:

if s> 0
sgn(s) = { if s = 0 (4.163)
-1 otherwise


v = -( K d+ d Ixl ) 82 + ( fix, + d lXIX, ) s - K Isl (4.164)

Here fi = m- m and d = d- d Conditions on the switching gain K are found
by requiring that V :::; O. The particular choice:
128 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles


with 1] > 0 implies that:

This is due to the fact that ( K d + d lxl ) ;, 0 V x. Notice that, 11 So 0 implies
that V(t) So V(O), and therefore that s is bounded. This in turn implies that
V is bounded. Hence 11 must be uniformly continuous, Finally, application of
Barbiilat's lemma then shows that s -;. 0 and thus x -;. 0 as t -;. 00

It is well known that the switching term K sgn(s) can lead to chattering. Chat-
tering must be eliminated for the controller to perform properly Slotine and
Li (1991) suggest smoothing out the control law discontinuity inside a boundary
layer by replacing the sgn(.) function in the control law with:

sat(sjcp) = { sgn(s) if Is/if;1 > 1

(4 . 167)
s/if; otherwise
where rP should be interpreted as the boundary layer thickness. This substitution
will in fact assign a low-pass filter structure to the dynamics of the sliding surface
s inside the boundary layer (see below). Moreover, replacing the Ksgn(s) term in
(4.162) with If. sat(sjcp) yields the following expressions for the s-dynamics and

• Inside the boundary layer:

K -
m s+ ( K d + d Ixl + ~ ) s = mX r + d lxix, (4.168)

v ~ -( Kd + d Ixl + ~ ) 8

• Outside the boundary layer:

m s+ (Kd + d Ixl ) s + K sgn(s) = mX r + dlxix, (4170)


The boundary layer thickness can also be made time-varying to exploit the ma..'{-
imum control bandwidth available. See Slotine and Li (1991) for a closer descrip-
tion on time-varying boundary layers.
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for RaVs 129

Example 4.5 (Sliding Mode Control Applied to RaVs)

Consider the simplified model of an underwater vehicle in surge:

m x + d Ixlx = T (4..172)
with m = 200 kg and d = 50 kg/m. The SISO sliding controller can be complLied

Ir = mx, +d lxix, - K d s - Ksat(slifJ) I (4.173)

where K d ~ O. The following two cases were studied

(1) PD-Controller:

m=O Kd = 500
d=O K=O

Notice that this simply corresponds to the PD control law:

T = -Kd S = -Kd j; - .\ K d x (4.174)

(2) Sliding Mode Controller:

m =0 . 6m m ~ 0.5m
d = 1.5 d d ~ 0.5 d
= (m x, + d Ixl x,) 1+0.1 Kd = 200

In the simulation study the closed-loop bandwidth was chosen as .\ = 1 for both
controllers. The boundary layer thickness was chosen as <p = ± 035 for the
sliding controller while the sampling frequency was set at 10Hz
It is seen from Figures 4·18 and 4.19 that the performance of the sliding
controller is superior the performance of the PD-controller Note that the con-
trol input for the sliding controller is relatively smooth due to the low-pass filter
structure of the boundary layer..

Single-Input Multiple-States (SIMS) Affine Systems

For coupled maneuvers where the modes are highly coupled an alternative ap-
proach where the sliding surface is based on the state variable errors rather than
the output errors can be used. We will briefly review the main results of Healey
and Marco (1992) a'nd Healey and Lienard (1993) who define the sliding surface


-- J
130 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

[ml (m/s]
desired osition 05 .--_ _.-"de"'s"il"'·e"d-;.v"'e...,lo"'c...,itL,_ __,


0 10 20 30 40
time (s] time (s]
[m] nosition error velocity error
03 ,----,-""="r"-'-"'-r--, OA
0.2 ""
..:' -
~ ~

'_ 11 ''
IV ,
"" I,
" >,
'! ~.

-0.2 L-_-.:'::_,--::-::-_-;!:;:-_--J -OA

o 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
time (s] time (s]

Figure 4.18: Performance study of the sliding controller (solid) and the PD-controller
(N] (N]
200 .--_ _..---'P'-'O"'-'-'c"'oTnt"-ro"'I"'le"'r~--_, SI mQ contra 11 er

lOO 100 -
\" o ~~- 0- \],
-100 -100 I-

-200 -200

-300 -300
0 10 20 30 40 o 10 20 30 40
time (s] time (s]
PO -controller slidin controller
OA r======t==:;:;:===l
0.2 .. .... 0.2

o I~ f\

\T .. -0.2
o 10 20 30 40
-OA C==±::::==±:::==:±===:::J
o 10 20 30 40
time (s] time (s]

Figure 4.19: Control input and measure of tracking fot the PD-controller and the
sliding controller.
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for R.OVs 131

where x = x - Xd is the state tracking error and h E JRH is a vector of known

coefficients to be interpreted later. It is important that the sliding surface is
defined such that convergence of er( x) -+ 0 implies convergence of the state
tr acking error x -+ O.
Assume that we can write the dynamic and kinematic model as a SIMS linear

x=Ax+bu+f(x) (4176)
where x E JRH and u E JR f (x) should be interpreted as a nonlinear function
describing the deviation from linearity in terms of distur bances and unmodelled
dynamics.. The experiments of Healey and co-authors show that this model can be
used to describe a large number of ROV flight conditions The feedback control
law is composed of two parts:

u=u+u (4.177)
where the nominal part is chosen as:

Here k is the feedback gain vector Substituting these expressions into (4,176)
yields the closed-loop dynamics:

x=Acx+bu+f(x); (4.179)
Hence, the feedback gain vector k can be computed by means of pole-placement
by first specifying the closed-loop state matrix A c . In order to determine the non-
linear part of the feedback control law we first pre-multiply (4.179) with h T and
then subtract h T Xd from both sides, Hence the following expression is obtained:

&(x)=hT Acx+hTbu+hT f(x)-hTxd (4.180)

Choosing u (assuming that h T b # 0) as:

7»0 (4.181)
where j(x) is an estimate of f(x), yields the er-dynamics:

O'(x) = h T A c x - 1]sgn(er(x)) + h T 6.f(x) (4.182)

where 6.f(x) = f(x) - j(x), We now turn to the choice of h A nonzero vector
m E JRn that satisfi~s:

Am=).m (4183)
where ,\ E .'\(A) is an eigenvalue of A is said to be a right eigenvector of A
for ,\, Hence, if one of the eigenvalues of A c is specified to be zero, the term
132 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Figure 4.20: Single-input multiple-states (SIMS) sliding mode control law

h T A c x = (A~ h)T x in (4.182) can be made equal to zero by choosing h as the

Tight eigenvector' of A~ for ,\ = 0, that is:

A~ h =0 ~ h is a right eigenvector of A~' for ,\ =0 (4.184)

With this choice of h, the (T-dynamics reduces to:

&(5:) = -r] sgn((T(5:)) + h T 6.f(x) (4.185)

which can be made global\::l Gcrw",r~~ f\t , by selecting r] as:

(4.. 186)

This is easily seen by applying the Lyapunov function candidate:

Veal = '20'2 (4.187)

Differentiation of V with respect to time yields:

v= a &= -r] a sgn(a) + a hT 6.f(x) = -r] lal + (T h T 6.f(x) (4.188)

Choosing r] according to (4.186) ensures that V :::; O. Hence, by application of

Barbiilat's lemma (T converges to zero in finite time ifry is chosen large enough
to overcome the destabilizing effects of the unmodelled dynamics 6. f (x).. The
choice of r] will be a trade-off between robustness and performance.
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 133

Implementation Considerations
In practical implementations, chattering should be removed by replacing sgn(u)
with sat(u /rP) in (4.181) where the design parameter rP is the sliding surface
boundary layer thickness. Alternatively, the discontinuous function sat(u 1rP)
could be replaced by the continuous function tanh(u /rP); see the upper plot of
Figure 4.21.

tanh(al.p )

-3 -2 -1 0 2 3 cr

er tanh(O'/1~)

_L----_~2---~-1------'o:-----.L.-----'c2------l3 cr

Figure 4.21: Diagram showing tanh(u!rP) and (j tanh(u!rP) as a function of the bound-
ary layer thickness rP E {D.I, 0.5, l.D}.

This suggests the modified control laws:

u - -e x + (hT b)-l[hTxd - h T )(x) -1]sat(u/rP)] (4189)

u _k T x + (h T b)-l[h T Xd - h T )(x) -1]tanh(u/rP)] (4.190)

These substitutions imply that:

if lu/rP1 > 1

where the product u tanh(u / rP) is shown in the lower plot of Figure 4.21. It should
be noted that the proposed feedback control with a predescribed 1] usually yields
a conservative estimate of the necessary control action required to stabilize the
plant, This suggests that 1] should be treated as a tunable parameter.
134 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Example 4.6 (Forward Speed Control)

Again consider the speed equation (4.110) in the form.'

(m - X,,)u+ ~PCD A lulu = X 1n1n Inln+ f(u,n) (4191 )

wher·e m - X" is the mass of the vehicle including hydrodynamic added mass, P is
the water density, CD is the drag coefficient, A is the projected area, Xlnln is the
propeller for'ce coefficient and f (u, n) r'epresents the unmodelled dynamics. Since
the speed dynamics is of first order and completely decoupled from the other state
variables, we can select h = 1 so that.:

a· =U =u -Ud (4,192)
The desired a-dynamics is obtained for' the following feedback control law.' :'

InIn = _1_ [(m - X,,) Ud + ~P CD A lulu - (m - X,,) 1) tanh(o'/<p)] (4 . 193)

Xlnl n

Hence, n is computed as the signed square root of the right-hand side of (4·193).

Example 4.7 (Steering Autopilot)

Consider the linear steering equations of motion in the form: ,i

where Vc is an unknown sinusoidal disturbance defined as:

Vc = 0.5 sin(0.2 t) (4.195)

It is pmctical to specify the desired sway velocity during steering as Vd = while
the desir'ed yaw rate and heading angle are denoted by rd and Wd, respectively Let
us define the sliding surface as:

when hi for (i=l .... 3) are the components of h To stabilize the sway-yaw dy-
namics, we choose k = [k j , k 2 , O]T such that.

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for R.OVs 135

Notice that ka = 0, or in other words linear feedback from 'if; is not necessary to
stabilize the sway-yaw dynamics. Hence, two of the closed-loop eigenvalues '\1,2
will simply be given by the upper-left 2 x 2 sub matrix of A c ' that is'

This expression can be solved to yield k l and k2 for any values of AI,2 Alter-
natively, a pole placement algorithm or optimal control theory can be used to
compute k l and k 2 · The last eigenvalue Aa is zero due to the pure integration in
the yaw channel (,p = 1'). This in turn implies that h can be computed as the
right eigenvector of A~ for Aa = O. Furthermore, let us define;

(30 = hTb = hI bl + h 2 b2 =I 0 (4.199)

then the steering control law OR becomes:

OR= -k l v-k 2 r+ ;0[h2Td+hard-1) tanh(aN)] (4.200)

During course-keeping >Pd = constant, which again implies that id = Td = 0

Con.sider the numerical example., an = -0.25, al2 = -0.87, a21 = -0 . 012, an =
-0.23, bl = 0.22 and b2 = -0.043 Choosing.: Al = -0.5, '\2 = -0.32.. and Aa = 0
by pole placement, yields.'

k = [0 . 3623, -6.0534, of (4.201)


-03297 04618 0]
A c = .A - be = 0.0036 -04903 0 (4.202)
[ o 1.0000 0
Solve the right eigenvector h of A~ corresponding to '\a = 0, that is;

A~h =0 =} h = [hI, h z, hajT = [0.0098,08996, 0.4366jT (4.203)

Furthermore, we have that;·


1) >11 h 11 . 11 - [an, a12, W Vc 11= 0.1251 (4.205)

The simulation results for this system with reference model.

,pd ] _
id -
[0-w~ -2(w
1] [..pd ] + [ ul~0]
n rd 1pc

where ( = 08 and W n = 0.1 are shown in Figure 4.22. All simulations were
performed with a sampling time oJ 0.1 (s) and boundary layer thickness 1J = 01

136 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

1 (deg/s)

o • ,:,->' '. ......

-06 -0.. 5
0 50 100 0 50 100
time (sec) time (sec)
1/J (deg) 8 (deg)
25 5

50 100 o 50 100
time (sec) time (sec)
Figure 4.22: Step response 'l/Jc = 20 (deg) with sinusoidal disturbance Vc Dotted lines
denote 'l/Jd and rd·

From this figure it is seen that the sinusoidal distur·bance does not affect the tmck-
ing performance or the stability of the control law This will not be the case if a
simple PID-control law is applied to this system.
Example 4.8 (Combined Pitch/Depth Control)
Consider the simplified diving equations of motion in the form .

: ]
iJ = [~~: ~~~ a~3 ~]
0 1 0 0 [:]
0 +[ ~~
0 ] 8s (4.207)
i 1 0 -uo 0 z 0
We now define the sliding surface as:

a = hI (w - Wd) + h2 (q - qd) + h3 (0 - Od) + h.t (z - Zd) (4.208)

where hi for (i=1...4) are the components of h. As in the previous example
k = [k l , k 2 , k 3 , k 4JT must be solved from the specified closed-loop dynamics via

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 137

eigenvalue specifications_ Since there is one pure integration in the pitch channel
this mode can be r-emoved from A c by selecting k 3 = O. Hence, we can compute h
by solving_' A(A c ) = A(A - be) such that A~h = 0 for A3 = 0 which is simply
a Srd-order pole-placement problem, Finally,



Os = -k w-k z q-k4 z+ ;0 [hI wd+h2Qd+h3ed+h4zd-71 tanh(u!<p)] (4,210)

4.5.2 State Feedback Linearization

The basic idea with feedback linearization is to transform the nonlinear systems
dynamics into a linear system (Freund 1973). Conventional control techniques like
pole placement and linear quadratic optimal control theory can then be applied to
the linear system. In robotics, this technique is commonly referred to as computed
torque controL
Adaptive computed torque control has been applied to robot manipulators
by Horowitz and Tomizuka (1986) and to underwater vehicles by Fossen (1991)
Feedback linearization is easily applicable to underwater vehicles, We will discuss
applications to both the body-fixed and earth-fixed reference frames,

Decoupling in the Body-Fixed Reference Frame (Velocity Control)

The control objective is to transform the vehicle dynamics into a linear system
it = av, where a v can be interpreted as a commanded acceleration vector The
body-fixed vector representation should be used to control the vehicle's linear
and angular velocities. Consider the nonlinear ROY dynamics (4.27) which can
be compactly expressed as:

M'I +n(v,1/) =T (4.211)

Here 1/ and v are assumed to be measured and n is the nonlinear vector:

n(v,1/) = C(v)v + D(II)II + g(1/) (4,212)

The nonlinearities can be canceled out by simply selecting the control law as

IT = M av +n(v,1/)1 (4,,213)

where the commanded acceleration vector a v can be chosen by e.g, pole place-
ment or linear quadratic optimal control theory. Let Abe the control bandwidth,

138 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

ua T
cl v


Figure 4.23: Nonlinear decoupling

v d the desired linear and angular velocity vector and v = v - Vd the velocity
tracking error, Then the commanded acceleration vector:

Ia v = vd - AV I (4.214)
yields the 1st-order error dynamics:

M (v - a u ) = M (D + AV) = 0 (40215)
The calculation of the commanded acceleration vector is shown in Figure 4024

Figure 4.24: Calculation of the commanded acceleration (body-fixed)

The reference model is simply chosen as a first-order model with time constants
T = diag{Tl, T 2 , "" T 6 } and Tv as the commanded input vector. Note that in

Vd(t) = Tv (4216)

Example 4.9 (Surge Velocity Control System)

Consider oa simplified model of an ROV in surge, that iso'

mu+dlulu=r (4217)
The commanded acceleration is calculated as.

a u = Ud - A(U -Ud) (4218)

This suggests that the control law should be computed as
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 139


Decoupling in the Earth-Fixed Reference Frame (Position and Attitude)

In the earth-fixed vector representation the vehicle's dynamics and kinematics
are decoupled into the earth-fixed reference frame Le i7 = a~ where a~ can
be interpreted as the earth-fixed commanded acceleration. Consider the ROV
dynamics and kinematics in the form:

Mv + n(v, 'T/) = T (4.220)

iI = J(TJ) v (4.221 )

where J ('T/) is the kinematic transformation matrix and where both 'T/ and v are
assumed measured. Differentiation of the kinematic equation with respect to time

The nonlinear control law:

IT = Ma v + n(v, 'T/) I (4223)

applied to the ROV equations of motion, yields:


M~=rT('T/)Mrl('T/) and a~=j('T/)v+J(TJ)av (4.225)

yields the linear decoupled system:

M~(i7 - a~) = 0 (4.226)

This suggests that the commanded acceleration a~ should be chosen as:

Ia~ = i7d - K d i, - K p r, I (4.227)

where K p and K d are two positive definite matrices chosen such that the error
.. .
r, + K d r, + Kpij = 0 (4.228)
is stable. In the implementation of the control law (4.223) the commanded ac-
celeration in the body-fixed reference frame is calculated as:

140 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Figure 4.25: Calculation of commanded acceleration (earth-fixed).

(4.. 229)

This is shown in Figure 4.25. The reference model is chosen such that the com-
manded input vector r~ is equal to the steady-state reference vector, that is
1Jd(OO) = r~

Example 4.10 (Heading Control System)

Consider the simplified model of an underwater vehicle in yaw:

mf + d Irl l' = r; '!f;=r (4230)

Hence, the commanded acceleration can be calculated as:


wheTe Td is the desir'ed angulaT velocity and '!f;d is the desired heading angle. FOT
this particulaT example av = a~, which yields the decoupling contTollaw,:


To illustrate the robustness of the control system, we investigated the performance

of the heading contml system faT peT'turbations in m and d. These r'esults are
shown in Figure 4.26. The sampling time in the simulation study was chosen as
0.1 (s). The nominal model parameteTs are m = 200 and d = 50. Furthermore,
we designed the contmllaw according to K p = 2A and K d = A2 with "bandwidth"
A = 1 (rad/s). The mass and damping estimates are denoted by mo and do,
T'espectively. M oreoveT;


4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 141

psi (rad)

10 15 tlme(s) 20
psi (rad)


o 10 15 time(s) 20

Figure 4.26: Computer simulation showing the robustness and performance of the
control law where do = 0< ' d (upper plot) and mo = f3 ' m (lower plot) are allowed to
vary according to 0< E {0.25, 0.50, 1, 2, 4} and f3 E {025, 1, 4}.

Computation of Desired States by Means of the Vehicle Kinematics

The decoupled reference models:

iid + 2(wn il d + w; 1Jd = w; rry (4.234)

can result in unrealistic maneuvers of the vehicle.. A better approach is to take
advantage of the vehicle kinematics when designing the desired state trajectories
For instance, we can compute lId and 1Jd from:

Vd + A lId + JT(1Jd) n 1Jd = JT(1Jd) n rry (4.235)

il d = J(Tld) Vd ('1.236)
whele rry is a constant (slowly-varying) commanded input. Hence, we can show
by applying Lyapunov stability analysis that:

lim Vd(t) = 0;
lim 1Jd(t) = rry
The proof is based on time differentiation of a Lyapunov function candidate:

v = ~ (V~ Vd + (1Jd - rry)T n(Tld - rry») (4238)

which after substitution of the reference model dynamics yields:


142 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

The only design parameters in the reference model are the matrices A > 0 and
a = aT > 0 describing the prefened damping and stiffness of the system. A and
a are usually chosen as diagonal matrices with positive entries on the diagonaL
Extensions to Systems which are Nonlinear in their Input
Both feedback linearization and sliding control can be applied to the more general
model class (Fossen and Foss 1991):

Mv + n(v, 7]) = b(v, u) (4.240)

iJ = J(7]) v (4241)
which is nonlinear in the input u. Time differentiating of the first expression
with respect to time, yields:

.. 8n(v,7]). 8n(v,7]). _ 8b(v,u). 8b(v,u).

Mv + 8v v + 87] 7] - 8v v + 8u u (4242)

Substituting the kinematic equation of motion into this expression, yields:

Mu + (8n;;:; 7]) _ 8b~~ U)) v + (8n~ 7]) J(7])) v = 8b~~ u) U (4 . 243)

Introducing the notation:

*(. ) _ (8n(V,7]) 8b(V,u)). (8n(v,7])J.())

n v,v,7],u - 8v - 8v v+ 87] T) v (4.244)

B *( v,u ) = 8b(v,
u) (4.245)

yields the more compact representation:

1 Mu + n*(v, v, 7], u) = B*(v, u) uI (4.. 246)

Let the control law be chosen as:

Iu = (B*(v, u))t [M a~ + n*(v, v, 7], u)ll (4.247)

Hence, the error dynamics is:

M(u - a~) =0 (4.. 248)

For velocity control, the commanded jer·k a~ (the time derivative of acceleration)
could be chosen as:

al.l* = Vd
.. -
AV - A
V (4.249)
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 143

to yield the asymp_totically stable velocity enor dynamics:

(4.. 250)

A position and attitude scheme is derived by first differentiating (4.241) twice

with respect to time, to yield:

T/(3) = J(T/) v + 2j(T/) v + J(T/) 1/ (4.251)

Consequently, we can rewrite the error dynamics (4.248) as:

This in turn suggests that the body-fixed commanded jerk a~ should be computed
by means of the earth-fixed commanded jerk a~ according to:

la~ = rl(7))[a~ - 2 j(T/) v- J(T/) I/J I (4253)

where a~ must be chosen such that the closed-loop error dynamics:

is asymptotically stable, Notice that in the implementation of the "non-affine"
controller, acceleration measurements are required in addition to velocity and
position measurements, whereas acceleration measurements are not necessary for
the affine modeL A similar approach can be applied to the sliding control scheme
discussed in the previous section. A more detailed discussion on sliding control
for MIMO nonlinear systems is found in Fossen and Foss (1991) .

4.5.3 Adaptive Feedback Linearization

So far we have only discussed feedback linearization under the assumption that all
model parameters are known, In this section we will derive a parameter adaptation
law to be used together with the previous control laws. Consider the nonlinear
equations of motion (4,211), Taking the control law to be:

IT = Ma v +n(I/,T/) I (4.255)
where the hat denotes the adaptive parameter estimates, yields the error dynam-

M [v - a v ] = [M - M] a v + [n(l/, T/) - n(r/ , T/)] (4.256)

If the underwater vehicle equations of motion are linear in a par ameter vector (),
the following parameterization can be applied:
. LI-
[M - M] av + [n(l/, T/) - n(l/, T/)] = <p(a v , 1/, T/) () (4.257)
144 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Here B= e-
e is the unknown parameter errOI vector and p( av, v, 77) is a known
matrix function of measured signals usually referred to as the regr"essor matrix

T s

e 1,

Figure 4.27: Adaptive feedback linearization applied to the nonlinear ROV equations
of motion.

Using the result ary = j(TJ)V + J(77)a v , yields:

M r 1
(77) [ry- a~l = P(a v , v, 77) e (4.258)
Premultiplying this expression with J-T( 77) and letting M ry( 77) = J- (77)M J- 1 (77)
yields the earth-fixed error dynamics:

Mry(77) [ry- aryJ = r T

(77) P(a v ,V,77) B (4.259)
FurthermOIe, let the commanded acceleration be chosen as:

Ia~ = ryd - K di] - K p ij I (4.260)

where K p > 0 and R' d > O. Hence we can express the error dynamics accOIding

Mry(77) [ry + K d i] + K ryJ = r p

(77) P(a v , v, 77) B (4.261)
Writing this expression in state-space form, yields:

x= A x +B J- T (77) P(a v , v, 77) B (4.262)

where x = [ij, i]jT and

4,5 Adva nced Autop ilot Desig n for RaV s

Convergence of ij to zero can be proven by defining:

p = pT > 0 (4.264)
Differentiating V with respect to time and substi tuting the error
dynamics into
the expression for V, yields:

11 = xT(P + PA + ATp) x + 2 (x T PBr T p + ({ r- I )8 (4.265)

where r = r T > 0 is a positive definite weighting matrix of appro
priate dimen-
sion This suggests the param eter updat e law (assuming iJ = 0):

18= -rpT(av,II,T)) rl(T) ) yl (4.266)

where we have introd uced a new signal vector y defined as

y=C x (4.267)
In order to prove that V ::; 0 we can choose:

where Co > 0 and Cl > 0 are two positive scalar s to be interp reted later, furthe r-
more we choose:

PA+ ATp = -Q; (4,269)

where P and Q are defined according to Asare and Wilson (1986)

P = [ col\lIryK d + clMry K p Col\lIry]

coMry (4.270)

(4.271 )

If in additi on, we use the fact that ;z.T !VI ryZ is bounded, we can establ 3
ish: ('" EO- R )

xTPx ::;ax Tx ==:> x T px:S f3x T [~ry ~"1 x (4.272)

where a > 0 and f3 > 0 are two positive consta nts Hence, we can
choose Co > 0,
Cl > 0 and:

xTQx > f3x

[~" ~J x (4.273)

such that P = pT > 0 and:

V = x T (P - Q)x ::; 0 (4.274)

146 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

by requiring:

(1) (cOK d + clK p ) Cl > c51

(2) 2coK p > (31
(3) 2(c1 K d - col) > (31

Here (3 usually is taken to be a small positive constant while K p > 0 and K d > 0
can be chosen as diagonal matrices. Consequently, convergence of ij to zero is
guaranteed by applying Barbiilat's lemma.. We also notice that the parameter
vector iJ will be bounded. Hence, PE is not required to guarantee the tracking
error to converge to zero. Robustness due to actuator dynamics and saturation
are discussed by Fjellstad, Fossen and Egeland (1992).

4.5.4 Nonlinear Tracking (The Slotine and Li Algorithm)

An adaptive control law exploiting the skew-symmetric property of robot manip-
ulators was first derived by Slotine and Li (1987). Later, extensions of this work
was made to the 3 DOF spacecraft attitude control problem in terms of Rodrigues
pammeters by Slotine and Benedetto (1990) together with Fossen (1993a). These
results have been extended to 6 DOF (position and attitude) in terms of Euler an-
gles by Fossen and Sagatun (1991a, 1991b) who used their control law to control
an underwater vehicle in 6 DOF More recently Fjellstad and Fossen (1994a) have
shown that Euler pammeters (vector quaternion, Euler rotation and Rodrigues
parameters) can be used in the 6 DOF tracking control problem as well. We will
exclusively discuss the work of Fossen and Sagatun (1991b) in this section

Reference Trajectory Definitions

Let the desired earth-fixed position and attitude be described by a smooth time-
varying reference trajectory ijd , T]d and 'TId where:

'TId = [Xd, Yd, Zd, 'h Bd, Wd)T (4.275)

Furthermore, let ij = 'TI - 'TId denote,the tracking error The control law will be
designed such that the following measure of tracking converges to zero:

8 = ij + Aij (4.276)
Here A is a positive constant which may be interpreted as the control bandwidth.
Hence convergence of s to zero implies that the tracking error ij converges to
zero. For notational simplicity, it is convenient to rewrite (4.276) in term of a
virtual reference trajectory 'TIT defined according to:

s = T] - T], =? T]T = T]d - Aij (4.277)

We can transform 'TIT to the body-fixed reference frame by using (Niemeyer and
Slotine 1991):


--------_._-_._. -_._------ -
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 147

7J, = J(7]) v, (4.278)

Hence, the body-fixed virtual reference vectors v, and V, can be computed ac-
cording to:



Adaptive Position and Attitude Control

Consider the following nonlinear model describing an ROV in 6 DOF:

M,(7]) i1 + C,(v, 7]) 7J + D,(l/, 7]) 7J + g,(7]) = r T (7]) r (4 281)

Let V be a Lyapunov function candidate:

- 1 T -T 1 - T
V(s,e,t)=2(sM,s+e r- e); M,=M, >0 (4.282)
where r is a positive definite weighting matrix of appropriate dimension and
iJ = iJ - e is the parameter estimation error. Differentiating V with respect to
time, yields:
. _ 1 . ~T_

V(s, e, t) = 2 (ST 1\II,s + ST 1\II,s + ST M ,s) + er-le (4.283)

Since sT M,s = ST M,s and:

we can write:
. T. ~T -1-
V=s (M,s+C,s)+e r e (4 . 285)
The application of the virtual reference trajectory in (4.277) together with (4.281),

. ~T_
V = -sTD,s + er-le + sT (J-Tr - M ,ii, - c,7J, - D,7J, - g,) (4.286)

Transforming the earth-fixed virtual reference trajectory to body-fixed coordi-

nates, see (4.279) and (4.280), implies that the last term in the expression for V
can be written:

M,(7]) i1, + C,(v, 7]) 7J, + D,(v, 7]) 7J, + g,(7])

= r T
(7]) [M v, + C(v) v, + D(v) v, + g(7])) (4.287)

148 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Assuming that M, C(v), D(v) and g("I) are linear in their parameters, this
suggests that we can use the following parameterization (Fossen 1993a):

M vr + C(v) Vr + D(v) v, + g("I) ~ p(v" VT> v, "I) e (4.288)

where e is an unknown parameter vector and P(VT> v,., v, "I) is a known regression
matrix of appropriate dimension. By using v" instead of "I, in the parametel-
ization, the transformation matrix (kinematics) J("I) does not enter into the
regression matrix, This yields:

Let the control law be chosen as:


where iJ is the estimated parameter vector and K d is a symmetric positive regu-

lator gain matrix of appropriate dimension. Hence,

Then, the parameter update law (assuming iJ = 0):

le = -T pT(v" VT> v, "I) r 1("I) si (4,,292)

cancels out the last term in the expr ession for V, such that:

Hence, convergence of s to zero except for the singular point e = ±90° is guar-
anteed by apprying Barb5.lat's lemma. This in turn implies that s converges to
zero and that e is bounded.,

Non-Adaptive Position and Attitude Control

If the model parameters are known with some accuracy the following non-adaptive
nonlinear control law can be applied:

17 = M v r + C(v) v, + D(v) v, + g("I) - JT("I) K d s I (4294)

where v, and V, are defined in (4,279) and (4.280), respectively., It should be
noted that implementation of the non-adaptive version of the control law often is
advantageous since the parameter adaptation law can be sensitive to measurement
noise, This control law can also be written in terms of Euler parameters; see
Fjellstad and Fossen (1994a) for details.,

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 149

Example 4.11 (ROV Position and Attitude Control System)

The motion of a metacenter stable (roll and pitch stabilized) ROV can be described
by the following simplified model in surge, sway, heave and yaw;

M = diag{ m - X u, m - Yi/, m - Zw, I z - Ni}

0 -rnr
rnr o g( "I) = [0 0 0 0 jT
C(I/) = 0
-Yiiv Xuu

For the non-adaptive case we compute the control force and moment vector ac-
cording to:

Finally, these forces and moments can be distributed to the different thrusters and
control surfaces by:

u= BIT (4.296)
where B is the control matrix.

Velocity Control

An adaptive velocity controller can be derived for the system:

M+ C(v) V + D(v) v + g("I) =r

il (4.297)
by simply letting J("I) = I and 8 = V in (4.290) and (4292), that is:



Here, v, = Vd. Hence, it can be shown that:

11 = _vT [K d+ D(v)] v ~ 0 \j v E lR. n (4.300)

150 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Integral Action
Although the above tracking controllers are of PD-type (position/attitude) and
P-type (velocity), integral action can be obtained by redefining the measure of
tracking according to:

ISI=S+'\ Jcis(T)drl (4301)

while the parameters are updated by means of:

(4.. 302)

More generally, it can be proven that this substitution can be made without
affecting the previous stability results by defining:

• Position and attitude scheme

SI = ij + 2.\ij + .\210' ij(T) dT (4.303)

The virtual reference trajectory is modified accordingly as:

T], = T] - SJ = T]d - 2.\ ij - .\210' ij(T) dT (4 . 304)

while v, and v, are calculated through (4.279) and (4.280) For the posi-
tion/attitude scheme, this substitution implies that:


where P, D and I are the proportional, derivative and integral gains, respectively.

• Velocity scheme

SI = v +.\ fa' v(r) dT (4306)

which suggests that the virtual reference trajectory should be computed as:

VT =V- SJ = Vd - .\ fat V(T) dT (4.307)

Hence, we obtain the PI-control law:

T = 4>(v" v" v, T}) () - _K - p v + +.\ Kd

lot ii(T) dT
(4 . 308)
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 151

4.5.5 Nonlinear Tracking (The Sadegh and Horowitz Algorithm)

It is well known that the adaptive control law of Slotine and Li is sensitive to
velocity measurement noise (Berghuis 1993). For a marine vehicle body-fixed
velocities are usually obtained by model-based state estimation through noisy
position measurements. This implies that the velocity estimates can be contami-
nated with a significant amount of noise. In such cases the adaptive control law of
Slotine and Li can go unstable due to drift in the parameter estimates. However,
precautions against parameter drift can be taken by small modifications of the
adaptive scheme (see Section 4.5.8)
In this section we will briefly extend the results of Sadegh and Horowitz
(1990) to marine vehicle control, This control scheme is less sensitive to velocity
measurement (estimation) noise. The main idea of Sadegh and Horowitz (1990)
is to replace the actual position and velocity in the regressor by the desired state
trajectories. This is usually referred to as the desired compensation adaptive
law (DCAL). In the original work of Sadegh and Horowitz (1990) the kinematic
equations of motion are omitted since they use the DCAL to control a robot
manipulatoL An extension of this work to marine vehicle control in terms of
Euler angle feedback has been made by Fossen and Fjellstad (1995) This results
is based on the assumption that the desired state trajectories can be computed
according to the following scheme:

Reference Trajectory Definitions

The desired state vectors Vd and T/d must be computed from:

Vd + AVd + JT(T/) n T/d = JT(T/) nr (4309)

T]d = J(7]) Vd (4.310)
where r is a constant (slowly-varying) commanded input, n = n T > 0 and
A > O. Hence, I/d(OO) = 0 and 7]d(oo) = r. Notice that J(7]) is a function of
the actual Euler angles. This is not a problem since (rp, e, 'l/J) are easy to measure
with good accuracy. The reason for this is that the representation of the control
law is considerably simplified if J(7]) is used instead of J(T/d)' Moreover, this
assumption implies that it is possible to formulate the control law in terms of
M, C, D and g instead of the earth-fixed quantities M~, C~, D~ and g~

Modified DeAL (Fossen and Fjellstad 1995)

Parameterization: M Vd + C(Vd) Vd + D(Vd) Vd + g(7]d) ~ P(Vd, Vd, 7]d) ()

Control law: T = M Vd + C(l/d) Vd + D(Vd) lId + i7(7]d)
-J (7]) [Kpi} + Kdry + K f I1 i} 11 2 s) (4 . 311)
Adaptation law: iJ = -r pT(li d, Vd, 7]d)J-l(7])S
152 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

where K p = K~ > 0, K d > 0, K f > 0, r = r T > and s = J(T)v+.\ij. The
stability proof is a straightforward generalization of Sadegh and Horowitz (1990)

4.5.6 Cascaded Adaptive Control (ROV and Actuator Dynamics)

The adaptive sliding controller discussed in the previous section is based on the
assumption that the actuator dynamics can be neglected. Hence, parameter drift
and robustness of the adaptive controller can be a severe problem for vehicles
where this is not the case. Van Amerongen (1982, 1984) shows that this problem
can be circumvented to some extent by using ad-hoc modifications of the reference
model. This is done by including a low-pass structure in the reference model to
smooth out the reference trajectory: 71d' 1]d and 1Jd (see Section 64).
An extension to this work is found in Butler, Honderd and Van Amerongen
(1991) who present a more systematic approach, the so-called reference model
decomposition (RMD) technique, to compensate for the unmodelled dynamics,
Furthermore, the RMD has been applied to underwater vehicles by Fjellstad et
al. (1992). The main disadvantage with these methods is that global stability and
therefore boundness of the parameter estimates cannot be proven. A solution to
this problem has been proposed by Fossen and Fjellstad (1993) . We will now
briefly review the main results from this method.

Actuator' Dynamics
For simplicity, let us consider a MIMO linear actuator model:

Tu+u=u c (4 . 312)
where u E JRP (p 2: 6) is a vector of actual control inputs, U c E lRP is a vector of
commanded actuator inputs and T = diag{T,} is a p x p diagonal matrix of pos-
itive unknown actuator time constants (Ti > 0) . Moreover Ti can be understood
as the effective time lag in a PI-controlled DC motor, that is:
h DC ( s) = (DC-motor) (4.313)
(1 + T1 s )(I + T2 S )
where T1 and 'T2 are the motor time constants and K is the motor gain. Further-

hPI ()
Kp(1 + Ti S ) (PI-controller) (4.314)
S =
where 'T, is the integral time constant K p is the proportional gain constant. Hence,
the resulting closed-loop transfer function is I(s) = hDc(s)hPI(s) which implies

..:':.(s) =
I(s) "" 1 (4.315)
Uc 1+1';s ;;.

where 1'; is the effective time lag of the closed-loop system

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for R.OVs 153

Theorem 4.2 (Cascaded Adaptive Velocity Control)

Let the adaptive control law be described by:

1£e = 1£ + T Ud - BT(v)ii K u u (4.316)

The desired control input 1£d is computed from:

Ud = B+(V)[P(Vd, Vd, V,1J) e- K v iiJ (4.317)

with parameter adaptation laws;

e = (4 318)

O<i >0 (4.319)

Here K u > 0, K v ~ 0 and r = rT > o. It can be shown that (Fossen and

Fjellstad 1993):

Then the signals e and T remain bounded and u and ii converge to zero as
t --+ 00.

(4321 )
It seems reasonable to choose the maximum singular values of the gain matrices
K u and K v according to:

where O'C) is the maximum singular value, to ensure that the bandwidth of the
inner servo loop (actuator dynamics) will be higher than the bandwidth of the
outer loop (vehicle dynamics)

Theorem 4.3 (Cascaded Adaptive Position and Attitude Control)

Consider the system (4.281) and (4-312) together with the contTOllaw

where u= U - Ud and Ud is computed by time differentiation of


The parameter estimates e and T are updated through to the differential equa-
154 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

0= -r pT(V" v" v, "1) r l

("1) s; r >0 (4 . 325)
Ti = -O!i Ui Udi; O!i> 0 (i = 1.6) (4.326)

Then the signals and T remain bounded and u and s converge asymptotically
to zero as t -> co. This in turn implies that ij converge to zero as t --; co.

Proof: Consider the Lyapunov junction candidate:

V =
1 T
2 [s l.\IJ~ s + uT Tu + 6-T r- I 6- + ~ 1 -2
L, ---: T, ] (4327)
i=l O!l

wheTe T, = T, - T, and O!i > 0 is constant. DijJer'entiating V with respect to time

and using M~("1) = M~("1) > 0 'if "1 E lR 6 and sT [M~("1) - 2C~(v,"1)] s =
o 'if s E lR6 , yields:

(4.. 328)

Substituting the system equation (4-281), (4.312) into this expression and using
the definition (2.. 177) together with (4.277), (4.279) and (4.280) yields:

v- _sT D~(v, "1)s

+[r l ("1)sf[B(v)u - M~("1)vr - C~(v,"1)v, - D~(v,"1)vr - g~("1)]
~T 1 ~ -
+6 r- 1-6 + uT [uc - u - TUd] + I: -
T;T; (4329)
i=l O!i

Since sT J- T ("1)B(v)u = ii7B T (v)J-I("1)S, we can subtmct B(v)u = B(v)u-

B(V)Ud jrom the first bracket and add B T (v)J- I ("1)s to the second bracket.
Applying the parameterization (4.288) yields:

V - -s D~(v, "1)s + [r ("1)s] [B(v)ur p(v" v" v, "1) 6] +6 r 6
6 1 .
+ii7[u c - u - TUd + B T (v)r l ("1)s] + TiTi I: - (4.330)
i=l ai

Substituting the contra I law (4·323) and (4.324) into this expression yields.

v = -8TlK~ + D~(v, "1)]s + [STJ-T("1)p(V" Vr, v, "1) + (/ rl]O

6 1 .
_uT Kuu + I:(- Ti + UiUdi) T i (4.331)
i:=l Gi

4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 155

Finally, assuming that 0 = °and T = 0, suggests that the parameter adaptation

laws should be chosen as (4·325) and (4.326) to obtain

Notice that convergence to zero is guaranteed even for K'I = since the quadratic
form xTD~(I/,77)X > 'r/ 77,V,X E lR6 , X of 0. Also notice that in the imple-
mentation of the control law, acceleration z/, velocity v, position/attitude 77 and
control input u are required measured.

Example 4.12 (Cascaded Adaptive Velocity Control)

Consider an RO V speed system described by

m v + d(v) v = u; d(v) = do Ivl (4.333)

Tu+ u = u c (4.334)

A normalized system with parameters m = 4, do = 1 and a sampling time of

01 s was used in the computer simulations. The tracking errors i) and fi of
the adaptive velocity controller (Theorem 1.2) are shown in Figure 428. The
parameter estimates rn, do and and their true values are shown in Figure 4.29
We see from the simulation results that ii - t 0, fi - t
converge to their true values in less than 50 seconds..
and that rn, d and t

Extension to Nonlinear Actuator Models

It is straightforward to extend the adaptive control scheme to a more general
nonlinear actuator model:

it + f(u) = G(u) U c (4.335)

where f(u) and G(u) are two unknown functions. To prove global stability, we
must in addition require that both functions are linear in their parameters Hence,
stability for the nonlineaz actuator model can be proven by small modifications
in the proof of Theorem 4.3

4.5.7 Unified Passive Adaptive Control Design

The adaptive controller discussed in the previous section can be view as a special
case of a more general class of passive adaptive control laws, see Ortega and
Spong (1988) and Brogliato and Landau (1991), all exploiting the skew-symmetric
property of M~(77) - 2C~(v). By passive, we mean that a system with input u
and output y satisfies the inequality (see Appendix 03):

156 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

with reference ctuutor state with reference




20 40 60 [s] 0 20 40 60 [s]

Velocit" trackino error Actuator trackin a error

0,1 006

-o~ \ I rr'""
-03 L:~

V _ _~

60 (s]


---'I \.

60 [s]

Figure 4.28: Upper plot shows the surge velocity v(t) and actuator state u(t) together
with their desired values Vd(t) and Ud(t) while the lower plot shows their couesponding
tracking enors v(t) and u(t) as a function of time
5 ~ ~-,m"-"a",n,,d.sd'--. _ 15 ~ -l.T ~

I I- - - - - - - - - - - - ;C--:.:-::.;--:.:-::.;--:.:-::c--co--- - - - j

0.5 ~

-r L ,::-_ _
o .
~ ~

o 20 40 60 [s] o 20 40 60 [s]

Figure 4.29: Normalized parameter estimates iiL(t), do(t) and T(t) and their true
values m = 4 0, do = LO and T = LO as a function of time.

foT yT(r)u(r) dT 2: f3 (4.336)

for all u E L 2e , all T2: 0 and some constant f3 > -co, Furthermore, we say that .(
the system is input strictly passive if (and only if) there exists an Cl< > 0 and some J

constant f3 such that:

foT yT(T)U(T) dT > Cl< lIuTllz + f3 (4.337)

To apply the passivity formalism in the control design, we will use a general f
framework where the system dynamics is represented by three subsystems Bl, '.
B2 and B3, see Fignre 4.30:

-- i
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 157

o Bl: closed-loop equation (strictly passive)

e B2: vehicle dynamics (passive)

G B3: adaptation algorithm (passive)

i';tri;;tiy'p;;s';i~~"""""""'" ....
··• K(s)
i: : BI :
-s ··
· w_ •• ..

~w ••••• _.
.__ __ .
.~ .._:
•• ~

I rl
,-__-e--=l--;;_-. rJi21 -
····, ~ ..
- :.
j I B3 I <pe i
: I I :
·L.P?_S_~~':~ . i.
Figure 4.30: Closed-loop equivalent system, adopted from Brogliato and Landau
(1991). Notice that stability according to this figure is based on the assumption that
J is non-singular.

Hence, the following theorem, see Appendix G3, ensures that the measure of
tracking ej converges to zero in finite time.

Theorem 4.4 (Feedback Lz-Stability)

Assume that 81 is a strictly passive system and 82 and B3 are passive blocks,

ej (t) E U;: (4338)

Proof: See Desoer and Vidyasagar (1975) page 182.
We will now apply this theorem in the control design. Let us consider the following
control law:

(4.. 339)
where K(s) is a vector function describing the closed-loop dynamics; see block
Bl in Figure 4,30.

- "
158 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
Block Bl I,,
The closed-loop dynamics K(s) is always chosen to be strictly passive, indepen- iI
dent on what type of adaptation algorithm we useo For instance, the adaptive ,
scheme of Section 4.5.4 is obtained by choosing the compensator K(s) according

K(s) = K d s; (4.340)
which clearly is strictly passive.

Block B2

We know turn our attention to block B2, representing the vehicle dynamics. First,
we notice that the signal, T in Figure 4030 can be written:

T - J7(TJ) K(s) - <1>(v" v" v, TJ) (8 - 8)

- <1>(v" V T , V, TJ) 8 - T
- M vT + C(v) V T + D(v) Vr + g(TJ) - T
JT(TJ) [Mry TiT. + Cry(V) TJT + Dry(v) TJT + gry(TJ)) - T (4.341)
Using the fact TJT = TJ - sand

r = _J7(TJ) [Mry 8 + Cry s + Dry sJ (4.343)

Let el = J-l(TJ) s, then
(T, -€llr = r _[J- 1 SJ7 r dT = r s7 [Mry 8 + C~ s + Dry s) dT
la la
- lar 2 dtd
[1 [s T Mry s ] - 1
2s 7 [ . .
Mry - 2Cry ] s + sT Dry S] dT

Since the rate of energy dissipated from the system satisfies:

ST Dry s > 0 '<I s # 0 (4344)

and skew-symmetry implies that

we have that

(r, -€l)T 2: -2s7(0) Mry(TJ(O)) s(O) (4.. 346)
This shows that the mapping T -> -€l is passive..

- --
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 159

Block B3

Finally, we want to show that the mapping represented by block B3 is passive..

The update law is given by:

r = rT >0 (4.347)

(-el>lP8)T - f -eflP8dT
_ .1rT er-
l 8 dT ? _~8T (0) r- l 8(0)

This shows that the mapping -el -> lP 8 is passive.

4.5.8 Parameter Drift due to Bounded Disturbances

It is well known that external disturbances may cause parameter drift Consider
the nonlinear model:

M vet) + G(v) vet) + D(v) vet) + geT)) = T(t) + ,et) (4.. 349)
where ,et) is a bounded disturbance with h'(t)1
~ '0' Hence, the control law:
T =]\;I V + G(v) v + D(v) v + g(T)) - JT(T)) K d S (4.350)
yields the error dynamics:

We recall that the parameter adaptation law for this system was chosen as:
, T .
0= -r lP (v r , v" v, T)) er; (4.352)
which yields the following expression for V:
Hence, integration of the error dynamics to yield s and er in the parameter
adaptation law, clearly shows that the resulting parameter estimate will be e
sensitive to the time-varying noise term T We also see that V no longer can be
guaranteed to be non-increasing since I is unknown.
Precautions for bounded disturbances can be taken in several ways by small
modifications of the adaptation law We will discuss four standard methods.
160 Stability and Control of Underwater' Vehicles

Dead-Zone Technique
Peterson and Narendra (1982) propose stopping the adaptation when the output
enor el becomes smaller than a prescribed value /::; by introducing a dead-zone
in the adaptation law. This is due the fact that small tracking errors mainly
contain noise and disturbances. This suggests that:

lI e ll1 2 /::; (4.354)

Iledl < /::;
Hence, by choosing /::; sufficient large V becomes non-increasing outside the dead-
zone.. The choice dO/ dt = 0 inside the dead-zone implies that the cancellation
in (4.291)-(4.293) no longer is satisfied. As a result of this, V may grow inside
the dead-zone. Hence, asymptotic convergence of the plant output to the desired
tra jectory no longer can be guaranteed even when no disturbances are present.
The choice of /::; should be seen as a trade-off between robustness and per-
formance. A large value for /::; implies that the parameter adaptation is less
sensitive for plant disturbances while a low /::; yields better performance but in-
creased possibility for parameter drift. Still, mainly because of its simplicity and
effectiveness, this method is highly attractive to use.

Bound on the Parameters

If bounds on the desired parameter vector 8 are known, instability due to pa-
rameter errors can be avoided by a simple modification of the adaptive law. This
problem has been addressed by Kresselmeier and Narendra (1982) who assume
that a bound emax on the parameter vector is known such that:

o < emax < (Xl (4.355)

The adaptive law is modified as:
- 2
8=-Tp T" (V,.,v"v,T/)ej-8
• - ( 1--11811)
- .-
}(8) (4356)

}(O) = { ~ if 11011 > 8max


The two previous schemes assume that a bound on the disturbance vector I or the
parameter vector 8 is known. A popular robust adaptive control scheme where
this a priori information is not necessary was proposed by Ioannou and Kokotovic
(1983). This scheme is usually referTed to as the a-modification scheme To avoid

4.6 Conclusions 161

the parameters growing unbounded in the presence of bounded disturbances an

additional stabilizing te= -(J" is used in the adaptive law, that is:

(4.. 358)

where (J" > 0 However, introduction of the term -(J" implies that the origin is
no longer the equilibrium point.. This implies that the parameter estimates will
not converge to their true values even for a PE reference input or the case when
all external disturbances are removed.

To overcome the limitations of the (J"-modification scheme Narendra and An-
naswamy (1987) proposed a slight modification of the above scheme, that is:

(4 . 359)
where a > 0. This method is referred to as the el-modification. The motivation
for using the gain Ilelll instead of (J" is that this proportional term tends to zero
with the tracking error el' Hence, parameter convergence to the true parameter
values under the assumption of PE can be obtained when there are no external
disturbances present.
A more detailed discussion on convergence properties, stability and imple-
mentation considerations are found in Narendra and Annaswamy (1989). This
text also includes stability proofs ~or the above mentioned scl1emes.

4.6 Conclusions
A model-based control system design requires proper modeling of both the dy-
namics and kinematics of the vehicle. In this cl1apter we have shown how different
mathematical models can be derived for this purpose. In addition to this, em-
phasis is put on showing how simple controllers of PID-type can be designed
for ROV systems with unJrnown and partially known dynamics and kinematics .
These results are highly applicable in most practical applications.
The last part of the cl1apter discusses advanced nonlinear and adaptive control
theory utilizing the nonlinear model structure of Chapter 2. Moreover, it is shown
how the nonJ.inear ROV equations of motion can be decollpled both in the body-
fixed and earth-fixed reference frames to obtain a linear control problem, whicl1
is usually solved by applying a simple control law of PID-type.. In addition to
feedback linearizatioT! tecl1niques, alternative design methods based on sliding
mode control and paSsivity are applied to control the ROV. These methods are
highly suited for high perfo=ance tracking of time-varying reference trajectories
in 6 DOF. Extensions to adaptive control theory are done both for the feedback
linearization and passivity-based scl1emes.

162 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

Mathematical models for underwater vehicle simulation are proposed by nu-

merous authors, The mathematical model for the UNH-EAVE Autonomous Un-
derwater Vehicle is discussed by Humphreys and Watkinson (1982) while the
control system design is found in Venkatachalam, Limbert and Jalbert (1985)
Modeling of ROVs is also discussed by Goheen (1986), Kalske (1989), Lewis,
Lipscombe and Thomasson (1984) and Yuh (1990), Nonlinear models for ROV
and AUV simulation are proposed by Fossen (1991) and Sagatun (1992) For the
interested reader mathematical models for ROV and AUV simulation are found
in Appendix E
Other useful references in the field of ROV and AUV control are: Cristi et
aL (1990), Dougherty et at (1988), Dougherty and Woolweaver (1990), Fjellstad
et at (1992), Fjellstad and Fossen (1994a, 1994b), Fossen and Sagatun (1991a,
1991b), Gallardo (1986), Healey, Papoulias and Cristi (1989), Healey and Marco
(1992), Healey and Lienard (1993), Jalving and StyJrkersen (1994), Mahesh, Yuh
and Lakshmi (1991), Marco and Healey (1992), Triantafyllou and Grosenbaugh
(1991), Yoerger and Slotine (1984, 1985), Yoerger et aL (1986), Yoerger, Cooke
and Slotine (1990), Yoerger and Slotine (1991) to mention some
The interested reader is recommended to consult the proceedings of the In-
ternational Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology which
is arranged on a biannual basis at the University of New Hampshire, Durham,
and the IEEE Symposium on Autonomous Underwate1' Vehicle Technology, Other
useful publications are the proceedings of the R 0 V Confe1'ence, the Ocean Con-
ference and the International Offshore and Polar EngineeTing ConfeTence,
Prediction of hydrodynamic coefficients for underwater vehicles h:om geomet-
ric parameters is discussed by Humphreys and Watkinson (1978). Triantafyllou
and Amzallag (1984) discuss the design of unmanned tethered submersibles for
operations at large depths while Allmendinger (1990) is an excellent reference
for submersible vehicle system design in the more general context, Operational
guidelines for ROVs can be found in MTS (1986),
We have not discussed modeling and control of submarines in this chapter.
However, for the interested reader a standard model for submarine simulation
and control is proposed by Gertler and Hagen (1967), A revised version of this
model is found in Feldman (1979). Submarine control applications utilizing the
LQG/LTR design methodology are discussed by Milliken (1984) whereas Boo
control is discussed by Williams and Marshfield (1990, 1991), Grimble, Van der
Molen and Liceaga-Castro (1993) and Marshfield (1991) An application of sliding
mode control to submarines is found in McGookin (1993).

4.7 Exercises
4.1 Consider the ROV yaw dynamics in the form:
4.7 Exercises 163

where r is the yaw rate, 0 is the .rudder angle and rn, d j and dz are three parameters.
Let the kinematics be given by t/J = r while the actuator dynamics is written:

Tb +0 = Oc
where T is the time constant and Oc is the commanded rudder angle
(a) Assume that t/J and T are measured. Derive a feedback linearization control law
for 0 under the aSsumption that m, d j and dz are known and that Oc = 0..
(b) Assume that rn, d j and dz are unknown. Derive an adaptive feedback linearization
scheme such that these parameters can be estimated on-line.
(c) Extend the results from (b) to incorporate the actuator dynamics. Assume that
only the actuator time constant T is known. Prove global stability for the yaw
control system with actuator dynamics. Both rand 0 are assumed measured.
(d) Suggest a more practical solution than the solution under (c) not depending on
yaw acceleration measurements r. (Hint: Design a cascaded control system with
two servo loops.)

4.2 Consider an ROV described by:

where V = [11., v,w,p,q,rV. Let the kinematics of the vehicle be described by unit
quaternions (Euler parameter representation), see (2.36),
ryE = E(TlE) V

where TIE = [x, y, z, 01, 02, C3, 7]JT. Derive a position and velocity control scheme for
this system by applying the theory of feedback linearization. Assume that NI and n
are perfectly known. The error dynamics of the linear system shall be pole-placed in
terms of a Pill control law with acceleration feedforward.

4.3 Consider the horizontal motion of an ROV.

(a) Under which assumptions can we express the dynamic equations of motion by:

MiJ + C(r/) V + D V = r

where v = [u, v, rf is the state vector, r is the control variable and:

m-Yti 0]
mXG - Yf D = [ -X
o mXG -Nu 1= - Nf 0

Find a skew-symmetric representation of C (v). What is the kinematic equations

of motion for this case if position and heading are the desired state variables?

164 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles

(b) Assume that M, C and D are known. Derive a controller for tracking of a
smooth reference trajectory Xd(t), Yd(t) and 'Pd(t) by applying the Slotine and
Li, and Sadegh and Horowitz algorithms.

(c) Assume that Yi, Nu, Y; and Nu are unknown. Design a parameter adaptation law
for these coefficients which can be used together with the above tracking control
laws. I1
4.4 Consider a deep submergence rescue vehicle (DSRV) given by the following non-
dimensional data (Healey 1992):

I'x = 0.000118 M'q = -0001573 Z'q = -0017455

I~ = I~ = 0.001925 M;" = 0.011175 Z'q = -0000130
m' = 0.036391 M'.w = -0.000146 Z'w = -0.043938
UQ = 135 (ft/s) Mo = -0.012797 Z'0 = -0.027695
M'q = -0.01131 M'0 = -0.156276/U 2 Z'.w -0.031545
Here the non-dimensional hydrodynamic derivatives are defined according to Prime-
system I in Table 5.1 with UQ in (ft/s) and L in (It); see Section 53.3 (1 ft = 0.30 m).
Assume that Xc
= O. Notice that Mo = -EG z W.

(a) Write down the linear equations of motion for maneuvers in the vertical plane.
The only control input used for depth changing maneuvers is the stem plane Os
Find a state-space model for the DSRV
(b) Find and plot the characteristic equation roots versus total speed:

in the range 1-8 knots (1 knot = 1.68 ft/s). Is the DSRV open-loop stable?
(c) A dive maneuver is attempted at 8 knots by holding a 5 degrees angle on the
stem planes for a time of 5 non-dimensional seconds. Simulate the depth change
response and find out how long the vehicle takes to regain the level pitch condition
and the resulting final change in depth.
(cl) Design a depth control system for the DSRV

4.5 Consider a swimmer delivery vehicle (SDV) given by the following non-dimensional
data (Healey 1992):

I'x 0.000949 y'u = -1.0.10- 1 y'u = -55.10- 2

I~ =1'y = 0.006326 y'r = 3.0.10- 2 y!r = 0
ml = 0.1415 NIu = -74.10- 3 N'u = 0
UQ = 13.5 (ft/s) N'r = -1.6.10- 2 Mr = -34 10- 3
W' = E' = 0.2175 Yi0 = 27.10- 2 N'0 -1.3 .10- 2
Notice that the non-dimensional hydrodynamic derivatives are defined according to
Prime-system I in Table 5.1 with UQ in (ft/s) and L in (ft); see Section 5.3.3 In
addition to this, we have XG = YG = 0 and ZG = 02 (It). The length of the vehicle is
L = 17.4 (ft)
4.7 Exercises 165

(a) Write down the linear steering equations of motion and find a state-space model
for the SDV. Simulate turning response to a sudden application of 15 degrees
of rudder OR in a turn to starboard (negative rudder). Include the kinematic
equations of motion for x, y and 1p and plot x versus y and sideslip angle:

versus time. The total speed of the SDV is:

u = V(uo + b>u)2 + (uo + b>v)2 + (wo + b>w)2 = VU6 + (b>u)2

Perform the analysis in non-dimensional format.

(b) Repeat the analysis under (a) but this time by including the roll mode, that is:

K~ = -10 . 10- 3 K; = -11 . 10- 2 K~ = 1.3 . 10-4 K;' = 31 .10- 3

Ki = -3,4 . 10-5 Kt = -8,4 . 10- 4 K 6= 0 N~=Ki

What is the steady-state roll angle developed by the turn? Does the SDV
exhibit non-minimum phase behavior in response to the rudder input? VerifY
your statement by computing all poles and zeros

(c) Design a course controller for the SDV with and without roll angle feedback?
Chapter 5
Dynamics and Stability of Ships

This chapter discusses state-of-the-art linear and nonlinear modeling techniques

for ships. These include standard ship steering equations of motion (with and
without the roll mode), models of the speed system, the sensor system and the
environmental disturbances, see Figure 5.1. These models can be written:

Ship dynamics: x - f(x,u,w)

Actuator dynamics: u - g(x, u, u c )
Sensor system: z - h(X,11)

where f(·), gO and hO are three nonlinear functions to be interpreted in this

chapter Automatic control systems design for ships applying these models will
be discussed in the next chapter.

Waves Sensor
wind and nOise

.:" """ , , '...... " ,. "w'" n'" ". ..y ..

Uc Actuator U Ship x Sensor z

-'---;-'1 dynamics dynamics system J--f---...
from to control
: t system

Figure 5.1: Diagram showing actuator dynamics, ship dynamics, sensor system and
environmental distmbances.

Besides ship modeling special attention is paid to ship maneuvering and sta-
bility. An evaluation of the ship's maneuvering properties before designing the
control system often leads to significant information about the ship's performance
limitations and the degree of stability.
168 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

5.1 Rigid-Body Ship Dynamics

Nonlinear Ship Equations of Motion
Equation (2"110) suggests that the coordinate origin should be set in the center
line of the ship, that is Yc = 0, In addition to this, the speed and ship steering
equations of motion are bllijed on the following assumptions:
(i) Homogeneous mass distribution and xz-plane symmetry (Izy = I y , = 0).

(ii) The heave, roll and pitch modes can be neglected (w = p = q = w = p = q = a),
Applying these assumptions to (2,111) yields:

Surge: m(u - VT - xCT2) - X . ,

Sway: m(v + ur + xci) - Y (5,1) i i

Yaw: I, i + mxc(v + UT) - N

Perturbed Ship Equations of Motion

The perturbed equations of motion are based on an additional assumption: ..:;'

(iii) The sway velocity v, the yaw rate l' and the rudder angle Ii are smalL
This implies that the surge mode can be decoupled fTOm the sway and yaw modes
by assuming that the mean forward speed Uo is constant for constant thrust.
Similarly, we assume that the mean velocities in sway and yaw are Vo = To = 0,
Consequently, 1 ,
t !

u . = Uo + 6'uj v - 6v; l' = 61' "

X = X o +6X; Y = 6Y; N = 6N
where 6u, 6v and 61' are small perturbations fwm the nominal values Uo, Vo .,
and TO, and 6X, 6Y and 6N are small perturbations from the nominal values
X o, Yo and No,
Assuming that higher order perturtations can be neglected, the nonlinear :~
equations of motion can be expressed as:

m6u -
X o +6X
m(6v + U0 6T + xcM) - 6Y (5,3)
I, 6i + mXc(6v + uobr) - 6N
Notice that the steering equations of motion are completely decoupled from the
speed equation.. Applying Expression (5.2) to the steering equations finally yields:

Speed equation: mu - X
Steering equations: m(v + UOT + xci) _ Y (54)
I,i+mxc(v+uor) - N
The assumption that the mean forward speed is constant implies that this model
is only valid for small rudder angles.
5.2 The Speed Equation 169

Hydrodynamic Forces and :tvIoment

In the forthcoming sections we will discuss the choices of X, Y and N. We will

restrict our treatment to formulas that are functions of:

X - X(u,v,T,iL,8,T)
Y - Y(V,T, il,T,8) (5.5)
N - lV(v,T,v,r,8)

Here T is the propeller thrust corresponding to one single-screw propeller. Ships

having more than one propeller can be described by simply adding additional
terms to the surge equation X.

5.2 The Speed Equation

The speed equation relates the propeller thrust T to the forward speedu.

5.2.1 Nonlinear Speed Equation

From (5.1) and (5.5), we obtain the following nonlinear expression for the surge
m(it - VI' - XGT ) = X(11" V, T, it, 8, T) (5.6)

Here X is a nonlinear function describing the hydrodynamic surge force Blanke

(1981) proposes the following expression for the surge force:

X = X u it + XV, VI' + X!ulu 111,111, + X,., T 2 + (1 - t) T + X ccli5 c2 82 + X. xt (5.7)

The hydrodynamic derivatives in this expression ale defined below Substituting

(5 . 7) into (5.6), yields:

I (m - Xu)u = Xlulul11,lu + (1 - t) T + 110531 (5.8)



!<'- ---------~===--~-------"..,..======--------_. "


170 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

x" - added mass in surge

Xlulu drag force coefficient surge (resistance)
t - thrust deduction number
- resistance due to rudder deflection
X cc"
T - propeller thrust
c - flow velocity past the rudder
T10ss - loss term or added resistance
(m + Xv,) - excessive drag force due to combined sway and yaw motions
(Xrr +mxG) - excessive drag force in yaw
X ext external force due to wind and waves

It should be noted that the resistance and the propeller thrust will outbalance
each other in steady state, when the loss term Ti055 = O. The flow past the
rudder is of course strongly influenced by the propeller-induced flow A theoretical
framework showing this relationship is included in Blanke (1981). This is based
on the experiments of Van Bedekom (19'75) that suggest that the square velocity
past the rudder can be modelled as:

C =V.2 +CjT (5.10)
where an average Cr-value for the rudder profile is:
\ 8
CT' ~ 0.8a-- (5.11)
Here Cl< is the ratio between the screw diameter and the height of the rudder and
D is the propeller diameter. V. is the advance speed at the propeller (speed of
the water going into the propeller).

5.2.2 Linear Speed Equation

A linear approximation to (5.8) is obtained by introducing the following pertur-

u = uo + 6u; T=To +6T; Tio" = (Tio,.)o + 6Ti055 (5.12)

where 6u, 6T and 6Tio,. are small perturbations from the nominal values 110,
To and (T1055 )0. Hence,

I(m- X,,)6u = X u6u + (1 - t) 6T + 6T1o,s I

where X u = 2uo Xulul is the linear damping derivative in surge. The "balance
condition" corresponding to steady state is:

(m - Xu)uo = X1u1uluoluo + (1 - t)To + (T1oss)0 = 0 (5.14)

5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations 171

which yields:

luoluo = ~ [(1 - t)To + (Tlcss)o] (5.15)

-.f lulu

5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations

The ship steering equations of motion usually include the state variables 11, r, 1/J
and the control input {J,

5.3.1 The Model of Davidson and Schiff (1946)

Consider the linear steering dynamics (5A) in the form:

m(v+uor+xa i ) = Y
Izi+mxa(u+uor) = N
Linear theory suggests that the hydrodynamic force and moment can be modeled
as, Davidson and Schiff (1946):

Y = You +Yfi +Yuv+¥,r +¥;;OR

N = Nu i; + Ni i + Nu v + N r T + No OR (5 . 17)

Hence we can write the equations '.of motion according to:


1Mb + N(uo) v = boR ! (5.18)

where v= [v, rV is the state vector, OR is the rudder angle and:

M- [ -
m -
mXG -
v mXG - Y,]
1;: - N r
Nu) _
( 0 -
-N v
muo -
mXatLo -
YeN ] b= [NY'< ]
r u

Notice that the matrix N(uo) is obtained by summation of linear damping D
and Coriolis and centripetal terms C(uo) (additional terms muo and mXauo),
that is:

N(uo) = C(uo) +D (5.20)

Also notice that we have chosen the inertia matrix such that M of M T The
corresponding state-space model is obtained by letting x = [v, rf be the state
vector and u = OR- Hence,


!!!" ~--------------------------=-=-==-- \'

172 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

A = _M- 1N = [all a 12 ] (5.22)

a21 a22

The coefficients are defined as:

(1; - Nr)Yv (mxG - Yr)Nv

all -
(1; - Nr)(Y, - muo) - (mxG - Yi)(N r - mXGuo)
al2 - det(M)
(m - YiJ)Nv - (mxG - NiJ)Yv
a21 - det(M)
(m - Yu)(N, - mXQuo) - (mxG - NiJ)(Y, - m'uo)
a22 -
(1; - Nr )Y6 - (mxG - Yr)No
bl -
(m - YiJ)No - (mxG - NiJ)Yo
b2 - (5.23)
where det(M) is the determinant of the inertia matrix.

5.3.2 The Models of Nomoto (1957)

Two alternative representations of the Iflodel of Davidson and Schiff (1946) were
proposed by Nomoto, Taguchi, Honda and Hirano (1957). These models are
obtained by eliminating the sway velocity v from (5.18) to obtain the Nomoto
transfer function between T and /i R , that is:

T() K R (1+T3s) (5.24)

/i R s = (1 + T 1s)(1+T2 s)
The parameters of the transfer functions are related to the hydrodynamic deriva-
tives as:

T1T2 -
nllm22 + n22mU - n12m21 - n2lml2
T1 +T2 -
n21 bl - nllb z
KR - det(N)
m21 bl - mll bz
K R T3 - (5.25)
where the elements mij, nij and bi (i = 1,2 and j = 1,2) are defined in (5.19).
The determinants of the inertia and damping matrices are calculated as:
5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations 173

x u

~ .. ,

L-. -'- ..... Y

Figure 5.2: Variables used to describe the motion in the horizontal plane.

det(M) - (m - Yv)(I= - Ni) - (mxG - Nv)(mxG - Yt)

det(N) - Yv(N, - mxcuo) - N u (¥' - muo)
It is often convenient to redefinei the rudder deflection and the Nomoto gain
constant according to:

OR ~ -0; K R ~ -K (528)
such that a positive rudder deflection 0 > 0 corresponds to a positive turning
rate r > O. Positive rudder angle, turning rate, and surge and sway velocities are
defined according to Figure 5.2. From (2.14) we see that in absence of the roll
and pitch modes (q, = e = 0), the yawing rate is defined as:

7/!=r (529)
Hence, we can classify the Nomoto models in the time as well as the frequency
domain according to their order l .

Nomoto's 2nd-Order Model

Nomoto's 2nd-order model relates the yaw angle 7/! to the rudder angle 0 according to:
- Time-domain:

'The order n of the Nomoto models refers to the order of the transfer function between T(")
and 0(3). Consequently, the transfer function between ,p(3) and 0(8) will be of order n + L

~ ----------.,.,-----------------------==--==="'1..'
174 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

- Transfer function:
!(!J) = K(l + Tas)
o s (1 + T 1 s)(1 + T 2 s)
Since r(s) = s 'fjJ(s), the transfer function representation can also be written:

~(s) = K(l + Ta s )
o (1 + T 1 s)(1 + Tzs) (5.30)
In addition to the Nomoto model relating r(s) to o(s), we can express the sway velocity
v(s) in a similar manner by:

v K u(1 + Tus)
(5 . 31 )
8(8) = (1 + T 1 s)(1 + Tzs)
where K u and Tu are the gain and time constants describing the sway mode

Nomoto's 1st-Order Model

A 1st-order approximation is obtained by letting the effective time constant be equal
to: T = Tl + Tz - Ta·

- Time-domain:

- Transfer function:
'p K
5(~) = s (1 +Ts)

The 1st-order Nomoto model should only be used for low frequencies. This is
illustrated in the following example where the frequency response of Nomoto's
Ist- and 2nd-order models is compared in an amplitude-phase diagram.

Example 5.1 (Nomoto's 1st- and 2nd-Order Models)

In this example we will consider· a stable cargo ship and an unstable oil tanker.

Cargo ship (Mariner class) Oil tanker (full loaded)

Chislett and Str0m-Tejsen (1965a) Dyne and Tragardh (1975)

L (m) 161 350

UQ (m/s) 7.7 8.1
V (dwt) 16622 389100
K (l/s) 0.185 -0.019
T1 (s) 118.0 -1241
T z (s) 78 16.4
Ta (s) 18.5 46.0

An amplitude-phase diagmm can be generated by the following MATLAB pm-

5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations 175

'l. -----------------------------------------------------------------

Tl = 118;T2 = 7.8; T3 = 18.5; K = 0.185;

wc = nomoto(Tl,T2,T3,K), pause

Tl = -124.1; T2 = 16.4; T3 = 46,0; K = -0.019;

wc = nomoto(Tl,T2,T3,K)
'l. -------------------------------------.----------------------------
I. -----------------------------------------------------------------

function wc = nomoto(Tl,T2,T3,K)
% NOMOTO(Tl,T2,T3,K)
% K K (HT3s)
% Hl(s) = --------- H2(s) = -------------------
% (l+Ts)s s(1+T1s)(1+12s)

T = Tl+T2-T3;
d1 = [T 1 OJ;
n1 - K',
d2 = [11*12 T1+T2 1 OJ;
n2 = K*[T3 11;

[mag1,phasel,w1] = bode(n1,d1);
[mag2,phase2,w2] = bode(n2,d2);
if K < 0,
phase1 = phase1-360;
phase2 = phase2-360;

xlabel('Frequency [rad/s] '),title('Gain [dB]')
hold on,semilogx(w2,20*log10(mag2),'--'),hold off
xlabel('Frequency [rad/s] '),title('Phase [deg]')
hold on,semilogx(w2,phase2,'--'),hold off

176 Dynamics and Stability of Ships


-100 ,---,--,-c.wJ.W-,--'--'--'--u'.u.ll_-'--'-'-~=_-'-~~=_-'--~~-""
10" 10·3 10" 10" 100 10'
Frequency [rad/s]



-180 L.J..-.i....i-.i..lJ.ili----i-....i-.w..;k_..:.....;...l.JJ..il~~~c.h;:;:;;:=="""'""'"..l.W
10-1 10·3 10'" 10" 100
Frequency [rad/s]

5:r=n=::rn1. =I]'I:ITi: H~._--"pG~:n~[[dITBtl::8"~T.n,.n,.•~ITn·iTIm

II:,; ill:

-50 ',ker •• r .-. --: i


, ..i-!,--,-,i..i.u.i\"-:---,--'-'-'J..i..i..·'""'-:-.,,
10" 10"

10" 100
Frequency [rad/s]
'. ,
-ISO r--'--~.,...,..,.,.,.,-~-r"r'T.,.."--'-P-'ih!,,-as"Te-,, f'd",er¥r"

' [ 4:./;':'-----_: ij
-200 i ~ .

[ • oiltarik.'

-250L..i-'-'--'~'.-/----' . '"

-300 L-i.....i.-.c.i..UJ.u'::-'----'-'-L.i.i.iii--:-'-.....L.L.w..i.i.U.--,---,-I..c..i..W.
10" 103 10" 10" 100 10'
Frequency [rad/s]

Figur'e 5.3: 1st-order (dotted) and 2nd-order (solid) Nomoto models for a stable cargo
ship and an unstable oil tanker. ,
5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations 177

5.3.3 Non-Dimensional Ship Steering Equations of Motion

When designing the autopilot it is often convenient to normalize the ship steering
equations of motion such that the model parameters can be treated as constants
with respect to the instantaneous speed U. The velocity components in surge
and sway have already been defined as u = Uo + II u and v = II v Hence, the
total speed is:

For a ship moving at a constant speed on a constant course both II u and II v will
be small Hence,

U"'" Uo (5.33)
where Uo is referred to as the service speed. However, during course changing ma-
neuvers the instantaneous speed will decrease due to increased resistance during
the turn.

Normalization Forms
The most commonly used normalization form for the ship steering equations
of motion is the Prime-system of SNAME (1950). This system uses the ship's
instantaneous speed U, the length L = L pp (the length between the fore and
aft perpendicnlars), the time unit L/U and the mass unit ~pL3 or ~p£2T as
normalization variables. The latter. is inspired by wing theory where the reference
area LT is used instead of L 2 • An alternative system, the so-called Bis-system
was proposed by Norrbin (1970). This system is based on the use of the time unit
)L/g, the mass unit m and the body mass density ratio jJ. = m/p\l where \l is
the hull contour displacement. For positive buoyant underwater vehicles jJ. < 1,
ships and neutrally buoyant underwater vehicles use jJ. = 1, while for a heavy
torpedo jJ. will typically be in the range 1.3-1.5. The normalization variables
for the Prime- and Bis-systems are given in Table 5.1. The non-dimensional
quantities in the Prime- and Bis-systems will be distinguished from those with
dimension by applying the notation 0' for the Prime~system and 0" for the

Example 5.2 (Normalization of the Model of Davidson and Schiff 1946)

Normalization of the model of (5.18) according to the Prime-system suggests:

M'i/ + N'(u~)v' = b'i5~ (5.34)

where v' = [v',r'JT a~d

m' -
[ m,,'N"'
Xa - 11
" y '. ]
mX G -
:: r
N'( u')-
o - [-:-Y:
. N'
'"- N'
] b'= [Y;]
m xGu,o - r 0

.... ---_._-.....,..,""""'=--..._----...,..",==="'--------
178 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Table 5.1: Normalization variables used for the Prime-system and Bis-system

Unit Prime-system I Prime-system II Bis-system

Length L L L
Mass e.L3 e.L 2T
2 2
Inertia moment e.L
2 e.L
2 T
IlpV L 2
Time IT IT JL/g
Reference area L2 LT 1l 'j
Position L L L
Angle 1 1 1
Linear velocity U U vr;g
u u
Angular velocity
Linear acceleration
Angular acceleration u' u' 11-
£2 L' L
Force e.U2 L2 e.U 2 LT Ilpgv
2 2
e.U 2 3 2L 2T
Moment 2 L e.U
Ilpgv L

I Uo Uo
Uo = ~ 1 (5 . 35)
U Jeuo + 6.U)2 + 6.v2
for small values of 6.u and 6.v . The non-dimensional system (5.34) can be related
to the original system (518) by simply applying the transformations:

V =Uv l ; r = - rI . (5.36)
L '
Example 5.3 (Models Combining Actual States Variables and Non-
Dimensional Model Parameters)
An alternative representation to the previous example is obtained by using a model
structure where the actual state variables are combined with the non-dimensional
model parameters. This suggests that the model of Davidson and Schiff (lg46)
can be written:

J, mil B~ mi2 ]
[ u'L m u'L' m 22
• + [h I
IT n 21
~L ni2
IT n 22
] [ v ] = [ b~ ] 8
. b'

where m: j 1 d: j and b: are defined according to Prime systems 1 or 11 in Table 5.1

Similarly the gain and time constants in N omoto 's 1st-order model can be made
invariant with respect to Land U by defining.'
5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations 179

K' = (L/U) K; T' = (U/L) T (5 38)

This suggests that the 1st-order ship dynamics can be expressed as

(L/U) T' i +r = (U/ L) K' {) (5.39)

This representation is advantageous since the non-dimensional gain and time con-
stants will typically be in the range: 0.5 < K' < 2 and 0.5 < T' < 2 jor most
ships. An extension to Nomoto's 2nd-order model is obtained by writing:

(L/U)2 T; T~ ,p(3) + (L/U) (T; + T~) 1/1 + l~ = (U/L) K' {) + K' T~ 8 (5AO)

where the non-dimensional time constants Tf are defined as: Tf = T i (U/ L) jor
(i = 1,2(3) and the non-dimensional gain constant is K' = (L/U) K.

Both model representations (5.34) and (5.37) are based on speed-independent

non-dimensional hydrodynamic derivatives. Notice that time integration of (5.34)
implies use of non-dimensional time t l and state variables Vi and r'. The model
(5,37), however, can be integr'ated directly with respect to dimensional time t (s)
to yield dimensional state variables v (m/s) and r (rad/s).
5.3.4 Determination of Hydrodynamic Derivatives
A large number of experimental methods can be used to determine forces and mo-
ments associated with variations in linear and angular velocity and acceleration
Typical facilities are the rotating arm, the free oscillator, the forced oscillator, the
curved-flow tunnel, the curved models in a straight flow facility and the Planar
Motion Mechanism (PMM) technique. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine
all hydrodynamic coefficients for an ocean vehicle. It is necessary to know these
coefficients with reasonable accuracy to obtain a good model of the vehicle. Be-
sides this some hydrodynamic coefficients can be determined by theoretical and
semi-empirical methods, Strip theory has been successfully applied for ships, for
instance.. Finally, system identification (SI) and recursive parameter estimation
techniques have been applied to, determine the hydrodynamic derivatives. SI
techniques are economical in tank time and provide a more direct answer free
from the cumulative error of measuring many coefficients individually. The dis-
advantage is the quite harsh requirement of persistent excitation of the control
input sequence.
SI techniques are described more closely in Section 6.8, while Chapter VIII,
Sections 9 and 10 in Comstock (1967) give a survey of experimental and theoret-
ical methods for determination of the hydrodynamic derivatives. Some of these
methods are briefly described below..
180 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Straight-Line Test and Rotating-Arm Technique in a Towing Tank

The velocity dependent derivatives Yv and Nv of a ship can be determined by using
a model of the ship which is towed in a conventional towing tanle. The force and
moment coefficients are usually measmed by a dynamometer. Furthermore, the
rotary derivatives Yr and Nr can be measmed on a model by using a towing tank
apparatus denoted as a rot;l.ting-arm facility. The model is rotated about an axis
fixed in the tank with constant speed while a dynamometer is used to measure
the force and moment. Straight-line tests in a towing tank can also be used to
determine the control derivatives Yo and No by simply towing the model with
various values of rudder angle to obtain a plot of these derivatives versus rudder

Planar Motion Mechanism (PMM) Technique

Another promising technique was developed by a research team at the David
Taylor Model Basin in 1957. They applied a device called the Planar Motion I
Mechanism (PMM) System (Gertler 1959). The PMM system can be used to ex- j
perimentally determine all of the hydrodynamic stability coefficients in 6 DOF
These include static stability coefficients, rotary stability coefficients and accel- 1
eration derivatives.
The PMM consists of two oscillators mounted at the bow and stern of the
modeL These oscillators are used to produce a transverse oscillation of the mov-
ing model. The forces induced by the \oscillators can then be measured by two
transducers. I

Strip Theory
An estimate of the hydrodynamic derivatives can be obtained by applying strip
theory. The principle of strip theory involves dividing the underwater part of the
ship into a number of strips. Hence, two-dimensional hydrodynamic coefficients
for added mass and damping can be computed for each strip and summarized to
yield the three-dimensional coefficients (see Section 2.4..1). Consider the linear
ship model: ]

m - Y,;
[ mXG - N,;
mXG - Yr ] [ ~ ] +
I z - Nf r
mUQ - 1";
mXGuQ - Nr
] [ v ]
= [ Yo ]
6 (5.41)

Using the results of Chapter VIII, Section 10 in Comstock (1967) and Newman
(1977), together with some engineering judgment, we can approximate the hy-
drodynamic derivatives for a symmetrical ship by:

y'v - (542)
5.4 The Steering Machine 181

yl 1';. XI Xp I
r - t p L2T U = ,,+ T Yu (5.43)

NIu Nu
t p l,2T (I
U = - X" - Yu + T
I) Xp

NIT - Nr 1 I

t pL3TU = 4 Yu (5.45)

1':1 Y, A,
t p LT U2 = p 4" LT

NI -
pl,2T U2 = -2 Yj
1 I

where C DO is the drag coefficient of the ship at zero angle of attack (small for
slender bodies), L (m) is the hull length, p (kg/m 3 ) is the sea water density, T
(m) is the draft depth, U (m/s) is the speed of the ship, A, (m 2 ) is the rudder
area, I z (kgm2) is the moment of inertia and Xp (m) is the distance between the
center of gravi ty and the center of pressure. Moreover,

where m (kg) is the mass of the ship, r denotes the radius of gyration and:

IT - m r 2 where 0.15L < T < 0.3L (5.49)

Xp - xG ±O.lL (5.50)

The added mass derivatives can be approximated by:

X" - -(0.05m to O.lOm) (5.51)

Y,; - -(0.70m to LOOm) (552)
Yr - 0 (5.53)
N,; - 0 (554)
Ni - -(O.Ollz to O.. n) (5.55)

Care should be taken when using these formulas for prediction since some rough
approximations have been made. However, these values are highly useful as a
priori information for a recursive parameter estimator.

5.4 The Steering Machine

The mathematical model of the steering machine in this section is based on the
results of Van Amerongen (1982). The ship actuator or the steering machine is
usually controlled by an on-off rudder control system. The on-off signals from

182 Dynamics and Stability of Ships


Pail _.==*=='--!J starboard

(a) ...........
. : .
::...... ".•,u::::::::::::::::::····· -
telemotor cylinder floating lever

Figure 5.4: Simplified diagram of a two-stage hydraulic steering machine (Van

Amerongen 1982).

the rudder controller are used to open and close the port and starboard valves of
the telemotor system, see Figure 54..
Assume that both the telemotor and floating lever are initially at rest in
position (a). The telemotor can be moved to position (b) by opening the port
valve. Suppose that the rudder is still in its original position corresponding to
position (b); this will cause the steering cylinder valve to open.. Consequently, the
floating lever will move to position (c) when the desired rudder angle has been
reached. The maximum opening of the steering cylinder valve, together with the
pump capacity, determines the maximum rudder speed. A block diagram of the
steering machine with its dynamics is shown in Figure 5.5.
,. , •••••••••• , •••• " " ••••• , •••••• " ,. • • " " •••••••••

, . . .t

, "

• I

"", '
Dc j
contral ~
algorithm ,,

. ,
.tt . h

, (I +If')
:" :
,, ''
,," ''
", '
+ K
, (I +T ,)


"" angle .,"",' mechanical

transducer """ feedback
:: """
rudder servo :: telemotor system :: main servo :
I••••• ~ •• ~ w •••• ; I."."•••• " ••" ••• u .•• ~ ••• " ••••n n'.~ ".••••••••• ••: ~ ,. " •• "•• "•••" "".".u•• "" " ••• ,,"""u•• uw"".!

Figure 5.5: Block diagram of the rudder control loop relating the commanded rudder
angle Oc set hy the helmsman to the actual rudder angle 0 (Van Amerongen 1982)."

In computer simulations and when designing autopilots, Van Amerongen (1982)

suggests using a simplified representation of the steering machine, see Figure 5,6,
This representation is based on the telemotor being much faster than the main
5.4 The Steering Machine 183

servo and that the time constant T d is of minor importance compared with the
influence of the rudder speed, Generally, the rudder angle and rudder rate limiters
in Figure 5,5 will typically be in the ranges:

1 .
Omax = 35 (deg); 2'3 (deg/s) ~ om,,, < '7 (deg/s)

for most commercial ships. The requirement for minimum average rudder rate
is specified by the classification societies 2 • It is required that the rudder can be
moved from 35 degrees port to 35 degrees starboard within 30 seconds According
to Eda and Crane (1965), the minimum design rudder rate in dimensional terms
should satisfy:

.5min = 1329 (V/L) (deg/s)

where V is the ship speed in m/s and L is the ship length in m Recently,
much faster steering machines have been designed with rudder speeds up to 15-
20 (deg/s). A rudder speed of 5-20 (deg/s) is usually required for a rudder-roll
stabilization (RRS) system to work properly,

0 o~ 0$ 0 -- 0

, ~.~/ .:'
::,' .

rudder I
rudder r.lle
limiter limiter

Figure 5.6: Simplified diagram of the rudder control loop (Van Amerongen 1982)

Another model of the rudder could be (Rios-Neto and Da Cruz 1985):

.5 = { 1max (1 -
e.:x.p( -(oc - 0)/ !::J.)) if Oc - 0 2: 0
(5 . 56)
- omax (1 - exp((oc - 0)/ !::J.)) if Oc - 0 < 0
The parameter !::J. will depend on the moment of inertia of the ruddeL Typical
values will be in the range 3 ~ !::J. ::; 10
The limitations of the rudder angle and the rudder speed can be illustrated
with the following two simple examples adopted from Van der Klugt (198'7).

Example 5.4 (Limitation of the Rudder Angle)

Consider the rudder angle limiter in Figure 5.7 where Oc is the commanded rudder
angle and 0 is the actual rudder angle, Let the controller output be given by:

Oc = A sin(wot) (5.57)
2 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det norske Veritas (DnV), Lloyds ete
184 Dynamics and Stability of Ships


_"'-'"'O'-? j Autopilot
0 -. r·r. :i j
0 !

i rudde<
l ••..••.••.•.....•I}.r::H~t.:

Figme 5.7: Simplified system with rudder limiter (Van der Klugt 1987)

Figure 58 shows the actual rudder angle for three different cases A = 3/4 Om"", A =
Om"" and A = 4/3 Om"" where Om"" = 30 (deg) and Wo = 7r/10 (md/s). It is
seen from the figure that no extm phase lag is introduced for any of the cases
However, an obvious reduction in amplitude is observed faT the saturated case
This amplitude Teduction may lead to instability faT autopilots based on adaptive
contr·ol theor-y. A simple contmller of PID-type will usually suffeT fmm Teduced
peTformance but it will be stable.


Figure 5.8: Influence of the ruddel limitel (Van del Klugt 1987) .

Example 5.5 (Limitation of the Rudder Rate)
Consider' the rudder' mte limiter in FiguTe 5,9 wher'e Oc is the commanded r1Ldder
angle and 0 is the actual r1LddeT angle.. Let the contmller output be given by:

Oc = A sin(wot) (5.58)
Figure 5.10 shows the actual and commanded rudder angle for 5m "" = 4 (deg/s),
A = 30 (deg) and Wo = 7r/l0 (md/s).. ~
Besides satumtion we now observe that an additional phase lag has been in-
tmduced. In fact reduced phase margins can lead to severe stability pmblems for
the contml system. In practice, rudder mte limitations are typical in extreme
weather conditions since compensation of high frequency distur·bances r·equire a
faster r1Ldder Therefore, solving this problem is crucial for a good autopilot de-
5.5 Stability of Ships 185

Autopilot Ship

Figure 5.9: Simplified system with rudder rate limiter (Van der Klugt 1987).



Figure 5.10: Influence of the rudder rate limiter (Van der Klugt 1987).

5.5 Stability of Ships


Stability of the uncontrolled ship can be defined as the ability of returning to

an equilibrium point after a disturbance without any corrective action of the
ruddeL Hence, maneuverability can be defined as the capability of the ship to
carry out specific maneuvers. Excessive stability implies that the control effort
will be excessive whereas a marginally stable ship is easy to control. Thus, a
compromise between stability and maneuverability must be made. Furthermore
ship maneuvering can be defined as the ability of the controlled ship to change
or retain the direction of motion and its speed in that direction.

5.5.1 Basic Stability Definitions

This section will give a brief introduction to controls-fixed and controls-free sta-
bility for rudder controlled ships. Controls-fLxed stability implies investigating
the vehicle's stability when the rudder is fixed, whereas working (free) controls
refers to the case when the rudder is moving. This implies that the dynamics of
the control system also must be considered in the stability analysis.
For ships it is common to distinguish between three types of stability, namely
straight-line, directional and positional motion stability. For simplicity we will
use Nomoto's 1st-order model to illustrate these basic concepts. Consider the

186 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

T r(t) + r(t) = R a(t) + wet) (5 . 59)

where wet) is the external disturbances. Let the rudder control system be of
proportional and derivative (PD) type, that is:

aU) = Rp ['!/Jd -'!/J(t)] - R d r(t) (5.60)

where '!/Jd = constant is used to denote the desired heading angle and Rp and
R d are two positive regulator gains. Substituting the control law (5.60) into
Nomoto's 1st-order model yields the closed loop system:

T1f;(t) + (1 + KKd)0(t) + RRp1/J(t) = RK~ '!/Jd + wet) (5 . 61)

This system can be transformed to a 2nd-order "mass-damper-spring" system:

m ;j;(t) + d 1~(t) + k '!/J(t) = jet) (562)

by defining d = m (1 + RRd)/T, k = m (RRp)/T and jet) = k'!/Jd + mw(t)/T
The eigenvalues '\1,2, the natural frequency W n and the relative damping ratio (
for the mass-damper-spring system are:

-d 'F v'd 2 - 4mk d •

.\1,2 = 2m ; (5 . 63)
(= 2v'k m

Example 5.6 (Simulation of a 2ndlOrd~;;S~st~in) .;

The following MATLAB progmm is used to genemte the following step responses
for the 2nd-order system (5.62). The plot; aresh~'Um in Fig~re 5.11.

'l. MATLAB program

'l. 1
'l. x + 2 zeta v x + v"2 x = v-2 x_d :1:

'l. m x + d x + k x = k x_d .,

'W = 1i 'l. natural frequency

xd = 1*ones(160,1); 'l. commanded heading
t = 0:0.1:16; 'l. time vector

[A,B,C,D] = ord2(v,0.2); [y,x]=lsim(A,B,C,D,psid,t); plot(t,y) ;hold on;
[A,B,C,D] = ord2(v,0.8); [y,x]=lsim(A,B,C,D,psid,t); plot(t,y) ;hold on;
[A,B,C,D] = ord2(v,1); [y,x]=lsim(A,B,C,D,psid,t); plot(t,y);hold on;
[A,B,C,D] = ord2(v,2); [y,x]=lsim(A,B,C,D,psid;t); plot(t,y);grid
hold off . ,. : ;j";.'.I"t :1 ,:; , \::::
.> (:1 !!:.IH';'.:!~:·,· )" ;-,\~ ~
5.5 Stability of Ships 187

I 6 r----,-----,..----,----,-----,------~--~

10 12 14 16
t (5)

Figure 5.11: Step responses for the 2nd-order mass-damper-springsystem (5.62) with
lPd = 1.0, w = 1.0 and'; E {02, 08, 1.0, 2.0}

Stability Considerations for Ship Steering and Positioning

The global x- and y-positions for a ship moving with constant forward speed U o
under the assumption that Cl u and Cl v are small, are found by integrating the
following set of differential equations:

1. K 1
0(t) - - T 1/;(t) + T o(t) + T wet) (564)
x(t) - Uo cos,p(t) (565)
yet) - Uo sin 1/;( t) (5.66)

For this system, the following considerations can be made:

• Instability:
Instability can occur both for controlled and uncontrolled ships For in-
stance, large tankers can be unstable even around 0 = O. This occurs when:

d 1
Al = --
= --
>0 and '\2 = 0

which simply states that T < O. For the controlled ship to be unstable
K p and K d must be chosen such that at least one of the eigenvalues are
positive. This will not happen if the controller is properly designed.
188 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Q Straight-Line Stability:
Consider an uncontrolled ship moving in a straight path. If the new path
is straight after a disturbance in yaw the ship is said to have straight-line
stability. The direction of the new path will usually differ from the initial
path because no restoring forces are present (k = 0). This corresponds to:

. d 1
Al = --
= --
<0 and

Consequently the requirement T > 0 implies straight-line stability for the

uncontrolled ship (.5 = 0)

Q Directional Stability (Stability on Course):

Directional stability is a much stronger requirement than straight-line sta-
bility. Directional stability requires the final path to be parallel to the initial
path. The ship is said to be directionally stable if both eigenvalues have ,.,
negative real parts that is:

The following two types of directional stability are observed:

L Non-oscillatoric ( d 2 - 4"!,,k 2: 0 ):
This implies that both eigenvalues are negative and reaL
2. Oscillatoric ( d 2 - 4mk < 0 ):
This corresponds to two imaginary eigenvalues with negative real parts.
> !

Directional stability is observed for the uncontrolled ship in roll and pitch
where metacentric restoring forces are present.. Directional stability in yaw
cannot be obtained without corrective action from the rudder control sys-

Q Positional Motion Stability:

Positional motion stability implies that the ship should return to its original
path after a disturbance. This is generally impossible in surge, sway and
yaw for an uncontrolled vehicle without using thrust or control surfaces.

It should be noted that linear theory like the models of Davidson and Schiff
(1946) and Nomoto et al. (1957) are based on the assumption that the ship can
be made course-stable by applying small rudder deflections. However, a nonlinear
behavior may be observed for certain ships like large tankers even for small rudder
angles. Mathematical models incorporating these effects will be discussed in later
5.5 Stability of Ships 189

0.4l-- -_ _ i_====::==:·:=j··===r:I=J=J
---,----------------,------------ - ----- ------,-- ----
02 -
o'----'----'----'---'----'---':---'----'--~----' x(t)
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 ,._~_-_,_---!'D"'i"'re"'ct"'io"\n"'a"-ls~ta""b"'i'!-li"ttlv__'"

Q8 it ,
0.6 : , , : ,
0.4f-----;-----;-""--~-:--::--;:=::----L-------.--------~-------------- L _
0.2 .....

00'----'-----,---'----'-'---'----'---'---'----'----'-----' x(t)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

yl(tr)--~--~-_TD"'ir"'ec"'t"'io"'n!"al'"'s"'ta"'b"'il""it"-v'.J. (lu,"n",d",er:"d",-am",n",D,e",d'l-)_ _~_ _~_---,

0,8 : , , " : ,: , '
06 L . . ~_=w:.: .. --
04r-----'-- ·,~,--------~----------------~-----------------

O'---'---'----'--~-~-~-_=_---'----'---,J x(t)
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

yet) po5ltlOna
.. motIOn sta bT
I Itv
1 .
0.8 , .

- ......, -:
004 ~

0.2 -
o x(t)
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 5.12: xy-plots showing straight.line, directional and position motion stability
for a typical ship when an impulse w(t) is injected at x = 2 m,

190 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Example 5.7 (Straight-Line Stability)

Consider- the cargo ship and oil tanker- of Example 5 1. Recall that the equivalent
time constant in Nomoto's 1st-order model was defined as:

Hence, the uncontr-olled cargo ship has an equivalent time constant T = 107.3 s >
o while the oil tanker- has an equivalent time constant T = -153.6 s < O. This
implies that the cargo ship is str'aight-line stable while the oil tanker' is unstable.

5.5.2 Metacentdc Stability

Besides the mass and damping forces, a surface ship will also be affected by the
restoring forces caused by the weight and buoyancy The restoring forces are
equivalent to the spring forces in a mass-damp er-spring system Static stability
considerations due to restoring forces are usually referred to as metacentric sta-
bility in the hydrostatic literature. Hence, a metacentric stable vehicle will I esist
inclinations away from its static equilibrium point in the horizontal plane. This
can easily be understood by considering the linearized equations of motion:

l\II ij +N i] + G TJ = r (5.67)
where TJ = [x, y, z, rP, B, ,pIT' and 1\11, Nand G are constant matrices. For a body
with xz-plane symmetry the G matrix takes the following form:
0 0 0 o
G =-
0 0 z~

o 0 0
o 0 M~
K"o o
o 0 0 o o 0

This implies that the restoring forces only affect the heave, pitch and roll modes.
If we also have yz-plane symmetry, Zo = M, = 0, the force and moment compo-
nents are:

Z, =-pg Awp (5 . 68)

Zo = + pg If A wp
x dA (569)

= Zo (5.70)
=-pg\l(ZB - za) + pg If A wp
Y dA =-pg\l GMT
t::. -

Mo =-pg\l(ZB - za) + pg if A wp
x 2 dA ~-pg\l GM L (5.72)

5.5 Stability of Ships 191

p = water density (kg/m 3 )

ze - z-coordinate center of gravity (m)
ZB - z-coordinate center of buoyancy (m)
\l - displaced volume of water (m 3 )
A wp - water plane area (m 2 )
GlvI T = transverse metacentric height (m)
GM L longitudinal metacentric height (m)

GM,.sin $

Figure 5.13: Transverse metacentric stability.. Notice that mg = pgV. A similar

figure can be drawn to illustrate lateral metacentric stability by simply replacing MT
and q, with lvh and 0, respectively.

This implies that the restoring force in heave and the restoring moments in roll
and pitch (neglecting cross-couplings) can be written as:

Zrestoring - -p gAwp Z
Kr.storing = -pg \l G!vI T sin.p
Mrestoring = -pg \l GM L sin 0

where z is the vertical displacement (positive downward) and (GMT sin.p) and
(GM L sin 0) can be interpreted as the moment arms in roll and pitch. A com-
monly used formula fo~ the metacentric height is obtained by defining the vertical
distance between the center of gravity (G) and the center of buoyancy (B) as:
- (, .
BG = Zs- z" (5.73)

192 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

From basic hydrostatics, we have:

This relationship is seen directly from Figure 5.13 where MT denotes the trans-
verse metacenter (the intersection between the vertical line through Band B 1
when cf; and () approaches zero) and K is the keel line. For small inclinations
(cf; and () are small) the longitudinal and transverse radius of curvature can be
approximated by:

-- h - -y /y
BA'h = \7; B1VI = \7 (5.75)

Here the moments of area about the water plane are defined as:

h ~ f.·j·
A Ulp
x 2 dA; IT ~ JfJ A wp
y 2 dA (5 . 76)

For conventional ships these integrals will satisfy the bounds:

1 3
h < 12 BL (5.77)

A ship is said to be metacentric stable if GMT> 0 and GM L > 0 The longitu-

dinal stability requirement is easy to satisfy since the pitching motion is limited
for most ships. The rolling motion, however, must satisfy GMT> 0 15 m to
guarantee a proper stability margin in roll

Natural Frequency, Relative Damping Ratio and Natural Period

Neglecting the cross-coupling effects, the natural frequency and relative damping
ratios for heave, roll and pitch are (see Equation (5.63)):


= JpgA wp

W~ = (579)

Wo = (5 . 80)

This in turn implies that the natural periods (Ti = 27': /Wi) in heave, roll and pitch
can be written as:

-Zw Iy - Mq
Tz = 27': A To = 27': (5.81)
pg wp pg\7 Glvh
5.5 Stability of Ships 193

5.5.3 Criteria for Dynamic Stability in Straight-Line Motion

Recall horn Section 5 5.1 that a ship is said to be dynamic straighrt-line stable
if it returns to a straight-line motion after a disturbance in yaw without any
corrective action from the rudder. Consequently, instability refers to the case
when the ship goes into a starboard or port turn without any lUdda- deflections.
In the same section Nomoto's 1st-order model was used to find a simple criterion
for straight-line motion. This leads to the requirement that the time constant T
must be positive.. Similarly, it is possible to derive a criterion for straight-line
stability for the more general model:

M v + N(uo) v = baR (582)

where both the sway and yaw modes are included, that is v = [v, r]T. Applications
of Laplace's transformation to the linear model (5 . 82), yield:

(Ms + N(uo)) lI(S) - M v(t=O) = b OR(S) (5.83)


v(s) = a~~~~::~))) [boR(s) + MlI(t=O)] (5.84)

Assuming that the rudder is fixed in its initial position, that is <5a.r(.s) = 0, we
obtain the following characteristic equation from (5.84):

det(M 0- + N(uo)) = A 0- 2 + B 0- + C = 0 (5.85)


A - det(M)
B - nll ffi22 + n22ffill - n12ffi21 - n21 m12

C det(N) (5.86)

The two roots of (5.85), both of which must have negative real parts for controls-
fixed stability are:

-B/A ± J(B/A)2 - 4(C/A)

, = 2 (5.87)

0-1,2 are often referred to as the controls-fixed stability indexes for straight-line sta-
bility. Alternatively, a straight-line stability criterion can be derived by applying
Routh's stability criterion.

Theorem 5.1 (The Routh Stability Criterion)

The Routh stability criterion was developed in the 1860s by the British scientist
E. J. Routh. Consider the characteristic equation:
194 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

\n+ an_lA\n-l+ an_2A

anA \n-Z + ..," T, ao -0
- (5.88)
To apply the Routh criterion we must form the so-called Routh array.:

Routh array
An an an -2 a n -4
,\n-l an-l a n _3 a n -5
An- Z bl bz b3
An- 3 Cl Cz C3
An- 4 dl dz d3

where the coefficients ai are the coefficients of the characteristic equation (588)
and bi , 1;, di etc. Me defined as:

Necessary and sufficient conditions for the system to be stable are:

1. All the coefficients of the characteristic equation must exist and

have the same sign. 1 ;:::"
2. All the coefficients of the first column of the Routh array must have ;~.
the same sign.

If condition 2 is violated, the number of sign changes will indicate how many
roots of the characteristic equation which will have positive real parts. Hence, the
system will be unstable.

Proof: Routh (1877).

Forming the Routh array for (5.85) yields:

B 0 (5.89)
Hence, necessary and sufficient conditions for the ship to be stable are:

A, B , C > 0 (5.90) .;"

The first condition A > 0 is automatically satisfied since the vehicle's inertia
matrix M always is positive definite. Condition B > 0 is also trivial because:
5,5 Stability of Ships 195

nllm22 + n22mll > n12m21 + n21m12 (5.91)

for most ships. This relation simply states that the products of the diagonal
elements of M and N(uo) must be larger than the products of the off-diagonal
elements, Consequently, condition (5,90) reduces to C > 0, This condition can
be related to the hydrodynamic derivatives by the following theorem,
Theorem 5.2 (Dyn:amic Straight-Line Stability (Abkowitz 1964))
A ship is dynamic stable in straight-line motion if the hydrodynamic derivatives

Yv(N, - mXauo) - Nu(Y; - muo) > [) (5.92)

This is based on the as.sumption that the .ship dynamic.s can be described by the
linear model (5..18).
From this expression it is seen that making C more positive will improve stability
and thus reduce the ship's maneuverability, and the other way around. Straight-
line stability implies that the new path of the ship will be a straight line after
a disturbance in yaw, The direction of the new path will usually differ from the
initial path, As opposed to this, unstable ships will go into a star board or port
turn without any rudder deflection, It should be noted that most modern large
tankers are slightly unstable. For such ships, the criterion (5,92) corresponds to
one of the poles being in the righ~ half-plane. The stability criterion (5,92) can
also be expressed in moment-force ratios, This suggests the equivalent criterion:

N r - mXaUo Nu
Y; - muo . Y
>- (5 . 93)

where each side corresponds to the moment arms for the yaw force (Y; - muo) r
and the sway force Yu v, respectively Consequently, straight-line stability implies
that the sway force must attack behind the yaw force, If the sway and yaw forces
are attacking in the same point the ship is said to be marginally stable

Straight-Line Stability in Terms of Time Constants

The criterion (5,90) can be related to Nomoto's 2nd-order model by combining
(5.86) with (5.25), resulting in:

C = T 1T 2 > 0; C = T1 + T 2 > 0 (5.94)
Consequently, straight~line stability is guaranteed if T1 > 0 and T2 > 0, This can
also be seen from:

0'1,2 = __1_ = Re {-(B/A) ± J(B/A)2 - 4(C!A)} < 0 (5.95)

T 1 ,2 2

196 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Semi-Empirical Criterion for Straight-Line Stability

If the hydrodynamic derivatives of the ship are unknown, semi-empirical methods

based on the ship hull main dimensions, that is length of hull (L), beam of hull
(E) and hull draft (T), can be used to check straight-line stability. For instance,
straight-line stability is guaranteed for:

cn (5.23 - 388 CB (~) +00050 (~)2) > 0 (5.. 96)

Here the block coefficient is defined as:


where V' is the displaced volume of the ship. For large tankers CB "'" 0.. 80-0.84,
for line carriers CB"'" 0.60-{).70 whereas a fast container ship satisfies CB "'" 0.55-
0.60. The criterion (5.96) is illustrated graphically in Figure 5.. 14 where ElT is
plotted versus LIT according to the lines:

5.23 - 3.88 CB (~) + 00050 (~ r = 0 (5.98)

The hull length is usually chosen as L ,= L pp where Lpp is the length between
the fore and aft perpendiculars. The fore perpendicular (FP) is usually taken as
the intersection of the stem with the water line at the design load, and the aft
perpendicular (AP) is often refelTed to as the line through the rudder stock



CB = 0 .. 6

CB = 0 .. 8


10 20 30 40 50

Figure 5.14: Semi-empirical criterion for straight-line stability.

5.5 Stability of Ships 197

5.5.4 Dynamic Stability on Course

Dynamic stability on course or directional stability cannot be obtained without
activating the rudder. Usually an automatic control system is used to generate
the necessary rudder action to stabilize the ship. This is often referred to as
controls-free stability analysis.
For simplicity, we will consider the automatic control system of proportional
and derivative (PD) type described by:

0= K p (Jj1d - 1(;) - K d r (5.99)

Here the constant Jj;d is the desired heading angle. The PD-control law requires
that both the heading angle and the heading rate are measured or at least es-
timated. This can be done by applying a compass and a rate sensor, for in-
stance. Substituting the PD-controllaw into Nomoto's 2nd-order model, yields
the closed-loop dynamics:

From this expression, we can form the cubic characteristic equation:

A 0"3 +B 0"2 + C 0" + D = 0 (5.101)


A - TlTz (5.102)
B - T l + Tz + T3 KKd (5.103)
C - 1 + KKd +T3 KKp (5 . 104)
D - KKp (5.105)
Forming the so-called Routh anay yields:

Hence, sufficient and necessary conditions for the ship to be dynamic stable on
course are:

(i) A,B,C,D> 0 (5.107)

(ii) BC -AD> 0 (5 . 108)
Hence, K p and Kd must be chosen such that the conditions (5107) and (5.108)
are satisfied.

198 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

5.6 N onlillear Ship Steering Equations
Obvious limitations of the linear ship steering equations of motion like the as-
sumption of small rudder angles can be avoided by considering nonlinear modeling
techniques. Some frequently used nonlinear ship steering equations of motion are
described in this section. Il
5.6.1 The Nonlinear Model of Abkowitz (1964)
Recall from (5,,1) that the rigid-body equations of motion can be written as:

m(u - vr - xcr2) - X
m(v + UT + xCT) - Y (5109)
I z T + mxc(v + UT) N
Based on these equations, Abkowitz (1964) has proposed using a 3rd-order trun-
cated Taylor series expansion of the functions X, Y and N at U = Uo, v = 0 and
T = O. Moreover,

X - X(.6.u, V, T 1 u,v,T', 0)
Y - Y(6u,v, T, iJ., v, T, 6) :i"

N - N(t:..u, V, i, U, V, i, 0) (5,,110) :.
where 6u = u - Uo Notice that 6v = 'v 'and 6r = r, A Taylor series expansion
of these functions can be obtained by applying the following definition:

Definition 5.1 (n-th Order Taylor Series Expansion)

Consider the nonlinear function f(x) with argument x = [Xl, .,', xkjT. Let the
nominal values be defined by the vector' Xo . Hence, the Taylor series expansion
of the function f (x) at Xo is defined as

where 6x = x - Xo and:


A 3rd-order Taylar series expansion of the functions (5.110) will consist of a large
number of terms, By applying some physical insight, the complexity of these
expressions can be reduced Abkowitz (1964) makes the following assumptions:
5.6 Nonlinear Ship Steering Equations 199

1. NIost ship maneuvers can be descr'ibed with a Srd-order tr'uncated Taylor ex-
pansion about the steady state condition u = uo.

2. Only 1st-order acceleration terms aTe considered.

3. Standard port/starboard symmetry simplijications except terms describing the

constant force and moment arising from single-screw propellers.

4. The coupling between the acceleration and velocity terms is negligible.

Simulations of standard ship maneuvers show that these assumptions are quite
good. Applying these assumptions to the functions (5,110) yields:

x = + X"U + X u6u + X uu 6u 2 + X uuu 6u 3 + X vv v 2 + X rr T2 + X,,/j2

+ XrvTV/j + Xr,r + Xvov/j +- X vvu v26u + X rru T26u + X,ou/j2 6u
+ Xrvurvu + Xr,ur/j6u + X vou v/j6u
Y = Y' + Y u6u + Y uu 6u 2 + YrT + Y;,v + YfT + Yvv + y,/j + Y;rrT3 + Y vvv v 3
+ 1'6oo/j3 + Y rro r /j + Y 60r /j2 r + "Y,-rvT,2v + Y vur v 2,. + Y"u/j2 v + Y vu ,v 2/j + Y,vr/jv'r
+ Y uu v6u + Y uuu v6u 2 + Y ru r6u + Y ruu r6u 2 + Y;u/j6u + Y auu /j6u 2
N = N' + N u6u + N uu 6u 2 + Nrr + Nvv + NfT + N"v + Noo + N rrrT 3 + N vvv v 3
+ N ooo o3 + N rr ,r2/j + N 60"o2 r + N rrv r 2 v + N vu,v2r + N'ouo2v + N vvo v 2o
+ Novrovr + Nvu v6u + N vuu v6u 2 + N ru r6u + N ruu r6u 2 + N'u o6u
+ N ouu o6u 2 (5,113)

Here the partial derivatives are defined as:

' 1 1 1}
2 6 .. "'1.
aE {,1'-'-' n.
with obvious choices of A and v. Notice that for simplicity, the factor Cl< is
incorporated in the definition of the hydrodynamic derivatives., A large number of
mathematical models are based on simplifications and modifications of Abkowitz's

5.6.2 The Nonlinear Model of Norrbin (1970)

Norrbin (1970) has proposed using a nonlinear mathematical model for ship ma-
neuvering in deep and cQnfined waters., This model is based on both experimental
and analytical methods.
Norrbin's model consists essentially of three principal equations describing
the axial and transverse forces (X and Y) and yaw moment (N), Coefficients and
parameters are made non-dimensional by applying the Bis-system (see Section
53.3). For deep water Norrbin's model takes the following form:

~~==~-----~~-------=====~------_ ..
200 Dynamics and Stability of Ships I

Speed Equation:

(1 - X")
U = L- 1 ~X"
2 UtiU + L- g- ~X"
2 2 1
24 uu:-,u U
+ 9 (1- t) T" + (1 + X" 'UT'

rr T 2 + L -2 9 -1 (31 X"uvvv U IV IV 2 + L _1 4" X cIclaa Ic IC15e
+L( Xc11 +"21 X") (5 .115)

Steering Equations:

(1 - Y~') v = L(Yf' - x'b)r + (Y,;'r - I)ur + (Lg)-1/2 ~Y~~ru2r + L-Iy~~uv

Ivlv Iv Iv + L 2"Iy,1IIrlr 1·1 Ivlr Iv Ir .+ y"
vl"1 v 1·1
3/ 2 1
+L - 9-1/2 2"1 y"
uuvu 2v + L- 2"1.Y;1I r r + y," r

+L- 1 ~1[~lca IClcOe + k,gT" (5 . 116)

((k~)2 - Nf.') r = L- 1(Ng - x'b)v + L- 1(N:,. - X'b)U7 + L- 3 / 2g- 1/ 2 ~N:u,u27

+ L- Niluv uV+L- / g- / ~N"

2 uuv u v+L- ~N" Ivlv + ~N"
2 5 2 12 2 2
2 Ivlv 2 Ir·lr 1717
+L - 1 N"IvIr Iv I7 + L- 1 N"vlrl v I7 I + L- 2 2"IN"Iclca ICICUe
r + L- 9 k N T" (5.117)


l5e - effective rudder angle (l5 e = 15 for V = r = 0)

C - flow velocity past rudder
T" - non-dimensional propeller thrust
t - thrust deduction factor
(k~)2 = I: - non-dimensional squared radius of gyration
9 - acceleration of gravity
L - length of hull

The radius of gymtion with respect to the z-axis is defined as:

(5 . 118)

This number simply tells how far from the z-axis the entire mass m might be
concentrated and still give the same I z . Semi-empirical methods for estimation
of the fQrce and moment derivatives are found in Nonbin (1970).
A quasi-stationary approach can be used to model the effective rudder angle.
Nonbin (1970) gives the following expression for l5e :


5.6 Nonlinear Ship Steering Equations 201

Here 8 is the rudder angle and typical values for k v and k, are kv = -0.5 and
k, = 0.5. Norrbin (1970) suggests approximating the flow velocity past the rudder
for positive thrust from the open water propeller diagram as:

1 222 1211122
C -2'Cuu u +cunun+2'clnlnnn+2'cnnn (5.120)

Here n is the propeller revolution. The four constants in this equation depend
on the screw characteristics as well as the wake factors. Besides, the equation for
the flow velocity C at the rudder an auxiliary equation for the propeller thrust T
is needed. This equation is written:

g T " = L-1 1 T"

uuu 2 + T"
2' 1 rp I l L 2'1
un un + L'2'1Inlnnn+ 1 rpnn n 2 (5

In Appendix E.1.2 a more general version of this model describing large tankers
in deep and confine waters is presented.

5.6.3 The Nonlinear Model of Blanke (1981)

A simplified form of Norrbin's nonlinear model which retains the most important
terms for steering and propulsion loss assignment has been proposed by Blanke
(1981). For convenience, we will write this model in dimensional form according
to (see Section 5.2):

Speed Equation:

(m - X,,) u = Xlulu lu[u + (1- t) T + 710" (5.122)

where the loss term is:

710'" = (m + Xv,) VT + (mxG + X,,) T 2 + X •• 82 + X ext (5.123)

In addition to this simplification, Blanke suggests that the terms X" and (mxG +
X rr ) can be taken to be zero since these terms will be quite small for most
ships. In fact, X" will typically be less than 5 % of the ship mass. The last
term is multiplied with the square angular rate T 2 , which will be less than 0.0003
(rad/s)2 for a ship lirnited by a turning rate ofTmax = 1 (deg/s) = 00175 (rad/s).

Steering Equations:

(m - Y,;) iJ + (mxG - Yr) i =

-(m - Yu,) ur + Yuv uu + y!vlv Ivlv + y!vl' Ivlr + Y. {j + ¥ext (5.124)

(mxG - N,;) iJ + (Iz - Ne) i =

-(mxG - Nu,) ur + N uv uv + Nlvlv Ivlv + NlvI> Ivlr + N. {j + Next (5.125)

202 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

It should be noted that all models discussed so far in this chapter are based
on the assumption that the ship motion is restricted to the horizontal plane" In
the next section, we will show how the roll motion can be included as well to
describe the coupled ship motion in 4 DOF; that is surge, sway, roll and yaw,

5.7 Coupled Equations for Steering and Rolling

Consider a ship with homogeneous mass distribution and xz-plane symmetry,
that is I xy = I y : = 0 and Ya = O. In addition to this, we will choose the origin of
the body-fixed coordinate system such that Ix: = 0 by defining Ta = [xa, 0, zal T
The assumption that the motion in heave and pitch can be neglected, that is
w = rj = w = q = 0, implies that the general expression (2.89) for the rigid-body
dynamics reduces to:

Surge: m( it - VT - xar2+ ZaPT) - X

Sway: m(iJ + UT + xaT - zaP) - y
Roll: Ix P - mza(iJ + UT') - K - W GMT rP
Yaw: I; T + mxa(iJ + ur) N
where we have added the metacentric restoring moment in roll to the right-hand
side of the third equation" We recall from Section 5.5,2, Equation (5.71), that
this moment can be written:
Kq, = W GMT sinrP "" W GMT rP (5127) .."'

where W = mg is the weight of water in kg m/s 2 displaced by the ship hull. In

the forthcoming sections we will discuss. different choices for the hydrodynamic
forces and moments X, Y, K and N.

5.7.1 The Model of Van Amerongen and Van Cappelle (1981)

Modern roll stabilization systems like fins, anti-roll tanks and high-frequency
rudder action are used alone or in combination on most passenger and naval ships,
In such systems the low-frequency rudder motion is used exclusively to control the
heading. Since anti-roll tanks are expensive and also require considerably space,
the combination of fins and rudder seems to be an attractive alternative for roll
damping. However, fin motions as well as high-frequency rudder motions disturb
the heading control system. In order to reduce this interaction, Van Amerongen
and Van Cappelle (1981) have proposed an explicit linear model describing these
couplings in terms of the transfer between the fin and rudder angles to the linear
and angular velocity in sway and yaw, respectively.

Linear Ship Model for Combined Fin and Rudder Control

Consider a ship with port and starboard fins where Q is used to denote the fin
angle deflections. For simplicity, we will assume that neither of the fins can be

- - - - - -..- - - - - - - - - - - - " " ' : : 0......

5.7 Coupled Equations for Steering and Rolling 203

controlled independently. Let 0 be the rudder deflection. Hence, the combined

model can be written:

M v + N 11 + G 1] = B u (5.128)
where 11 = [v,p, ry and 1] = [y, cf;, 1/Jf are the states and u = [a, of is the control
vectoL The corresponding matrices are:

m-Yv -mzG - Y" mXG - Y i ] mu. - 1'; ]

M = -mzG-Kv Ix -K" mXG - Ki- -rnzGUO - Kr
[ mxa-Nv mXG-Np I, - Ni mXGUO - Nr

B =
Ya Ko
[ Na No

In addition to these equations, the kinematic equations (assuming q = e= 0):

cf;=p -if; = cos cf; r "'! r (5.129)

are used to describe the roll and yaw angle. Applying the Laplace transformation
to this system, the following equivalent representation is obtained:

cf;(s) = w2 Ko 8(s) + K a a(s) - KT r(s) (5 . 130)

n S2 + 2 ( W n S + w;;
T(S) = S 1/J(s) = No o(s) + Ne> a(s) - N~ cf;(s) (5.131)
. 1+TT s
where ( and W n are the relative damping ratio and natural frequency in roll,
respectively and TT is dominant time constant in sway. This model suggests
that a multivariable control system can be designed for heading control and roll

5.7.2 The Model of Son and Nomoto (19S1)

A nonlinear rolling coupled steering model for high speed container ships has been
proposed by Son and Nomoto (19S1, 19S2). In this work, the rigid-body dynamics
including the contribution from the hydrodynamic added mass derivatives, is

(m + m x ) u- (m + my) VT = X (5.132)
(m+m y) iJ + (m+m x ) ur+ my ay i - mylyp= Y (5 . 133)
(Ix + Jx ) P- myly v- mxlx UT = K - W GMT cf; (5.134)
(I, + Jz) i + myay v = N - xaY (5.135)

::::-- ,-.- -==== _""="'----========:::----------J,

204 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

where ffi x , my, Jx and Jy denote the added mass and added moment of inertia
in the x- and y-directions about the z- and x-a.'(es, respectively, The center of
added mass for my is denoted by ay (x-coordinate) while Ix and Iy are the added
mass z-coordinates of m x and my, respectively, The terms on the right-hand side
of these four equations are defined as:

x = X(u) + (1- t)T+XvrV1+XuvV2 +Xrr T 2 +X</uI>q,2

+X. sin" + X ext (5,136)

Y = Yv V + Yr T + Y~ q, + Yp p + Y vuv v 3 + Y,."" T 3 + Yvur v 2,. + Yvrr V7,2

+Yvu~ v2"b + Yu~~ vq,2 + Y,,~ ,.2q, + Yr</ul> 7'q,2 + Y. COS" + Yext (5.137)

K = K v v + K, T + K~ q, + K~ p + K~vv v 3 + Km T 3 + K uvr V2T + K vrr V7,2

+Kvv~ v 2q, + Ku~~ vq,2 + Krr~ T 2q, + K~</uI> Tq,2 + K. COS" + K ext (5.138)
N = N v v + N, 7' + N~ q, + N p P + N vuu v 3 + N"r 7,3 + N vur V27' + N v" VT
+Nvu~ v 2q, + Nv~~ vql + Nrr~ T2q, + Nr~~ 7'q,2 + N. COS" + Next (5,.139)

where X(u) is a velocity-dependent damping function, for instance X(u) =

X/ u /u lulu. A more general model description together with numerical values
for the hydrodynamic derivatives of a container ship is found in Appendix E. L3.

5.7.3 The Model of Christensen and Blanke (1986)

An alternative model formulation describing the steering and roll motion of ships
has been proposed by Christensen and Blanke (1986). We will first discuss a
nonlineaI representation of the coupled steering and roll dynamics and then show
how a linearized state-space model can be obtained.,

Nonlinear Mod"l in Steering and Roll

Christensen and Blanke suggested that the nonlinear steering and roll dynamics
can be approximated by the following set of equations:

-mza-Yp mXG - Yi, 0
[ -mzG

Ix - Rp
Ix -N,

0 0 0 0 ,p

lIu/plul -mu + Yuru Yuul,6u

[ Y•• I"I Kupu+Kp
g.'ur u
N/u1rlul - mXGu
I] [J Ye'
K ext ]


-=======================::::::==--------- """-=
5.7 Coupled Equations for Steering and Rolling 205

where the forces and moments associated with the roll motion are assumed to
involve the square-term of the surge speed u 2 and lulu. The terms Yex" K ext
and Next consist of possible contributions from external disturbances, rudders,
propellers, bow thrusters and other devices.

Linearized State-Space Model in Steering and Roll

For simplicity we will assume that the only external forces and mOments are
caused by a single rudder whereas the rudder angle is denoted by 0, Linear
theory suggests that the rudder forces and moments can be represented by the

(5 ..140)

Linearization of the above nonlinear model about u = Uo (service speed) implies

that we can write the linearized model in standard state-space form:

x=Ax+bo (5.141 )
For notational convenience, we will define the state vector as x = lv, T, p, rP, 1/>V
and the elements associated with A and b according to:

iJ all a12 a13 aB 0 v b1

i a21 a22 a23 a24 0 r b2
p - a31 a32 a33 a34 0 P + b3 0 (5.142)
~ 0 0 1 0 0 <P 0
~ 0 1 0 0 0 ,p 0

with obvious definitions of aij and bi ; see Christensen and Blanke (1986) for

Decompositions in Roll and Sway-Yaw Subsystems

To simplify the system for further analysis, we can reorganize the state vector
again such that state variables associated with the steering and roll dynamics are
separated. Moreover, (5.142) can be rewritten as:

v all a12 0 a13 a14 v b1

T a21 a22 0 a23 a·24 T b2
1- - 0 1 0 0 0 ,p + 0 0 (5.143)
~ a31 a32 0 a33 a34 P b3
<P 0 0 0 1 0 <P 0

Introducing the notation:

x~ A A~~][X~]+[b~]o (5.144)
A~~ x~ b~ w


where x", = [v, 1', 'l/JI T and x~

described by the partitions:
= lP,,pjT
Dynamics and Stability of Ships

implies that the total system can be I'I ,

(sway-yaw dynamics) :i:;", = A",,,,x,,, + A",~x~ + b",8
(roll dynamics) :i:;~ = A~1>x~ + A#x", + b~8

corresponding to Fignre 5.15.

I I I v
r sway-yaw
"1 5 I

[ B'V I I
I A'V~

rudder I
angle I A,p'V
r B. I r "1

r I l p roll
-'-5- I <p states

Figure 5.15: Diagram showing the sway-yaw and roll subsystems (Christensen and
Blanke 1986).

Neglecting the coupling matrices (A",~ = A# = 0) implies that:




where the last expr'ession is recognized as the Nomoto modeL

5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics

Standard ship maneuvers can be used to evaluate the robustness, performance
and limitations of the ship cOlitrol system. This is usually done by defining a
criterion in terms of a maneuvering index or by simply using a maneuvering
characteristic to compare the maneuverability of the test ship with previously ,
obtained results from other ships. '"
5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 207

A maneuvering characteristic can be obtained by changing or keeping a pre-

defined course and speed of the ship in a systematic manner by means of working
controls_ For most surface vessels these controls are rudders, fins, propellers and
thrusters However, since ship maneuverability depends on the water depth, envi-
ronmental disturbances, ship speed and hydrodynamic derivatives etc_ care must
be taken when performing a full-scale maneuvering test We will now discuss
different standard tests that are well suited for this purpose_ A guide for sea
trials describing how these maneuvers should be performed is found in SNAME

5.8.1 Full-Scale Maneuvering Trials

As mentioned above the different maneuvering characteristics of the ship can

be determined by full-scale maneuvering trials_ The data from these tests can
be used to evaluate dynamic stability, turning diameter, model parameters of
the ship etc. For sea trials, the following standard ship maneuvers have been
proposed by the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC):

o Turning Circle_ This trial is mainly used to calculate the ship's steady
turning radius and to check how well the steering machine perfo=s under
course-changing maneuvers_

o Kempf's Zig-Zag Maneuver.. The zig-zag test is a standard maneuver

used to compare the maneuvering properties and control characteristic of
a ship with those of other ships.. Another feature is that the experimental
results of the test can be used to calculate the K and T values of Nomoto's
1st-order model.

o Pull-Out Maneuver _ The pull-out maneuver can be used to check whether

the ship is straight-line stable or not. The maneuver can also be used to
indicate the degree of stability..

o Dieudonne's Spiral Maneuver. The spiral maneuver is also used to

check straight-line stability. The maneuver gives an indication of the range
of validity of the linear theory.

o Bech's Reverse Spiral Maneuver. The reverse spiral maneuver can be

used for unstable ships to produce a nonlinear maneuvering characteristic.
The results from the test indicate which rudder corrections that are required
to stabilize an unstable ship_

o Stopping Trials. Crash-stops and low-speed stopping trials can be used

to determine the ship's head reach and maneuverability during emergency
208 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Turning Circle
This is probably the oldest maneuvering test. The test can be used as an in-
dication on how well the steering machine and rudder control performs during
course-changing maneuvers. It is also used to calculate standard measures of
maneuverability like tactical diameter, advance and transfer (Figure 5.16); see
Gertler and Hagen (1960) for a detailed description.
The steady turning radius R is perhaps the most interesting quantity obtained
from the turning trials. In the maneuvering trial code of the 14th ITTC (1975) it
is proposed to turn the ship over at ma.-dmum speed and with a rudder angle of
minimum 15 degr'ees to obtain the turning circle. The rudder angle 8 should be
held constant such that a constant rate of turn is reached (in practice a turning
circle of 540 degrees may be necessary).
The output from a positioning system is used to calculate the tactical diame-
ter, steady turning radius, maximum advance and maximum transfer. A typically
turning circle corresponding to a negative rudder angle is shown in Figure 5.16.

M;:u,imum advance

Approach Advllnce (at 90 deg ehtlngc ofhe:l.ding)

i 0,,< 0
Rudder Path of center
execute of 8r.lvity

rr.ln~(er (at 90 deg

e!uulge ofhe:lding)

Tilctic:l1 diametl:r
(OIl 180 deg change
u Sll:;ldy of headillS)

. . . . . . . . . . . -- -- _ _= .=.>i0li!

Figure 5.16: Turning circle for a constant rudder angle 6R < 0 (6) 0).

Since the ship will move in a circle with constant radius in steady state, both r
and v will be constant and thus v = i = O. Solving (5.18) for the steady-state
solution of v and r, yields:

muo - Y,
mxauo - N, ][ ~] - (5.147)

Eliminating v from this expression yields:

5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 209

T = _ (YvNo - NvYo) 6 (5148)

Yv(Nr - mXGuo) - NvCY, - muo)
Consequently, the ship's turning radius R can be defined as:

where U = vu 2
+v 2 (5.149)

Introducing the length L = L pp of the ship and the definition 6 - -6 R , the

following expression for the ratio (RI L) is obtained:

(~) = G) (YvNo ~ NvYo) J (5150)

where C is recognized as one of the stability derivatives in the straight-line sta-
bility criterion discussed in Section 5.5.3, that is:

C = Yv(Nr - mXGuo) - NvCY,. - muo) >0 (stable ship) (5.151)

In fact, C will be positive for most ships with aft rnddeL This is due to the fact
Yv < 0 always
No < 0 for aft rudder
Yo. > 0 always
Nv < 0 fo~ most ships

In the few cases where Nv > 0, N v will usually be so small that YvNo > NvY,
still holds. From (5.150) it is seen that increased stability (large C) implies that
the turning radius will increase. Consequently, a highly stable ship requires more
maneuvering effort than a marginally stable one. The ratio (RI L) can be written
in terms of non-dimensional quantities by:

= Y:(N; - m'x::') - N~(Y: - m') ~
(Y:N~ _ N~YJ) 6 (5 152)
This formula is independent of the ship speed. It should be noted that the
formulas for the turning radius are based on linear theory which assumes that 6
is small and accordingly that R is large. Another feature of the turning test is
that the Nomoto gain and time constant can be determined. This is illustrated
in the following example.

Example 5.8 (Determination of the Nomoto Gain and Time Constants)

Recall that the dimensionless (with respect to speed U and hull length L ) Nomoto
gain and time constants were defined as;'

K' = (LIU) K; T' = (UIL) T (5.153)

:::-:::::,---------====. ,========"",.--------",
210 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Koo o ".;;,;..- - - - -

00 .••••.••••.••••••• r-~f-------

. time
Figure 5.17: Yaw rate r versus time for a constant rudder angle lio·

Let the nominal speed Uo correspond to the nominal values Ko and To of Nomoto 's
1st-order' mode/,. Hence,

K' = (L/Uo) Ko; Tt = (Uo/L) To (5.154)

Applying the results above, the Nomoto gain and time constant can be exp1'essed

.IT = (Uo/U) To I (5.155)

where Ko and To are found fTOm Figure 5.17, showing a step response 0 = 00 =
constant applied to a ship at nominal speed U = Uo. Hence, K and T can be
computed fr'Om (5.155) if U is measu1-ed.

Kempf's Zig-Zag Maneuver

Thezig-zag test was first proposed by the German scientist Giinther Kempf
(1932). 12 years later, Kempf (1944) published the comprehensive test results of
75 freighters.
The zig-zag time-response (see Figure 5.18) is obtained by moving the rudder
to 20 degrees starboard from an initially straight course. The rudder setting
is kept constant until the heading is changed 20 degrees, then the rudder is
reversed 20 degrees to port. Again, this rudder setting is maintained until the
ship's heading has reached fO degrees in the opposite direction. This process
continues until a total of 5 rudder step responses have been completed. This
test is usually referred to as a 20 0 -20 0 maneuver (the first angle refers to the
actual rudder settings while the second angle denotes how much the heading
angle should change before the rudder is reversed) and was standardized by the
5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 211


-20 °

Figure 5.18: 20 0 -10 0 zig-zag maneuver.

International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) in 1963. For larger ships, ITTC
has reco=ended the use of a 100-100 or a 20 0 -10 0 maneuver to reduce the time
and waterspace required. The only apparatus required to perform the test is a
compass and a stopwatch. The resnlts from the zig-zag maneuver can be used to
compare the maneuvering properties of different ships. The maneuver can also
be used to compute estimates of Kt and Tt by solving:

Tt it + Tt = Kt 8' (5.156)

with different boundary conditions. This approach is described in detail by Nor-

rbin (1963). An alternative approach to solving the system equations could be
to use a system identification algorithm..

Pull-Out Maneuver

In 1969 Ray Burcher proposed a new simple test procedure to determine whether a
ship is straight-line stable or not. This test is referred to as the pull-out maneuver
(12th ITTC 1969a). The pull-out maneuver involves a pair of maneuvers in which
a rudder angle of approximately 20 degrees is appli.ed and returned to midships
after steady turning has been attained. Both a port and starboard turn should
be performed (see Fi~e 5.19).
During the test the ship's rate of turn must be measured or at least calculated
by numerical derivation of the measured compass heading. If the ship is straight-
line stable the rate of turn will decay to the same value for both the starboard
and port turn. The ship is unstable if the steady rate of turn from the port
212 Dyna mics and Stabi lity of Ships

Rudder retmned unstnblc

(Q midship s

Port i············

Starboa rd


Figur e 5.19: Pull-out maneuver.

and starbo ard turn differ. The difference between these two steady
rates of turn
corresponds exactl y to the height of Dieud onne's spiral loop.

In r

..transie nt


Figur e 5.20: Logarithmic presentation of the pull-out maneuver.

The pull-o ut maneu ver can also be used to give information to the
degree of sta-
bility. In Figure 5.20 the natura l logari thm of the rate turn is plotte
d versus time.
Besides a small initial transi ent the logari thmic curve shows a linear
behavior for
a stable ship. In the linear range the slope of the logari thmic curve
can be used
as an indica tion of the degree of the stabili ty. For instance, increased
steepness of
the logari thmic curve indica tes a more stable (less maneuverable)
ship, and the
oppos ite.

•. "

Dieud onne' s Spira l Mane uver i


The direct spiral test was published first in 1949-1950 by the French
scientist Jean
Dieudonne. An English transl ation of these French papers is found
in Dieudonne
(1953). The direct spiral maneuver is used to check straigh t-line stabili
ty. As seen L;j

A ~
}, ~
.0: i
~t !
5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 213

from the figUle, the maneuver also gives an indication of the degree of stability
and the range of validity of the linear theory.
To perform the test the ship should initially be held on a straight course The
rudder angle is then put to 25 degrees starboard and held until steady yawing
rate is obtained. After this the rudder angle is decreased in steps of 5 degrees
and again held until constant yawing rates are obtained for all the rudder angles.
The procedure is performed for all rudder angles between 25 degrees starboard
and 25 degrees port. In the range around zero rudder angle the step of 5 degrees
rudder should be reduced to obtain more precise values. The results are plotted
in an r-O diagram as shown in Figme 5,21, It should be noted that the spiral
maneuver should be performed in still air and calm water to obtain the best
results. For straight-line unstable ships it is recommended to use Bech's reverse
spiral maneuver.

Bech's Reverse Spiral Maneuver

For stable ships both Dieudonne's direct and Bech's reverse spiral tests can be
used. For unstable ships within the limits indicated by the pull-out maneuver
Bech's reverse spiral should be applied. The reverse spiral test was first published
by Mogens Bech in 1966 at the Nordic ship technical meeting in Malm6, Sweden
and later by Bech (1968). Since then the reverse spiral test has been quite popular,
because of the simplicity and reliability of the method. The reverse spiral is
particular attractive since it is less time-consuming than Dieudonne's spiral test.
By observing that the ship steering characteristic is nonlinear outside a lim-
ited area, Bech (1968) suggested that one describe the mean value of the required
rudder deflection 7) to steer the ship at a constant rate of turn as a nonlinear

7) = R(r) (5.157)
where R(r) is a nonlinear function describing the maneuvering characteristic..
This can be understood by considering Nomoto's 2nd-order model:

where the linear term r has been replaced with a function R(r). Assuming that
r is constant, that is r = i= 0, yields:

0+ Tab = R(r) (5.159)

Indeed, this shows that the rudder deflection as time reaches infinity can be
described by the mean rudder deflection defined in (5.157). This definition implies
that the r-O curve will be a single-valued (one-to-one) function of r for both the
stable and unstable ship, see Figure 5.21, If the conventional spiral test is applied
to an unstable ship a hysteresis loop will be observed..

--~~------_ .•'
214 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

I S"ble ,hip
r (degl,)



Ko < 0
(Linear lheory)
--- Dieudonne and
Bech spiral

Il Unstnble ship

r (degl,)

K a > 0 (Linear theory)

starboard port
-on(deg) -------:---:+.-¥+----...:--- on (deg)

i Dieudonne spiral
Bech spiral

Figure 5.21: 1'-0 diagram showing the Dieudonne and Bech spirals for both a stable
and unstable ship" Notice the hysteresis loop in the Dieudonne spiral for the unstable

The full-scale test is performed by measuring the necessary rudder action

required to bring the ship into a desired rate of turn. For an unstable ship this
implies that the rudder angle will oscillate about a mean rudder angle. The
amplitude of the rudder oscillations should be kept to a minimum. After some
time a "balance condition" is reached and both the mean rudder angle and rate
of turn can be calculated. Care should be taken for large ships since they will
require some more time to converge to their "balance condition" .

Linear Models With Added Nonlinearity

Norrbin (1963) and Bech and Wagner Smith (1969) proposed replacing the lin-
ear term -if; with a nonlinear maneuvering characteristic HN(-if;) and HB(-if;) in
Nomoto's 1st- and 2nd-order models, respectively. These models are written:
5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 215


T1Tz¥,(a) + (T1 + T2 );P + KHB(~) = K(o + nb) (5.161)

The functions HN(~) and HB(~) will describe the nonlinear maneuvering char-
acteristic produced by Bech's reverse spiral maneuver. The maneuvering charac-
teristic is usually taken to be a 3rd-order polynomial, see Figure 521:


HB('if;) = ba,fta + bz 'if;z + bl ~ + bo (5.163)

For a course-unstable ship we will have that bI < 0 whereas a course-stable ship
satisfies bI > O. A single-screw propeller or asymmetry in the hull will cause a
non-zero value of boo Similarly, symmetry in the hull implies that bz = O. Since a
constant rudder angle is required to compensate for constant steady state wind
and current disturbances, the bias term bo could conveniently be treated as an
additional rudder off-set.. This in turn implies that a large number of ships can
be described with the simple polynomial:

HB('if;) = ba 'if;3 + bI 'if; (5 . 164)

The coefficients bi (i = 0.... 3) are related to those of Norrbin's model ni (i = 0... 3)

ni = jbJ (5.165)

Hence, nI = 1 for a course-stable ship and nI = -1 for a course-unstable ship.

N onlinear Theory
Let the nonlinear ship steering equations of motion be described by two functions
fIC) and hO, that is:

:V = fI (uo, v, T, 0)
i = h(uo,v, T, 0) (5.166)
Hence, a theoretical T-O curve describing the function H(r) can be obtained by
eliminating v from the expressions:

fl(UO' v, r,o) =0
h(uo, V,T,O) = 0 (5.167)
For a stable ship this curve will be one-to-one whereas the unstable ship will have
three solutions corresponding to 0 = 0, see Figure 5.21.

::::-- ~~------~~~-------·~~~=~~==----------"'l
216 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

Lineal' Theory 1
Linear theory implies that r will be proportional to OR, that is:

r =](, 8R (5.168)
The proportional coefficient is found from (5.148) as:

](, = _ YvN, - NvY,

This corresponds to a straight line in the r-oR diagram. Since,

for ships with aft rudder, see (5.150), the following considerations can be obtained:

stable ship (C > 0) ](, < 0

unstable ship (C < 0) ](, > 0

Stopping Trials
The most co=on stopping trials are probably the crash-stop and the low-speed
stopping trial. Crash-stops are usually performed from full ahead speed by simply
reversing the engine at full astern, The path of the ship is measured by a tracking
system. Most ships are uncontrollable during crash-stops. Consequently, this
maneuver will be strongly affected by both the wind and the ambient water
In the maneuvering trial code of the 14th ITTC (1975) the low-speed stopping
trial is recommended for navigation purposes. Like the crash-stop maneuver, the
low-speed stopping trial is performed by reversing the engine at full astern while
the path of the ship is measured by a tracking system, A typical path is shown
in Figure 5.22.

5.8.2 The Norrbin Measure of Maneuverability

NOITbin (1965) has proposed a course change quality number P as a measure of
turning ability or maneuverability, The turning index is defined as:

6. 1//(f=l)
P = o'(t'=I) where t' = t (U/L) (5.171)

P can simply be interpreted as the heading change per unit rudder angle in one
ship length traveled with U = 1. By solving the equation:

T' ;PI + .if;' = ](' 0' (5,,172)

with 0' = constant we obtain:
5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 217

wind distance

lateral deviation
.. :


astern executed

astern order


Figure 5.22: Stopping trial.

7/J'(t') = K' [t' - T' + T' exp( -(t' IT'))] a'(t') (5.173)


P = K' [1 - T' + T' exp( -(liT'))] (5.174)

A frequently used approximation to (5.174) is obtained by Taylor expansion of
exp( -liT'), that is:

') 1 ~1.,..,.
exp (-1 I T "" 1 - -TI + 2(T')2 (5.175)

which yields:

P "" ~ K' (5.176)

2 TI
This formula can be used for both stable and marginally stable ships.. Norrbin
concludes that P > 0.3 guarantees a reasonable standard of course change quality
for most ships whil~ P > 02 seems to be sufficient for large oil-tankers. The P-
number is a good measure of maneuverability for course-stable ships.
For poorly stable ships it is recommended to use P together. with another
maneuverability index, for instance the slope dr'lda' or the width of the ri-a'
loop .

218 Dynamics and Stability of Ships

5.9 Conclusions
In this chapter we have discussed mathematical models for ship control systems
design and stability analyses. This includes system models for forward speed
(surge), steering (sway and yawl and roll. In addition to this, we have discussed
mathematical models for the steering machine.
Ship stability is mainly discussed in the context of Routh's stability criterion,
eigenvalue considerations and empirical formulas. Besides this, a brief introduc-
tion to ship maneuverability is made. This includes the description of standard
sea trials like the tUIning circle, Kempf's zig-zag maneuver, the pull-out maneu-
ver, Dieudonne's spiral maneuver, Bech's reverse spiral maneuver and stopping
The interested reader is advised to consult the proceedings of the Ship Con-
tTaI Systems Symposium (SCSS) and the International Federation of Automatic
Control (IFAC) workshop on Control Applications in Marine Systems (CAMS)
for contributions on ship control modeling, while Comstock (1967) is an excellent ,
reference on ship hydrodynamics and maneuverability. A detailed description on "

maneuvering tests is also found in the 14th ITTC (1975), while a detailed guide
on how to perform full-scale sea trials is given by SNAME (1989).
Finally, an extensive list of references on ship simulation, maneuvering and
modeling can be found in Webster (1992). In this work, the different publications
are classified according to topic and subject area.

5.10 Exercises
5.1 Let Nomoto's 2nd-order model be wI'itten in the form:


Show that the resulting transfer function between o(s) and v(s) can be expressed in a
similar manner as: .~

by using the model of Davidson and Schiff'.. Find the expressions for E v and Tv as a
function of the hydrodynamic derivatives.. Finally, show that:

() = K'v(l+Tvs) r ()
'lJ S s (5.179)
E(l + Tas)
Find the transfer functions v(s)/o(s) and v(s)/1'(s) by applying Nomoto's 1st-order
model for r·(s)/o(s).

5.2 Prove Abkowitz's straight-line stability cI'iteI'ion by applying Routh's cI'iterion.

5.10 Exercises 219

5.3 Consider the linear course-keeping equations of motion in Appendix E.1.3 corre-
sponding to a container ship..

(a) Neglect roll and find a non-dimensional state-space model in sway and yaw for
the container ship.

(b) Compute the Nomoto time and gain constants for both the 1st-order and 2nd-
order models.

(c) What are the non-dimensional eigenvalues of the model? Plot both eigenvalues
with dimension and as a function of speed U. Is the ship straight-line stable?
(d) Is the container ship straight·line stable if Abkowitz's criterion for straight-line
stability is used?
(e) Compute the Norrbin measure of maneuverability. Is this ship easy to maneuver ?

5.4 Consider the linear course-keeping equations of motion in Appendix E.1.3 COrre-
sponding to a container ship.

(a) Find a a non-dimensional state-space model in sway, roll and yaw for the container
(b) What are the non-dimensional eigenvalues of the model? Plot all three eigenvalues
with dimension and as a function of speed U. Is the ship straight-line stable?
Compare the results with those from Exercise 5.3 (c). Does the ship exhibit
non-minimum phase behavior in response to a rudder input?

(c) Simulate a turning test for the container ship. Compute the turning radius and
comment On the simulation results.

(d) Simulate the same turning test for the nonlinear course-keeping equations of
motion (see the Matlab m-file at the end of Appendix E.L3). Compare the
simulation results with those under (c) and explain what you see.
(e) Perform a 100-100 zig-zag maneuver and plot the Bech spiral. Explain the results.

5.5 Simulate a turning test, a 100-100 zig-zag maneuver and a pull-out maneuver for
the Mariner Class vessel given in Appendix E.Ll.

(a) Use these tests to estimate the Nomoto time and gain constant (1st-order model) .

(b) Compare the performance of the estimated linear model with the nonlinear model.

(c) Include a model of the rudder servo in the simulator. Use omax = 10 (deg) and
8max = 2.3 (deg/s). Estimate the Nomoto time and gain con~tant for the Mariner
Class vessel with rudder servo loop. Are the results from (a) still valid?

;rmm ------------------------.---------------'1
Chapter 6
Automatic Control of Ships

Automatic ship control systems design involves the design of systems for forward
speed control, motion (vibration) damping, steering, tracking and positioning.
The development of modern control theory together with faster digital computer
systems allows more sophisticated control systems to be designed. The most
important features of modern ship control systems are improved performance,
robustness and the fuel saving potential. In the last two decades fuel saving
autopilots have been designed by applying optimal control theory. This chapter
will discuss:

• Systems for forward speed control

• Autopilots for course-keeping
• Turning controllers
• Track-keeping systems
• Positioning systems
• Rudder-roll stabilization (RRE) systems
• Self-tuning and adaptive systems
• Identification of ship dynamics

The complexity, number of DOF and type of mathematical models required for
each of these tasks will vary. For instance, standard autopilots for automatic
course control require the yawing and often also the swaying motion to be mod-
elled. If rudder-roll stabilization is of interest an additional mode describing
the rolling motion is required. A dynamic positioned ship is usually fairly well
described by a model of the horizontal motion, that is the motion variables in
surge, sway and yaw. Hence, we will restrict our discussion to 4 DOF ship models,
neglecting the motion in heave and pitch.
In most ship applications, it is important that the contribution from the high-
frequency wave motion is suppressed. If not, wave disturbances can cause wear
on the rudder, propeller and the thruster actuators.

222 Automatic Control of Ships

Before discussing conventional and adaptive autopilots, we will discuss three

methods for suppression of high-frequency wave disturbances:

• Dead-band techniques

• Conventional filter design

• State estimation

6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances

In general, the resulting pattern of the waves will consist of a large number of
wave components with various directions of propagation, different amplitudes and
phases0 In order to describe the wave inducea motion, we will assume that the
waves can be described as long crested waves generated by the windo For wave
periods in the interval 5 s < To < 20 s the dominating wave frequency (modal
frequency) fa of the Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum will be in the range:

0005 < fa < 0.2 (Hz) (6.1)

Waves in this frequency range produce large oscillatolic forces and moments.
These are called 1st-order wave forces and momentso In addition to the oscillatoric
motion a mean wave force caused by 2nd-order wave disturbances is observed,
2nd-order wave drift forces can be counteracted by the autopilot, whereas 1st-
order wave disturbances, usually around 001 (Hz), are close to or outside the
control bandwidth of the vessel. However, the distur bances will be inside the
bandwidth of the servos and actuators of the vehicle This suggests that proper
filtering of all feedback state variables must be performed to avoid 1st-order wave
noise causing too much control action. In other words, we do not want the rudder
and thruster actuator of the ship compensating for the oscillatory high-frequency
wave-induced motiono This is usually referred to as wave filteringo To accomplish
this task, it is common to assume that the total motion of the ship-wave system ;~

can be described in terms of a low-frequency (LF) model representing the motion

of the vessel and a high-frequency (HF) 1st-order wave induced motiono For a
ship autopilot, this assumption suggests that we can write the yaw dynamics as: >
'I/;(s) = 'I/;£(s) + 'l/;H(S) = hshiP(S) o(s) + hw.ve(s) w(s) (6,2) .r'"

where w(s) is a zero-mean Gaussian white noise process and


Kw S
h w • ve (s ) = S
2 + 2 I'.,WoS + Wo2 (6A)

6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 223

Figure 6.1: Linear superposition of wave disturbances and steering dynamics.

By exclusively using the LF components of the measmed state variables in the

control system, HF rudder motions and excessive thruster modulation are avoided.
The frequency spectrum of the measured yaw angle for a well controlled ship is
illustrated to the right in Figure 6.1 where the first peak in the resulting fre-
quency spectrum corresponds to the LF rudder motion and the second peak is
recognized as the wave encounter frequency. The non-zero LF component is due
to the rudder off-set required to compensate for slowly-varying environmental
disturbances. . : .
We recall'that for a ship moving at speed U the waves cause a shift in the
frequencies of the encountered waves which implies that the modal frequency Wo
will be modified according to (see Equation (3.63)):
w.(U, Wo, (3) = Wo - -2. U cos f3 (rad/s) (6 . 5)
Here f3 is the wave direction (encounter angle). According to (6 . 1) the wave
circular frequency Wo = 2 IT fo will be in the range of:

0.3 < Wo < 1.3 (rad/s) (6.6)

6.1.1 Dead-Band Techniques

The application of a dead-band in the control-loop is widely used to suppress
the HF rudder motjon (see Figure 6.2).. A disadvantage with the dead-band
technique is that LF motions of small amplitudes are also suppressed. Hence, the
course-keeping accuracy of the autopilot will be affected.
A dead-band in combination with integral action in the controller will lead to
an undesired oscillation around the desired heading.' This increases the ship resis-

224 Automatic Control of Ships

tance and thus the fuel consumption. Consequently, more sophisticated filtering
techniques are reco=ended for modern ship feedback control systems.


ship I-r~---


Figure 6.2: Dead-band for suppression of 1st-order wave disturbances.

6.1.2 Conventional Filter Design

Low-Pass Filter
If the control bandwidth is much smaller than the encounter frequency, that is:

W'hip« We (6 . 7)
HF rudder motions can be suppressed by low-pass filtering. For instance, a first
order low-pass filter with time constant Tf :
1 1
hLP(s) = 1 + T fS W,hip <. T <. We (md/s) (68)
will suppress disturbances over the frequency l/Tf . This criterion is hard to
satisfy for small vessels, but for large tankers we have typically that the con-
trol bandwidth satisfies W.hip <. 0.1 (rad/s). An alternative to the simple filter
structure of Equation (6.8) could be to use an n-th order Butterworth filter to
attenuate the HF wave motion. The Butterworth filter is obtained by solving the
Butterworth polynomial:

p(s) p( -s) = 1 + (shwd n (6.9)

for p(s). Here wf is the desired cut-off frequency. Finally, we define the low-pass
filter polynomial as:

hLP(s) = l/p(s) (6.10)

Example 6.1 (Design of Butterworth Low-Pass Filter) .,

The 2n roots of the filter polynomial p(s)p(-s) are shown in Figure 6.3 for
(n = 1...4). The left-half plane poles correspond to p(s) while the right-half plane
contains the poles of p( -s). We also notice that for even numbers of n there are
only complex conjugate poles, but for· odd numbers of n there will be one r'eal pole
in both the left and right half-planes. In addition to this all poles will be equally
spaced on a circle with rudius W f. . .
6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 225

(n = 1) (n =2)
1 ... ...;- ..

E 0 E 0 ~ ..

-1 .": -1
-1 0 -1 0
Re Re
(n =3) (n = 4)
~ .,

EO E 0

-1 '-<f(.'

-1 0 -1 0
Re Re

Figure 6.3: Pole configuration for Butterworth low-pass filter (n = 1...4) and radius
(cut-off frequency) wf = 1.0 (rad/s). For the complex conjugate pairs, the relative
damping ratio ( is given by the angle <p between the positive y-axis and the arrows in
the figure, according to the formul" ( = sin <p.
The pole configuration (only left-half plane) shown in Figure 63 can be repre-
sented by the following simple transfer functions: .

(n = 1)

(n = 2)

(n = 3)

(n = 4)

The main disadvantage with the low-pass filter is that additional phase lag is
introduced, see Figure 6.4. It is seen from the Bode plot that this problem
increases with the order of the filter polynomial. Another problem is that the
encounter frequency will vary with different sea states as well as the speed of the
ship. This suggests that wf = l/Tf (rad/s) should be adjusted according to the
226 Automatic Control of Ships


Frequency (rad/s)


. ",,',

:n 4
-400 '-;-_ _--'--_-'----'---'---'-'--'--'-'-;;-_ _-'-_-'---'--'--L--'--'--'--'--'
10. ' 10° 10'
Frequency (rad/s)

Figure 6.4: Bode plot showing the Butterworth low-pass filter for wf = La (rad/s)
and (n = LA).

encounter frequency. For ships where the control bandwidth is approximately

of the same magnitude as the encounter frequency, a low-pass filter will yield
poor filtering.. This problem can be han~led by applying a band-stop filter 01 by
estimation of the HF wave-induced motion in a Kalman filter.
Bandstop Filter
Since most of the energy in the wave spectrum is located around the modal
frequency of the wave spectrum, a bandstop filter can be used to attenuate HF
wave motions. In fact, this method is highly attractive due to its simplicity.
Consider the following 2nd-order bandstop filter:

h '(S) = (SIW n )2 + 2 <: (slwn ) + 1 )

B5 (1 + Tls)(l + T2 s) llTl < Wn < llT2 (611

where <: is the relative damping factor and W n is the natural frequency of the filter.
This filter structure will attenuate wave disturbances in the frequency range of
llTl to l1T2 , The price of course is that additional phase lag is introduced.

Notch Filter
An attractive simplification of the bandstop filter could be to choose the natural
frequency W n = llTl = l1T2 . This filter structure is usually referred to as a
notch, ,Consequently, the notch filter will take the form (see Figure 6.5):
6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 227



Frequency (rnd./sec)

90 . . ,', . ~ ,', ~. ~ .....

~ 0 .V , ",.'"


~90 . ......tUn ; ;..)

IO,J 10° 10'
Frequency (md/sec)

Figure 6.5: Bode plot showing the 2nd-order notch filter for Wn = 0.5 (rad/s) and
(= O.L

h () _ 8
+ 2 (' W n 8 + w; (6.12)
NO 8 - (8+W n )2
This filter is effective over a much smaller frequency range than the bandstop
filter. Application of the bandstop or notch filter structure suggests that W n
should be chosen equal to the encounter frequency We> that is:

An estimate of the encounter frequency can be computed by the help of (363) if

f3 and Wo are known. We recall from (3.26) that the modal frequency Wo of the
Pierson-Moskovitz spectmm is:

Wo= f¥4B

Alternatively, we can write:

Wo = 0.88 V = 0.40 VSs

g fi'. (6.15)

where V is the speed of the wind at an elevation of 19.4 m, H s is the significant

wave height and g is the acceleration of gravity. This suggests that the natural
I filter frequency W n should be varied according to V or H s to obtain best filtering,

j .

228 Automatic Control of Ships

Cascaded Notch Filter

Since the estimate of Wn can be poor and one single-notch filter only covers a
small part of the actual frequency range of the wave spectrum, an alternative filter
structure consisting of three cascaded notch filters with fixed center fr equencies
is suggested; see page 921 of Grimble and Johnson (1989),. The center fr'equencies
of the notch filters are typically chosen as Wl = 0,4 (rad/s), W2 = 0.63 (rad/s)
and W3 = 1.0 (rad/s). The cascaded filter structure is written as:

IT +(s2 (+WiWi)28 + W[
3 2
hc(s) = (6.16)



r IHili
'" -30 ;ljJll!
-4?oL,.,,,---'--'---'--'--'·-'·-'·'-';-'~ .:;-,--'---'---';--'-;-'~-'~-'~-'~l-':<~O;--'---'---'--'-'--'-"-'.J
Frequency (md/sec)

I '~ ···.·...1[1 1 1 1
1·1!!11[1" ,,••.•.,
~180 .; "1' .;• .;.•:..;., •••••••• .;••••••: •••• :•• of ••;. .:••;. !.; : : : :.. , .:..;.!

1 I
16 lif lC
Frequency (rlld/sec)

Figure 6.6: Bode plot showing three cascaded 2nd-order notch filters with hequencies
Wl= 0.4 (rad/s), W2 = 0.63 (rad/s) and W3 = 1.0 (rad/s) and <; = 01.

6.1.3 Observer-Based Wave Filter Design

An alternative to conventional filtering of wave disturbances is to apply a state

estimator (observer). Moreover, a state estimator can be designed to separate
the LF components of the motion from the noisy measurements by using a model
of the ship and the wave disturbances. In fact, a model-based wave filter is well
suited to separate the LF and HF motions from each other even for vessels where
the control bandwidth is close to or higher than the encounter fr·equency. We will
restrict our treatment to wave filters based on linear theory..
6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 229

LF Ship Model (Nomoto)

Let a 1st-order Nomoto model (without loss of generality) be used to describe

the LF motion of the ship. Moreover:

00 - Wo (617)
,pL - TL (618)
1 TL + -KT (0 - 00 ) + WL
"h - --
T (6..19)

Here the rudder off-set 00 is included to counteract slowly-varying moments on

the ship due to wave drift forces, LF wind and current components In this model,
Wo and U.IL are modelled as zero-mean Gaussian white noise processes

HF Wave Model (1st-Order Wave Disturbances)

i I
The oscillatoric motion of the waves is usually described by the following transfer


where WH is a zero-mean Gaussian white noise process and the filter frequency
W n is an estimate of the frequency of encounter We' This model is inspired by the
early work of Balchen et al. (1976) and Balchen, Jenssen, Mathisen and Srelid
(1980b). They first applied an undamped oscillator (( = 0) to describe the wave
• I
interactions on a dynamically positioned ship. Later Balchen and Norwegian
"! co-workers showed that better performance was obtained by introducing a small
positive value for ( (see Srelid et al. 1983). Extensions of this work to ship steering
have been made by Srelid and Jenssen (1983), and Holzhiiter and Strauch (1987).
The transfer function (6.20) is usually represented by one of the following two
equivalent state-space representations:

.i (H - ,pH (6.,21 )
, i

,pH - -2 (W n ,pH - W; (H + Kw WH (6.22)

or alternatively:
, '
j ,

" 7j'H - (H+KwWH (623)

(H - -2(Wn (H-W;,pH-2(ul n K w WH (624)

230 Automatic Control of Ships


Compass Measurement Model !

By combining the ship and wave model the heading angle can be expressed as a

where VH represents zero-mean Gaussian measurement noise, The resulting model

is shown in Figure 6.7.


l stnlc e:ltlmator
I I ;
wave model i

o! ,I 'Vc 'Vu!
,--_.,._ _ __ .. _~ .

Figure 6,7: Low-frequency (LF) and high-fr'equency (HF) submodels, Notice that the
autopilot uses feedback from the LF yaw angle.

State Estimator

We will now illustrate how pole-placement techniques can be used to design the ,,
LF and HF state estimator. Let the ship state estimator be written:

50 - Ko(,p-,h-,pH) (6.26)
,pL - TL + Kd,p -,pL - ,pH) (6 . 27)
1 K - --
TL - -TTL+T(O-Oo)+Kd,p-,pL-,pH) (6 . 28)

1st-order wave disturbances are estimated according to:


~H - ,pH + Ka(,p - ,pL - ,pH) (6.29)

- 2 - ••
,pH - -2 (Wn,pH - wn ~H + K 4 (,p -,pL - ,pH) (6.30)

where the hat is used to denote the state estimates and K i (i = O. A) are five
unknown estimator gains to be determined,

6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 231

} Simplified State Estimator (No Wave Model)

We will first illustrate the observer desigI). by showing how a simple ~tate estimator
can be designed by neglecting the model of the wave disturbances (>PH = Vi H = 0).
In the next section we will improve the design by including a 2nd-order wave
Let us first design an LF state estimator under the assumption that the HF
motion is measurement noise. Moreover, we write the estimation error dynamics


where t:>.rL = TL - h, t:>.'ljJL = 'ljJL - >PL and t:>.oo = 00 - 80 . A block diagram of

the state estimator is shown in Figure 6.8.

~ ·U~~

••' __ " .

hU ••_ •••••

,-- Kj

°0 ~ A

& -
• K f--->.< ) - ' _1
L- - T
, I
,~ I Figure 6.8: Model-based wave filter.

One way to calculate the estimator gains Ko, K 1 and Kz is by applying a pole-

; placement technique. The eigenvalue assignment of the error dynamics can be

simplified by assuming that 00 is slow compared to the yaw mode (,pL and r£l

~' which suggests a small value for Ko. Indeed, this is a reasonable assumption since

\ ; the rudder off-set is slowly-varying compared to the yaw dynamics. Hence, the
,I '
LF estimator gains K 1 and Kz can be chosen independently of Ko by considering
~, a quadratic characteristic polynomial corresponding to t:>.'ljJL and t:>.r L in (6.31):
i II,
1f(8) = 8z + (K1 + liT) s + (Kz + KdT) (6.32)
Since this a 2nd-order system, we can specify the relative damping factor ( and
natural frequency W n by requiring that (6.32) should be equal to the polynomial:

232 Automatic Control of Ships ri
Hence the following expressions for K 1 and K 2 are obtained:

Kj = 2( Wn - liT (6.34)
K2 w; - (2 (wn)IT + 11T2 (6.35)

Adaptive Observer Based on Pole-Placement (No Wave Model)

Van Amerongen (1982, 1984) suggests using an adaptive gain update for K j and
K 2 • The motivation for this approach is that the estimator gains should be
modified according to the standard deviation of the HF wave motion, Let the
innovation process be described by:

Furthermore, the innovation process can be low-pass filtered according to:
cL = C' cH = C - cL (6.37)
l+Tf s'
which enables the computation of the variances:

(6 . 38)
Motivated by this, we can update the estimator gains according to:

(6.. 39)
where K lO and K 20 are two constant design parameters give!). J;>y ~ome pole-
placement technique and 0 ::; 'Y ::; 1 is an adjustable ratio defined as:
'Y = L (6.40)
ul + Uk
Notice that in calm sea (UH = 0) we have 'Y = 1 but rough sea (UH » 0) implies
that 'Y = O. During practical operations of ships, rough sea can cause large
heading errors, which will be filtered to strong because of the relatively low value
of f. This suggests that a lower bound on 'Y should be defined to ensure that the
state estimator is updated in rough sea as welL Van Amerongen (1982) proposes:

(rough sea) 0.1 ::; 'Y ::; LO (calm sea) (6.41)

Full State Observer Design (Ship and Wave Model)

We will in this section show how a full state observer can be designed by using
the approach of Fossen (1993b). Again, we will assume that the rudder off-set
is slowly-varying compared to the yaw dynamics, that is 80 ~ 0 and Ko « L
Consider the error dynamics in the form: '.~

6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 233

1 o
-T o (6.42)
o o,
o -wTi

Hence, the characteristic equation can be shown to satisfy:

7f(S) = S4 +a3 S3 + az SZ +al s + ao (6.43)


a3 - KI + K 4 + 2(wn + liT (6.44)

az - (l/T + 2(wn) K I + Kz - w~ K 3 + liT K 4 + (w~ + 2(wn /T) (6.45)
(2(w n/T + w~) K I + 2(w n Kz - w~/T K 3 + w~/T
I al

- w~/T K I + w~ Kz

Furthermore, the eigenvalue assignment can be done by requiring that the error
dynamics must satisfy:
IT (s - Pi) !lrr(s) (6048)

where Pi (i = LA) are real values specifying the desired poles of the error dy-
namics. The solution can be written in abbreviated form as:

Ek=f.L (6.49)
where k = [K I , Kz, K 3 , KilT is the estimator gain vector and:

IJ _ /T
2(wn + w~ 2(:n
j (6.50)
. - [
(liT + 2(wn) 1 -w~ liT
1 0 0 1

f.L - - PIPZP4 - PIPZP3 - PZP3P4 - PIP3P4 - w~/T (6.51)
- PI~+~+~+~+~+~-~+~m
-PI - PZ - P3 - P4 - (2(w n + liT)
Consequently, k can be computed as:

k = E- I f.L (6.52)
Notice that k depends on the ship time constant (T) and the wave model param-
eters ((, w n ) while Pi (i = LA) are four design parameters specifying the poles
of the error dynamics Typical Bode plots for ~dJ/;, 0HN and fd'I/J are shown
in Figures 69-6.11, respectively.
234 Automatic Control of Ships


Figure 6.9: Bode plot showing ~L(S)/,p(s). Notice that wave disturbances are sup-
pressed around the modal frequency W n = 0.5 (rad/s) .

30 .~: ':":'Hj~';' ~. i l··i:;';':

g> 0
:I',:r1M~j !!fffi!,.
.. , I··,·,··",.
.11- 30

, ; f- j fHIl· i .~..! ill);}
10~1 10°
Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 6.10: Bode plot showing ~H(s)N(s). Notice that ,pH(S) "" ,p(s) in the fre-
quency band around the wave frequency W n = 0.. 5 (rad/s) while LF components of the
ship dynamics and HF noise are attenuated.

Computer simulations show that the observer is highly robust for parameter
uncertainties if the pole locations are chosen carefully. A guideline could be to
choose the real Pi-values according to:

PI < -liT (6.53)

pz < 0 (6 . 54)
P3 =P4 < -(wn (6.55)

Typical values are PI = -l.lIT, pz = _10- 4 and P3 = P4 = -15 (w n where

( = 0.01-0.1 . The real part of the first two poles PI and pz are chosen slightly to
6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 235

10·' 10° 10' 10~

Frequency (rad/sec)

·llilHDi]TIillRm . . ·····1·· .~
SOl •...

I it iiiJlb\:U~~i
10~ 1~1 10°
Frequency (rad/sec)

Figure 6.11: Bode plot showing fL(s)!1/J(s). Notice that the LF yaw rate signal TL(S)
is equal to S~L(S) for frequencies less than Wn , but the same signal is notch and low-pass
filtered for frequencies higher than Wn-

the left of the open-loop poles -liT and 0 of the LF model, respectively, This
ensures that the error dynamics corresponding to the LF states are faster than the
ship dynamics. To obtain proper filtering, the HF estimation error corresponding
to the 1st-order wave disturbances should converge to zero much faster than the
LF states. This is done by choosing P3 = P4 to the left of PI and P2. Both
HF poles are real in order to avoid an oscillatoric convergence of the HF state
estimation error to zero. Notice that the convergence of the HF state estimation
error is not affected by the complex conjugate poles of the wave model.
" The state estimator (6.26)-(6.30) with gain update (6.52) can be written in
state-space form according to: .

5: = A & + b u + k (y - eT &) (6 . 56)

where & = [80, .,ftL, 'h, tH, ~HjT, U = 0, k = [Ko, K 1, K 2 , K 3 , K 4]T and:
o 0 0 0 0 o
o 0 1 0 0 o
A = -If
b= K
(6 . 57)

o 0 0 -w; -2 ( W n o
It is then straightforward to show that:

&(s) = (sI - A + keTt l (k yes) + b u(s)) (6.58)

Assume that u(s) ='0 (no feedback). Hence, we can define:

h(s) = [hr,h 2 ,h3 ,h4 ,hs]T = (sI - A+keT)-1 k (6 . 59)

which implies that .,ft£Cs) can be written:

"." ....
~ "---
236 Automatic Control of Ships

Moreover, it can be seen from the Bode plot that the low-frequency yaw angle
state estimate can be generated by using two filters:


which simply states that ,pL(S) is obtained by cascading a notch filter with a low-
pass filter. This result has been theoretically verified by Grimble (1978). In this
work Grimble showed that the stationary Kalman filter for the ship positioning
problem will be approximately equivalent to a notch filter in cascade with a second
filter, typically a low-pass filter"
However, if feedback is present it is well known that application of a Kalman
filter is superior to notch filtering since the Kalman filter algorithm includes
feedforward from the input u in addition to filtering of the measured output y,
In fact, this feedforward terIll removes the problems associated with additional
phase lag in the filtered signal which is the main problem of most standard filters
(low-pass, high-pass, notch etc.). Simulation results verifying these observations
have been documented in Grimble et aL (1980a). ,.

Example 6.2 (Design of State Estimator for Course Control)

The performance of the state estimator is best illustr'ated by considering an exam-
ple {Foss en 1995bf Consider a cargo ship described by K = 0.S5 (S-I) and T =
29.0 {sf FUrlhermore let the wave disturbances be described by W n = 0.5 (md/s),
(= 0.1 and; ?"

K _ {0.03 for t::; 100 (s) ,f
w - 0.10 for t > 100 (s)

Let the yaw angle of the ship be controlled by a PD-control law: .,


which yields a closed-loop system with natuml frequency W n = 0.1 {md/sf In the
simulation study, the desired yaw angle was chosen as "if;d = 10° for t ::; 100 (s)
and "if;d = 0 ° for t > 100 (s). Furthermore, the state estimates were computed by
choosing the erTOr' dynamics poles according to PI = -1.1IT, P2 = -10- 4 and
P3 = P4 = -15 (w n , which yields the estimator gain vector:

k = [7.3528 ,,10- 3 , ,-2.4501·10-4, -1.2689, 1,,3962V (6.63)

A typical time-series for this set of pammeters is shown in Figure 6.12. We
see that the state estimation errors are small and that excellent performance is
obtained even for wave disturbances up to ±10° in amplitude.
I~ 6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 237
1;' 7/JL and 1/1 TL
20 04
~ 0.. 2
~ 0
~" "

~ ·0.2 .........

~ ·10 .04
:~" 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
~' time (5) time (s)
~ 6.'1f;L 2x 10
·3 6.TL



I ,0,04 ·2
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
time (5) time (s)

Figure 6.12: LF yaw angle :,pL and meaSure,I yaw angle :,p = :,pL + tPH (upper left),
LF yaw rate TL (upper right), LF yaw angle estimation error Il:,pL (lower left) and LF
yaw ~ate estimation error llr L (lower right) versus time" The simulation study was
performed with' a sampling time of 0.3 (s) while the yaw angle measurement noise was
limited to ±0.1 (deg). ., ,

6.1.4 Kalman Filter Based Wave Filter Design

An alternative solution to the pole-placement technique is to apply a Kalman
filter (KF) to compute the gain vector k, Kalman filtering (or optimal stilte
estimation in sense of minimum variance) allows the user to estimate the state x
of a dynamic system recursively from a noise-contaminated measurement y. The
interested reader is advised to consult Gelb et al. (1988) for details on Kalman
filter design, whereas applications in the field of guidance and control can be
found in Lin (1992),

Linear Problem Statement

Consider the linear continuous-time system:

~~)=A(t)x(t)+BWuW+EWwW (6.64)

where the process noise is described by wet) ~ N(O, Q(t)). The notation:
238 Automatic Control of Ships

x(t) ~ N(m, X(t)) (6,65)

is adopted hom Gelb et al. (1988) and indicates that x(t) is a Gaussian (normal)
random vector with mean m and covariance matrix X(t), In the one-dimensional
case X(t) corresponds to the squared standar'd deviation a 2 , such that:

x(t) ~ N(m, ( 2 ) (6,,66)

Furthermore, let the measurement equation (sensor system) be represented by:

z(t) = H(t) x(t) + vet) (6,67)

where vet) ~ N(O, R) is the measurement noise,

w noise
Control U Plant f--_<l-_Z--iKalman 1---:::5?'--__ State
input --,----1 filter estimate

t :: ,

Figure 6.13: Opti~al state estimation,

If the system (6.64) and (6.67) is observable, the state vector x(t) E lRn can be
reconstructed recUIsively through the measurement vector z(t) E lRm and the
control input vector u(t) E lRP, see Figure 613. Moreover, observability simply
defines the ability to determine the state x(t) from the measurement z(t),
The conditions for observabilit,Y are given below while the optimal state esti-
mator for the system (6.64) and (6,,67) is given in Table 6.1.
Definition 6.1 (Observability: Time-Invariant System)
A linear' time-invariant system with state and measurement matrices (A, H) is
observable if the n x n observability matri; (Gelb et al. 1988):

has full rank.
Definition 6.2 (Observability: Time-Varying System)
A linear' time-varying system with state and measurement matrices (A(t), H(t))
is observable if 3 T > 0 and fJ :2: Cl< > 0 such that,:
.,' !
.~ i
1 (to+T ,. i
Cl< I ~ T lto exp(AT(r)r))HT(r)H(r) exp(A(r) ) dr ~ fJ I (6.69)

Y to E lR+. This simply states that the integral of the matrix exp(AT r)H T H exp(Ar)
is uniformly positive definite over- any interval of length T,
,, 6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 239

1 Table 6.1: Summary of continuous-time Kalman filter (Gelb et al. 1988).

x(O) = xo
Initial conditions X(O) = E[(x(O) - x(O))(x(O) - x(OW] = X o

Kalrnan gain matrix K(t) = X(t)HT(t) R-1(t)

State estimate :i:(t) = A(t) x(t) + B(t) u(t) + K(t) [z(t) - H(t) x(t)]
Error covariance .X(t) = A(t) X(t) + X(t) AT(t) + E(t) Q(t) ET (t)
propagation -X(t)HT (t)K1(t)H(t)X(t)

: !
Continuous-Time Steady-State Kalman Filter
An attractive simplification of the continuous-time Kalman filter is the steady-
state solution obtained for the time-invariant system:

x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t) +E w(t); w(t) ~ N(O, Q) (6.70)

z(t) = H x(t) + v(t); v(t) ~ N(O, R) (6.. 71 )

The steady-state Kalman filter gain is given by:

K oo = X oo HT R'-l (6.72)
where X 00 is the steady-state solution of the matrix Ricatti equation:

., A X oo +X oo AT +EQ ET - XooHTR-1HX oo = 0 (6.73)

Hence, we can compute the state estimates according to:

:i:(t) = A x(t) + B u(t) + K oo [z(t) - H x(t)] (6 . 74)

" Applications to the Ship-Wave System
The ship-wave system is described by the state x = [00' 'h, rL, ~H, ,pH]T, input
11, = {; and process noise w = [wo, WL, WH]T. Furthermore, we assume that w ~
? •

N(O, Q) and v ~ N(O, r). The model is given by:

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
A= -~ 0 -J; 0 0 b= K
E= 0 1 0 h= 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 -w;? -2 (w n 0 0 0 1 1
240 Automatic Control of Ships .'~
Continuous-'I'ime Wave Filter Design ,1
According to Table 6< 1, the SISO continuous-time state estimator takes the form:

&(t) = A(t) x(t) + b(t) u(t) + k(t) [z(t) - h T x(t)] (6.75)

where the Kalman filter gain is computed as:

k(t) = ~ X(i) h (6<76)

Furthermore, the covariance matrix X(i) = E[x(i)x T(t)] where x(i) = x(i)-x(i)
is computed by numerical integration of:

X(i) = A(i) X(t) + X(i) AT(i) + E Q ET - ~X(t)hhTX(i) (6.77)

The disadvantage with the Kalman filter approach is that information about the
process and measurement noise is required. In fact, the variance of the process
and measurement noise will vary with each sea state, which means that a large
number of Kalman gains must be computed. Since the gain and time constants
are speed- and thus time-dependent a steady-state solution of X(i) and k(t)
cannot be computed directly. However, by properly scaling the system matrices
with respect to U(i) and L a steady-state solution can be found.

Continuous-Time Steady-State 'Wave Filter Design

The model parameters can be made non-dimensional by defining the time and
gain constants as T' = T (UIL) and E' = K (LIU), respectively; the wave
frequency is scaled according to w~ = W n (LIU). Furthermore, we introduce the
time scaling i' = i (UI L) and:

.' , ,
., - h (L/U)2 7'L = TL (L/U) WL, = WL (L/U)2
'l/J.,L = ,pL (L/U) 'l/J~ = 'l/JL Wo, = Wo (L/U)
0.,0 = 60 (L/U) to = 00 WH = WH (L/U)
'l/J.,H - ~H (L/U) 'l/J'r-I = 'l/JH 0'
, = 0
{H = {H {'r-I = {H(U/L) v = v

Hence, the scaled ship-wave model can be written in vector form as:

x' (i) = A' x' (i) + b' u' (i) + E' w' (i) (6.79)
with time-invariant quantities:
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
K' ,
A'= -T 0 -il 0 0 b' = K'
T' E'=E h =h
0 0 0 0 1
, 0
0 0 0 _(w~)2 -2( wn 0

6,1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 241

Notice that all these matrices and vectors are independent of U(t) and L We
, now compute a non-=:dimensional constant Kalman gain as:

j k' =!-r' X'co hi (6.80)

" where X;" is the steady-state solution found by solving:

! ,A' X;" + X;" (AY + E' Q' (EY - I,X;"h'(h'f X;" = 0 (6,81)

I r
The last step in the design involves transforming the constant gain k;" to:

koo(t) = S(t) k;" (6.82)

where S(t) is a scaling matrix defined as:

U(t)/L o o o 0
o U(t)/L o o 0
S(t) = o o [U(t)/W o 0 (6,83)
o o o 1 0
o o o o U(t)/ L
By doing this, we can precompute k;" and then use U(t) to compute k oo in (6,74).
We will now show how a discrete-time version of the wave filter can be designed,

Discrete-Time Wave Filter Design

The steady-state Kalman filter (6.74) can be written as:

5:(t) = A f :i:(t) + B u(t) +K oo z(t) (6.84)

where u and z are the measured signals and:

A f = A,-KooH (6.85)
A discrete-time representation of this model is (see Appendix RI):

x(k + 1) = if> x(k) + ,1 u(k) + n z(k) (6.86)


~! (Afh)N
if> - exp(Afh) "" 1+ .i\.,h + '2(A f h)2 +, " + (6,,87)
,1 - A,l(if> - I) B (6,88)
n - A,l(if> - I) K oo (6,89)

and h is the sampling time. Notice that Euler integration implies choosing N = 1,
that is if>(k) = 1+ Afh.

~ ------------,------,-----,-----
.~ I
1 .,

242 Automatic Control of Ships

An alternative approach could be to use the discrete-time Kalman filter algo-

rithm in Table 6.2. This algorithm, however, requires that the state estimation
error covariance matrix X(k) (n(n + 1)/2 differential equations) is computed
on-line together with the state estimation vector x(k) (n differential equations) .

Table 6.2: Summary of discrete-time Kalman filter (Gelb et aL 1988).

Initial conditions x(O) - xo

X(O) = E[(x(O) - x(O))(x(O) - x(OW] =X o

Kalman gain matrix K(k) = X(k)HT(k) [H(k)X(k)HT(k) + R(k)t 1

State estimate update x(k) = x(k) + K(k) [z(k) - H(k) x(k)]
Error covariance update X(k) = [I - K(k)H(k)] X(k) [I - K(k)H(k)]T .! ~
T,..... ',
+K(k) R(k) KT(k)

State estimate x(k + 1) = p(k)x(k) + Ll(k)u(k)

Error covariance X(k + 1) = p(k) X(k) pT(k) + r(k) Q(k) rT(k)

The main problem in the realization of the state estimator is that the param-
eters K, T, W n and (' are unknown. Satisfactory values for the non-dimensional
ship parameters (Kt, Tt) CaIl usually be found frum maneuvering trials or by pa-
rameter estimation (see Section 6.8). Holzhiiter (1992) claims that the damping
coefficient in the wave model CaIl be chosen rather arbitrarily as long as it is
low (typically (' = 0.01-0.1) whereas the wave frequency W n can be treated as a
tunable pararneteL In some cases it can be advantageous to estimate W n on-line
by applying a frequency tracker (see below) . "t~,
Kalman filter based wave filtering has been discussed by numerous authors.
The interested leader is advised to consult the following references for details;
Balchen et aL (1976), Balchen, Jenssen and Sa:lid (1980a, 1980b), Grimble et aL
(1980a, 1980b), Fung and Grimble (1981, 1983), Fotakis, Grimble and Kouvari-
takis (1982), Sagatun, S~rensen and Fossen (1994a), Sa:lid and Jenssen (1983),
Sa:lid et aL (1983), Holzhiiter and Strauch (1987), Holzhiiter (1992), Reid, Tugcu
aIld Mears (1984).

6.1.5 Wave Frequency Tracker 0,_'

In this section we will show that the peak frequency of a wave spectrum can be
estimated by fitting all ARMA-model (see Section 6.8.4) to the following wave
transfer function approximation:
6.. 1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 243


Unfortunately, we cannot measure ,pH(S) directly since a compass measurement

will contain both the LF ship motion ,pL(S) and the 1st-order wave disturbances
,pH(S), that is:

This problem can be circumvented by applying the approach proposed by Holzhiiter
and Strauch (19S7) who suggest that ..pH(S) can be separated from the mea-
surement by introducing a filtered signal {;H(S). Moreover, we can generate an
approximation of ,pH(s) by:

where hHP(S) is a high-pass filter with cut-off frequency lower than the dominat-
ing wave frequency. This is based on the assumption that the high-pass filter will
attenuate LF motion components generated by the control input u(s), according


If this holds, then ,pH(S) "" ,}H(S) in the actual region of the wave disturbance
(see Figure 6.14).



~oO CD (Hz)

Figure 6.14: (1) original, (2) filtered and (3) estimated yaw angle spectrum (Holzhiiter
and Strauch 1987).

This suggests that we can design a frequency tracker based on the filtered signal
..j;H (s) instead. Let us define a new state variable ~H (s) according to (see Figure


244 Automatic Control of Ships

co n2 I--------~

white W

Figure 6.15: Block-diagram showing linear wave model in terms of .pH and ~H'

We can estimate .pH(S) by using a 1st-order high-pass filter:

- Tfs
'l/;H(S) = 1 + Tfs 'I/;(s) (High-Pass) (695)

with filter time constant Tf . Hence an estimate of I;H(S) can be computed ac-
cording to:

(Low-Pass + Amplifier) (6.96)

This is advantageous since the filtered signal (H(S) can be described by a sim-
ple AR-model corresponding to a 2nd-order wave disturbance model while pure
derivation of w(s) implies that 'if;H(S) must be modelled as an ARMA-modeL
This is the main motivation for using the signal eH (s) instead of 'if;H(s) in the
parameter estimation algorithm.
Holzhiiter and Strauch (1987), however, claim that a third pole -liT should
be included in the model (6.94) to account for LF parts that have passed the .
filter (6 . 96). Moreover:

- 1
~H(S) = (S2 + 2(w S + w2)(1 + Ts) e(s) (6.97)

where e(s) = K"ww(s). This model can be represented by an AR-model:


A( Z-I) = 1 + al z -I + a2 z -2 + a3 z -3 (6.99)
The parameters ab a2 and a3 in this model can be estimated by means of recursive
least squares (RLS) estimation ~ith constant forgetting (see Section 6.8.4):

iJ(k) - iJ(k - 1) + K(k) [y(k) - <jJT(k) iJ(k - 1)] (6.100)

6.1 Filtering of First-Order Wave Disturbances 245

P(k - l)q'J(k)
K(k) - (6.101)
A + q'JT(k)P(k - l)q'J(k)

P(k) = ~[I - K(k)q'JT(k)] P(k -1)] (6.102)

Here y(k) = tH(k) is the filtered signal, q'J(k) = [-y(k-1), -y(k-2), -y(k-3)]T
and O(k) = [al(k), a2(k), a3(k)]T The wave frequency estimate can be computed
from the a;-values by transforming the roots Z; (i = L.3) of the discrete-time

A( z-l) = 1 + al Z-1 + a2 Z-2 + a3 Z-3 = 0 (6103)

to the continuous-time domain by:

Zi = exp(h Si) ==? Si = - In(z;) (6.104)
where Si (i = L.3) is the continuous-time pole locations and h is the sampling
time. This yields one real solution S3 corresponding to the estimated pole liT and
a complex conjugate pair SI,2 corresponding to the pole locations of the 2nd-order
wave model, that is:

SI,2 = -a ± j {3 (6.105)
Hence, the wave fr'equency estimate is:

Wn = [sd = Ja 2 + {32 (6.106)

The performance of the wave frequency adaptation algorithm for a heading con-
trolled ship is illustrated in Figure 6.16.

wave frequency (rad/s)

1.. 21---~==>-~=~~==,,*


o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

time (5)

Figure 6.16: Estimated frequency as a function of time. Notice that ""n is changed
from 1.2 (rad/s) to 0,(3 (rad/s) after 200 (s).

An alternative wave frequency adaptation algorithm is proposed by Srelid et aL

(1983) who use a recursive prediction error method together with a Kalman filter
to estimate the wave frequency. -
246 Automatic Control of Ships

6.2 Forward Speed Control

by Mogens Blanke l and ThoT 1. Fossen

This section describes the most important thrust devices and machinery in ship
speed-propulsion systems.. Emphasis is placed on propellers as thrust devices,
prime mover control, ship speed control and speed control for cruising..

6.2.1 Propellers as Thrust Devices

The two main types of propellers available for ordinary merchant vessels are fixed
blade propellers (FP) and controllable pitch (OP) propellers. These two types
are widely used as prime mover thrust devices and are also the basis for most

Fixed Pitch Propeller

A 1st-order approximation of the propeller thrust T and torque Q can be found
from lift force calculations. This approach was taken by Blanke (1981) who used
lift force calculations as the basis for approximation of the open water propeller
Ships usually operate with variable forward speed . Therefore the performance
of the propeller will be a function of the speed of the water in the wake of the hull
(advance speed) V. (m/s) , propeller revolutions per second n (rps) and propeller
diameter D (m). The non-dimensional open water characteristics are defined in
terms of the open water advance coefficient J o:

_ V.
J0 - - (6.107)
The range of J o values relevant to normal operation is quite narrow. It is only
during heavy accelerations and decelerations that the propeller gets exposed to
larger parts of the diagram.
The non-dimensional propeller thrust and propeller torque coefficients KT and
K Q and the thruster open water efficiency 7Jo, that is the efficiency in undisturbed
water, are defined as:

KT = T KQ = Q 7Jo _ J o . KT (6.108)
plnln D4 plnln D5 - 27f K Q
Here P (kg/m 3 ) is the water density and T (N) and Q (Nm) are the propeller
thrust and torque, respectively. The difference between the ship speed and the
average flow velocity over the 'propeller disc is called the wake. It is common
to define the relative speed reduction by introducing the advance speed at the
propeller (speed of the water going into the propeller) as:
1 Department of Control Engineering, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
6.2 Forward Speed Control 247

v;. = (1 - w) U (6.109)
where w is the wake fraction number (typically: 01- OA) and U (m/s) is the for-
ward speed of the ship. In practice, the wake fraction number can be determined
directly from the open water test results.
Another effect to be considered is the so-called thrust deductio·n. An incr ease
in the flow velocity in the boundary layer behind the ship as a result of the
;: propeller will disturb the pressure balance between the bow and stem. This
,~ phenomenon causes extra resistance on the hull which can be described by the
thrust deduction number t (typically: 0.05-0.2) by modifying the propeller thrust
T to (1- t) T. The thrust deduction number will strongly depend on the shape of
the stem. Hence, the influence of the hull will be described by the hull efficiency:
TJH = - - (6.110)
In practice, the ratio between the propeller thrust and torque in open water and
behind the stem will differ This effect can be described by the ratio:

TJ8=---=-- (6.111 )

where K QE is the torque coefficient measured for a propeller behind the stem.
Let the relative rotative efficiency TJR be defined as the ratio: TJR = TJE/TJO' Hence
the total propeller thrust efficiency can be defined as the product:

TJTOT = TJa . TJM . TJH . TJE (6.112)

HereTJM is the mechanical efficiency (typically 0.8-0.9). The open water test is
usually performed by using a towing carriage or a cavitation tunneL Then for ce
i! and torque sensors can be applied to measure the propeller for ce T and torque
Q, respectively. Since the speed Va of the towing carriage or the water stream
I in the cavitation tunnel also can be measured, KT, K Q and TJa can be calculated
from (6.108). This is usually done by applying a nominal (design) value for n

Bilinear Thruster Model

Typical curves are shown in Fignre 6.17, where KT and 10·KQ are plotted versus
Ja. It can be shown that the positive propeller thrust and torque can be written
(Blanke 1981):

T = PD 4 (0<1 + 0<2 Jo) Inln; Q = PD 5 (fJl + fJ2 Ja) Inln (6.113)

'-----v----" '---v----'
where 0<1, 0<2, fJl and fJ2 are four constants. For convenience, Blanke introduces
the notation: ; !

248 Automatic Control of Ships

Thrust & torque coefficients for propeller

1 ..5

1 ~ .. . .

:. ~ :.

. '
. '- .,"-..;

-0,.5 ,.; ,

-1 L..,:'::- -;;- -;;";;:- ~--

~O,5 0 0.5
Jo - advance number

Figure 6.17: Thrust and torque curves for propeller in both ahead (V. > 0) and astern
(V. < 0) conditions. n is positive in both cases (Blanke 1994).

11nln = pD40'.1 > 0 Qjnjn = pD 5/31 > 0 (6.114)

11nJV. = pD30'.2 < 0 QjnJV. = pD4/32 < 0 .l}
where 11njn, 11nJV., Qjnln and QlnjV. are design parameters found directly from the ...\i
open water propeller diagram. Consequently, .,
, ,i

;1 I,,
T - 11njnInln + 11nJV. InlV. (6.115) ,

Q - Qlnjn Inln + QjnJV. InlV. (6116) ';\'

Controllable Pitch Propeller

.::J I I

;,r I

Controllable pitch propellers are screw blade propellers where the blades can be I? II
turned under the control of a hydr aulic servo system. CP propellers are used .:N
'". I
where maneuvering properties need to be improved, where a ship has equipment :'

that requires constant shaft speed, or with most twin screw ships. Equipment
that requires constant shaft speed includes axis generators coupled directly to the ),
shaft via a gear, that is the generator runs with a multiple of the shaft's angular .:~:
speed, and certain types of trawl drives used ill the fisheries. \t
For the constant pitch propeller, developed thrust and propeller shaft torque
were determined by the bilinear relation with propeller turn rate n and the water
velocity V. at the propeller disc" This is also the case for a variable pitch propeller.
Let T and Q be written:
6.2 Forward Speed Control 249

T = 71n1n(B) Jnln + 71nlV. (B) InlVa (6117)

Q Qo Jnln + Qlnln(B) InJn + QlnlV. (B) JnlVa (601.18)

where the Qo Inln term represents a torque term that exists even at zero pitch
angk For many propellers Qo will be about 5 % of Q at the nominal point of
operation .
The coefficients 71 nln etc. are complex functions of the pitch angle 8. This
is apparent from Figures 6.18 and 6.19 showing KT and K Q curves for a GP
propeller with various values of relative pitch, between full ahead (100%) and
full astern (-100%). On closer inspection, the curves are not too difficult to
approximate, and in a simplified analysis we can assume the linear relations:

KT - (a1B)+a2Jo (6.119)
KQ - ((31 IBI) + ((32 B) Jo (6.120)

which implies that we can define:

71nln(B) = 71nln B 71nIV.(8) = 71nlV. (6..121)

Qlnln(8) = Qlnln 18J QW. (8) = QlnlYo 8
Hence we obtain the following thrust and torque for the GP propeller:

T - 71nln 8 Jnln + 71nlYo JnlV. (6.122)

Q - Qo Jnln + Qlnln 1811nln + QlnlV. 8 InlV. (6.123)

The bilinear approximation gives quite a good approximation in the following


- positive shaft speed, ship speed ahead, positive pitch

- positive shaft speed, ship speed astern, negative pitch -;:

These are the steady-state conditions. The bilinear approximation is up to 40 %

erroneous in the transient cases: i:

- positive shaft speed, ship speed ahead, negative pitch
- positive shaft speed, ship speed astern, positive pitch
Furthermore, cavitation may occur during heavy transients. This, together with
the model uncertainty, makes it necessary that controllers arc designed with con-
siderable robustness when intended to work during transient conditions.
250 Automatic Control of Ships

Thrust coeffIcient for CP Propeller


OA ~ : "'.. .. .j
~ -==r~
:S 0,,2 .. KI a~ 1ado;'; pItch
1i! : j ..................
'~ 0
.§ -0,,2 ." :...... .
g, -OA
-, :;i.Q'Yo
. ~t
-0,,5 o 0,,5
J ~ advance number

Figure 6.18: KT characteristic for controllable pitch propeller for medium speed ap-
plication. Bilinear theory is fairly accurate in steady ahead (Va > 0, n > 0) and astern
(Va < 0, n > 0) cases, but not under transient conditions (Blanke 1994)..

Torque coefficient for CP Propeller

1 5
~O·KQ at 100% pitch

c pO%
E 0.,5
c ~
"~ 0
,... "':
. ;.

: ;

-0.5 o 0.5
J ~ advance number

Figure 6.19: KQ characteristic for controllable pitch propeller for medium speed
application. Pitch values from -100 % to 100 % are shown for positive n. Bilinear
theory is seen to be fairly accurate in steady ahead and astern cases but not otherwise
(Blanke 1994). .. .

6.2 Forward Speed Control 251

Prime Mover Dynamics

The dynamics of the prime mover and its. control system is tightly coupled to
the speed dynamics of the ship. We will restrict our treatment to standard diesel
engines which are used in most new ships. For the interested reader, a reference
describing steam turbine systems is Astrom and Eklund (1971) while large diesel
engines are treated in Andersen (1974). In Blanke (1981) the dynamics of the
diesel engine is written as:


n - shaft speed (rad/s)
Im - inertia of the rotating parts including the propeller and added
inertia of the water (kg m 2)
Q - propeller torque (Nm)
Qm - produced torque developed by the diesel engine (Nm)
Qf - friction torque (Nm)

This expression can also be written:

Imn = Qm - Q - Qf
Neglecting the friction torque, we obtain the following transfer function:
n(s) = -I- [Qm(s) - Q(s)] (6..126)
m S
The transfer function from the position of the fuel pump rack Y(s) to the pro-
duced torque developed by the diesel engine Qm(s) (see Figure 6.20) is usually
described by one of the following simple transfer functions:

I Governor I
control system

main engine
2 ..... T(n, Va )
QCn, V )
~ >-..
~ 5;lJ
(m-X il ),

Va propeller
Vc. -:::. ( -t- to.) ) U [11"'---11!

ship speed dynamics

Figure 6.20: Simplified diagram showing the speed-propulsion system (Blanke 1981)

252 Automatic Control of Ships

(1) Model of Blanke (1981)

Consider the nonlinear transfer function:

Qm(s) ~ K y exp(-Ts) (6.. 127)

Y 1 +Tys

where T represents the time delay (half the period between consecutive cylinder
fuings), K y is the gain constant and Ty is the time constant. On average the
developed power Qmn is proportional to the product Yn of the fuel pump index
and shaft speed. Hence, we can compute the torque constant K y for one constant
shaft speed no according to:

K _ Qm(no) (6128)
y - Y(~o)

The time delay, from the index setting to the fuelled into each cylinder, can be
calculated as:

T= 2Nn (6129)

Here N is the number of cylinders each rotating with n (rps). The value of the ,..
time constant is .approximated as:


where n is in (rps) , This model is valid for steady-state operation of two-stroke

diesel engines. If a large increase in shaft speed is desired, scavenging air pressure
needs to build up to enable acceleration. Large two-stroke engines run at 25-125
(rpm) and are connected directly to the propeller.

(2) Model of Horigome, Hara, Hotta and Ohtsu (1990)

In many applications where a medium speed engine is used it is reasonable to

assume that the sampling rate and thus the bandwidth of the main eng-ine gov-
ernor is somewhat lower than the frequency l/T corresponding to the time delay.
The medium speed engine runs at 150-500 (rpm) and is connected to the main
propellers in a gear box. This suggests that a medium speed diesel engine can be
approximated as:

Qm(S)= K y (6.131)
Y 1 +Tys '::,

for low frequencies.

6.2 Forward Speed Control 253

(3) Model of Ohtsu and Ishizuka (1992)
Statistical identification of the governor-propeller system has shown that a 2nd-
il order model often yields a better fit to the low pass characteristics of the main
engine, that is:

Qm(s) __ Kv (6.132 )
Y (1 + T vl s)(l + Tv,s)
Here TVl and Tv, are two time constants. The reason for this is probably the
dynamics of the engine's fuel injection system.

Operational Limits for Diesel Engines

The mathematical models above do not assume any limits to developed torque
from the diesel engine. There is, however, a maximum torque value that the
engine cannot exceed.. This value is a function of the shaft speed. On large
slow-speed engines it is also a filllction of the scavenging air pressure.
A torque limit is necessary to avoid mechanical overload of the crankshaft
and other mechanical parts. This torque limit is shaft-speed-dependent. At low
speed, a certain torque can be allowed. The limit increases gradually and reaches
a maximum value.
A scavenging air pressure limit is necessary to keep the oxygen to fuel ratio
in the combustion process above a certain value. This is required since the engine
will stop if too little oxygen is available for combustion. Before this happen a
less severe but certainly undesired effect is caused by a low air to fuel ratio. This
results in dramatic pollution from the combustion..
Scavenging air problems are ouly an issue for large slow-speed engines (25-125
rpm). These have large turbo chargers for the supply of scavenging air pressure,
and very large exhaust gas systems to drive the turbo chargers.. Time constants of
up to 20-30 seconds in the air supply system will limit the increase of fuel during
a desired acceleration. Decelerations in shaft speed are not hindered (Blanke and
Andersen 1984)
Medium-speed diesel engines (150-500 rpm) have such fast air system re-
sponse that rapid maneuvers will not be limited by available air supply.
Let p, denote the scavenging air pressure and n the shaft speed. If the
available torque is limited to Q'haftma.x(n,p,) then the obtainable shaft speed is
limited by the torque limit and the'ship's speed U as: '. ". . . . ;.

__ -QlnlVa (1- w)U + V[QlnIVB (1 - w)U]2 + 4 QlnlnQ'haft,max(n,p,)

n (6.133)
Note that QlnlV. is a negative quantity and n is therefore positive. A diesel engine
manufacturer will always speci(y the limits of safe operation of a particular engine.
The engine controller needs to incorporate these limits in his cont.rol strategy; see
Figure 6.21, where a slow speed diesel engine is used for illustration. .. i'

Prime Mover Control

Automatic Control of Ships
Figure 6.20 shows the structure ofthe prime mover controller. The measured shaft
speed is compared with a reference speed. A governor (speed controller) controls
the fuel injection to the engine in order to obtain the desired speed. Limit curves
are incorporated for shaft-speed-dependent torque and air pressure as explained I
above. The diesel engine control is usually shaft-speed-scaled (Blanke 1986 and 1
Blanke and Nielsen 1990).

Fuel t
Pitch Ind.. RPM
Mode Strategy
Selection +

Pitch Piteh
.-- Control
II L' ·ts I
mu I

Thrust f---- RPM RPM

Demand Control j L.. I
I ,mlts I


Ship Speed Thrust

(Estimate) Estimator

Figure 6.21: Block diagram showing engine controller and limiting functions (Blanke
: ,

6.2.2 Control of Ship Speed

In FP propeller ships, thrust is obtained by adjusting the set-point to the gover-
nor.. The ship's speed will increase/decrease until an equilibrium speed is obtained
that satisfies:

(m - Xli) U ..:.. Xjulu lulu + (1 - t)T + 7105S + Text (6.134)

T = 1]nln /n/n + 1]nlV. InlVa (6.135)
Braking of the ship is done by slowing the engine. When rapid deceleration is
needed, the engine is reversed, that is n becomes negative.. The steady-state
solution for ship speed is straightforward. Moreover for positive u and n we have:

6.2 Forward Speed Control 255

u = n 2~. luju [71lnlV,a (1 - w)(1 - t)


Notice that Xlulu and l1nrv. are negative. Ship speed u is thus very close to be
linearly related to the shaft speed n.
With CP propellers, the CP propeller relation between pitch, shaft speed,
and ship speed is determined by:

(m - X,,) u= Xlulu lulu + (1 - t) T + 71055 + Text (6 . 137)

T = l1nln e /n/n + l1nlV. /n/Va (6.138)
Again, assuming positive nand u together with e > 0 we get:

u = n 2}IU!U [l1nlV. (1 - w)(1 - t)

+ V[11 n lV. (1 - w)(l - t)J2 - 48(1 - t)11nlnXlulu - eox':l'oo'xlulu ]

CP propeller installations are, in many cases, required to operate at a certain

shaft speed, or within a narrow range. A certain speed is then obtained by
adjusting the propeller pitch to an appropriate value. This value is, again, very
close to be linearly related to the desired ship speed.

'I Manual Speed Control

Using the above expressions, ship speed is normally controlled by setting a desired
reference in shaft speed for FP or in combined shaft speed and pitch for CP.
The limits to this procedure are that ship resistance is not exactly a square
function in u . At higher ship speeds, wave making plays an important role, and
the resistance curve turns into a 3rd-order curve and higher. The external thrust
from wind and waves is further an unknown and stochastic value that can easily
amount to 20-40 % of hull resistance in a storm. Such variation will cause a speed
change (decrease) of 10-20 % and an increase in power consumption. Blanke
(1981) has shown that speed decrease and p~wer consumption when exerted to
external thrust depends very much on the governor parameters.

Automatic Speed C~mtrol

For ocean passage a tighter speed control than can be obtained with manual
'1 control is often desired. One reason is to keep a sailing schedule within tight
I limits. Another is the fuel costs imposed if a master sails too fast on part of
the ronte and slows down when approaching harbor. Such a strategy can be
256 Automatic Control of Ships

expensive in fuel consumption because power is related to speed as the 3rd-order


(6.140) ;
An increase in speed is thus more expensive in power than the saving gained when i;
decreasing speed such that the desired average cruising speed is obtained.. ,
Optimal Efficiency Control
In ep propeller installations, the pitch is the main factor to controL When shaft
speed is also allowed to be varied, it is possible to optimize on the propulsion 1
efficiency Tj: I
Tj = Tu = l1nln 0 Inlnu + l1nlv, Inl(1 - w)u
Qn Qlnln IOlln 3 1 + QlnlV. 0 Inln(1 - w)u
With the ship speed being given by the more general expression:

(m -X,,)u = X(u) + (1- t)T+l1oss + Text (6.142)

where X(u) is a velocity-dependent resistance function. This problem is clearly
a nonlinear optimization problem.. The overall efficiency is optimized in real time
in a multivariable pitch and shaft speed controller. The solution can be written:

[ ~: ] = fI(u,O,n) (6.143)
where Od and nd are the desired values, and h(u,O,n) is a nonlinear function
depending on what type of optimization method which is used. Perturbation-
1 '
and gradient-based optimization methods are commonly used for this purpose..

Overload Control

When optimizing the combined 0 and n, the problem occurs that the optimum
is often the largest possible 0 and the n value that gives the desired thrust.. This
inevitably brings the prime mover diesel into the torque limit.. It is therefore
necessary to incorporate overload controL The fuel index is used to determine
an approaching overload condition by comparing the fuel index demand Y,; with
a value Yiim, which is lower than the hard limit specified for the engine.. The
overload controller has the following function:

The concern for the sign of 0 is seen from the torque equation above where it is
apparent that the slope of the Q curve changes with the sign of O. ''.....

6.2 Forward Speed Control 257

6.2.3 Speed Control for Cruising

Speed control is implemented using the elements described above. The control of
the ship's speed is conveniently broken up into a hierarchy of control loops because
manual override and gradual activation of control loops is a practical advantage
for the person in control. The control loops in the speed control hierarchy are:

(1) speed control: inputs: speed reference Ud and speed estimate u; output: thrust
demand Td·
(2) thrust control: inputs: thrust demand Td , thrust estimate 'i', fuel index Y; out-
puts: pitch demand IJd and shaft speed demand nd.

(3) shaft speed control (governor): inputs: shaft speed demand nd, measured shaft
speed n, measured fuel index Y, measured scavenging air pressure p,;output: fuel
index demand Yd to engine.
(4) CP propeller control: inputs: pitch demand IJd, measured pitch IJ; output: pitch
control valve position.

This is illustrated in Figure 6.22.



.......-~ Governor' ~
Prop clIer
t'rd ~

Wilh I Diesel I ~~

Pilch I Engine I
I CP Propeller ~
I Conlrol
T" f B
u - Thrust and Ship
Speed Estimator B

i u

Figure 6.22: Control loops in the speed control hierarchy (Blanke 1994).

Ship Speed Controller

The desired speed accuracy for a ship speed controller is about 0.1 (knots) or 0.05
(m/s). The ship speed controller could be implemented as a simple PI controller

u,.•::::::----------------------~«~.=_~="= __- - - - - - - - - - . ;
258 Automatic Control of Ships
if appropriate gain scheduling was used to compensate the change in gain from
thrust to ship speed as a function of ship speed. However, integral action must be
used with care in the speed control case. The reason is power considerations that
require that no overshoot whatsoever is accepted in ship speed. Furthermore,
if the speed controller for some reason has used precious power to increase ship
speed to above the set-point, it would not be wise to use additional power to
decrease the ship speed to the set-point. Therefore a no-braking strategy has to
be used. The detailed analysis of this problem is not within the scope of this text
and details can be found in Blanke (1994)

Thrust Controller
Thrust control with a fixed pitch propeller is straightforward in the sense that
there is no optimization involved. The only obstacle is robust estimation of
propeller thrust.
For the CP propeller, the overload control and optimal pitch method make
a somewhat coupled nonlinear control problem. Particularly, care needs to be
taken in considering the sign relations involved since the sign in the control loop
will change with the sign of pitch, sign of ship speed, and direction of shaft speed.

Estimation of Propeller Thrust

From the propeller equations, the obvious possibility for the estimation of pro-
peller thrust is to use the thrust relation. Moreover:

T= l1nln(B) Inln + l1 nlV.(B) Inl(l- w)u (6.144)

where ship speed is estimated through (see (6.123)):

u= Q - (Qo Inln + Qlnln(B) Inln) (6 . 145)

QlnlV. (B) 1nl (1 - w)
However, increased robustness is obtained if a nonlinear observer is designed using
the thrust and torque relations above together with the forward speed equation:

(m - X,,) it = X(u) + (1 - t)T + ticss + T.xt (6.146)

A recursive prediction error method to estimate this nonlinear continuous-time
equation was developed in Zhou and Blanke (1989).

Shaft Speed and CP Controllers

In an overall speed control context, these controllers can be treated as fairly

ideal devices where the limits need to be taken into context, whereas the detailed
controller dynamics can be neglected. .

6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 259

6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots

Autopilots for course-keeping are normally based on feedback from a gyrocom-
pass measuring the heading. Heading rate measurements can be obtained by
a rate sensor, gyro, numerical differentiation of the heading measurement or a
state estimatoL This is common practice in most control laws utilizing propor-
tional, derivative and integral action. The control objective for a course-keeping
autopilot can be expressed as:

7/Jd = constant (6.147)

This is illustrated in Figure 6.23. On the contrary, course-changing maneuvers
suggest that the dynamics of the desired heading should be considered in addition.
This will be discussed in Section 6.4

wind and

i..-.-.---.-.--_. -_ no - _ . • • • • • • • • • • • •••••• '0;

: :

)·--1 Autopilot I i ,I
" Steeri.ng
I Ii

i. •••.•_......•.__•..•.••..••••••••••••••__••
I ShIp
. Ii
i ,--....
••••••• :

Figure 6.23: Autopilot for automatic heading.

6.3.1 Autopilots of PID-Type

Most autopilots for ship steering are based on simple PID-controllaws with fixed
parameters. To avoid t.hat the performance of the autopilot deteriorating in bad
weather and when the speed of the ship changes, HF rudder motions must be
suppressed by proper wave filtering, while a gain scheduling technique can be ap-
plied to remove the influence of the ship speed on the hydrodynamic parameters.
For simplicity, let the LF motion of a ship be described by Nomoto's 1st-order
", model:

T7/J+7/J=K8 (6..148)
Based on this simple model we will discuss control laws of po, PD- and PID-type
utilizing feedback from the LF state estimates. The performance and robust-
ness of the autopilot can be evaluated by using the simulation set-up showed
in Figure 6.24. The proposed simulator models 1st-order wave disturbances as
measurement noise while wave drift forces, wind and sea currents are treated as
a constant disturbance.

o;;;·_:::::::::- ~- ·_i
260 Automatic Control of Ships

_ " .. .
" " " , ', " , " " , ...•.•..• , "., .•... .. ,.:

! lst~order wave dlsturbancc..s i

. !'"

1 :
i i
" '
1 i
. . . ._ _ ••••••, _ __ ~ •• ....- - •••., - • • •<, " . .••... "

,.•..•.. _."',.~--~_ _ _ __ , " , , _ ,.:
! j'V
. Oc!~
autoPllot~ _

j l
" .!
l ":~~~ ~.~~?~?.'.:. !.:.~.~~.~~:.~~~:l.~ "" ,..,._,._ " _..~.._ ".." l

Figure 6.24: Simplified simulation set-up for course-keeping autopilot.

Let us first consider a proportional control law:

\8 = K p (,pr,p) I (6.149)
where K p > 0 is a regulator design parameter.. Substitution of (6.149) into
(6 . 148), yields the closed-loop dynamics:

T -if; + -if; + K Kp,p = KKp,pd (6 . 150)

From this expression the eigenvalues are found to be:

-1 ± )1- 4TKKp
Since, 1-4TK K p < 0 for most ships, it is seen that the real part of the eigenvalues
are given as:

RePl,2} = - 2T (6.152)
Consequently, the suggested P-controller will not stabilize an open-loop unstable
ship (T < 0). For stable ships (T > 0) the imaginary part of the closed-loop eigen- .;.

values and thus the oscillatorlc motion can be modified by adjusting the regulator
gain K p • For instance, a critically damped system is obtained by choosing:

6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 261

Since, the use of a P-controller is restricted to open-loop stable ships with a
certain degree of stability, another approach has to be used for marginally stable
and unstable ships.. A stabilizing control law is obtained by simply including
derivative action in the control law. Consider a control law of PD-type in the

Here K p > 0 and K d > 0 are the controller design parameters. The closed-loop
dynamics resulting from the ship dynamics and the PD-controller are:

This expression simply corresponds to a 2nd-order system in the form:

with natural frequency W n (rad/s) and relative damping ratio (. Combining
(6.155) and (6.156) yields:

(= 2JTKKp

The relative damping ratio is typically chosen in the interval 0 8 :::; ( :::; 1.0,
whereas the choice of W n will be limited by the resulting bandwidth of the rudder
Wo (rad/s) and the ship dynamics I/T (rad/s) according to:

I/T < < Wo (6.158)

'----v---' '--v--'
ship dynamics closed-loop bandwidth rudder servo

For a critically damped ship (( = 1) the closed-loop bandwidth Wb is related to

the natural frequency W n of the closed-loop system (6.156) by a factor of 0.64,
that is Wb = 0.64· W n (see Exercise 6.6). Alternatively, we can solve (6.157) for
K p and K d which yields:

K_ Tw ;. K_ 2T (w n -l (6159)
p- K ' d- K
Here Wn and ( can be treated as design parameters.

Example 6.3 (PD-Control)

Consider an unstable ship with time constant T = -.10 (s) and gain constant
K = -01 (S-1). If we choose the natural frequ.ency as:


262 Automatic Control of Ships 1
Wn = 005 (md/s) (6.160)
and the desired damping mtio as:

(=08 (6.161)
we obtain the jollowing l'egulator- gains:

K p = 0.25; K d = 18.. 0 (6.162)

This corresponds to a bandwidth oj Wb = 0.87· W n = 0.04 (r-ad/ s). The open-loop
and closed-loop poles jar this system are shown in Figure 6.25


-- Re
""'''' ""'"''''......_.. -[I (T < 0)

Figure 6.25: Plot showing the poles of the uIlBtable ship (.) and the PD-controlled
ship (X). The relative damping ratio and natural frequency of the closed-loop system
is: ( = sin q\ .and W n = J a. 2 +/32, r~spectively. .


During autopilot control of a ship it is obseryed that a rudder off~set is required

to maintain the ship on constant course. The reason for this is a yaw moment
caused by the rotating propeller ap.d the slowly-varying environmental distur-
bances. These are wave drift forces (2nd-order wave disturbances) and LF com-
ponents of wind and sea currents. However, steady-state errors due to wind,
current and wave drift can all be compensated for by adding integral action to
the control law. Consider the PID-control law:

where K p > 0, K d > 0 and K i > 0 are the regulator design parameters. Applying
this control law to Nomoto's 1st-order model

T7/J+7/J = K (a - OD) (6.. 164)

1 6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 263

where 00 is the steady-state TIldder off-set, yields the following closed-loop char-
acteristic equation:
(6 . 165)
I Hence the triple (Kp , K d , K i ) must be chosen such that all the roots of this 3rd-
i order polynomial become negative, that is:
Re{o-;} < 0 for (i = 1,2,3) (6.166)

This can be done by applying Routh's stability criterion (see Theorem 5.1). An-
other simple intuitive way to do this is by noticing that 0 can be written as:


where the derivative and integral time constants are Td = K d / K p and 1'; = K p / K i ,
respectively. Hence, integral action can be obtained by first designing the PD-
controller gains K d and K p according to the previous discussions. This ensures
that sufficient stability is obtained. The next step is to include integral action by
adjusting the integral gain K i . A rule of thumb can be to choose:

1 Wn
-~- (6.168)
1'; 10
which suggests that K i should be chosen as:

K. = u.ln K = w~ T (6.169)
. J 10 p 10 K

Example 6.4 (PID-Control)

Again consider the unstable tanker in Example 6.3 with K p and K d chosen ac-
cording to (6.162). The integral gain is calculated as (6.169) which yields:

(6 . 170)

The root-locus curves for increasing values of K i are shown in Figure 6.26 Notice
that the system is stable for K i = 0.0013 (S-I) indicated by the three asterisks in
Figure 6.26. .

6.3.2 Compensation of Forward Speed Effects

Simple gain scheduling techniques can be applied to remove the influence of for-
ward speed. We will discuss two different methods which can be used to compute
a set of velocity scheduled regulator gains (Kp , K d , KJ
264 Automatic Control of Ships




increasing Ki

o I:, , Re


-<11 -<105 o 005 0.1

Figure 6.26: Root-locus curve for the unstable tan1ter with PID-control when Ki is
allowed to vary, and K p and Kd are fixed.. The three asterisks denote the "rule of
thumb" solution Ki = (w;/lO) (TI K) which clearly is stable.
,] ..
Velocity Gain Scheduling Using the Ratio (U IL) ;I
, I
., ,
The most common gain scheduling technique is probably to replace the (K, T) :'
values in the PID control law with:
; ~'
K - (U/L) K' (6.171)
T - (L/U) T' (6.172)

where L is the length of the ship and U is the forward speed. However, this
technique requires that the non-dimensional gain K' and time T' constants are

Velocity Gain Scheduling Using the Ratio (U IUo)

Assume that the gain const~nt Ko and time ~onstant To corresponding to the
service speed Uo of the ship are known. The values for (Ko, To) can be found
from a maneuvering test, see Example 5.8. From (6.171) and (6.172) we have

Ko = (Uo/L) K'; To = (L/Uo) T' (6.173)

Eliminating K' and T' from these expressions by using (6.171) and (6,172) yields:
IK= (U/Uo) Ko I IT=(Uo /@ (6.174)
6,3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 265

Substituting these results into the expressions for K p and K d finally yields:

Kd(U) = 2 To (Uo/U) (w n - 1 (Uo/U) (6.175)

Similarly, we obtain a rule of thumb for the integral gain K i as:

Ki(U) = ~; ~ (UO/U)2 (6.176)

Hence, the influence of the forward speed is compensated for directly by including
speed measurements. Velocity scheduling should be applied to the regulator, state
estimator and the parameter estimator. It should be noted that the response to
velocity variations by gain scheduling is much quicker than what is obtained by
parameter adaptation.

6.3.3 Linear Quadratic Optimal Autopilot

Linear quadratic optimal control theory can be applied to obtain increased per-
formance and reduced fuel consumption. The trade-off between accurate steering
and economical steering can be related to a quadratic criterion:

min J = -Cl< loT (,,2 +,\ 0 2

) dr (6 . 177)
T 0
',.:.',! where Cl< is a constant to be interpreted later, " is the heading error, 0 is the
actual rudder angle and ,\ is a weighting factor weighting the cost of heading
,I errors against the control effort..
'. . Sailing in restricted waters usually requires accurate control, but minimiza-
~I tion of the fuel consumption is more important in open sea Minimum fuel
':,1I consumption with respect to steering resistance has been addressed by several
ti authors. We will discuss three of the criteria in the literature.

The Steering Criterion of Koyama (1967)

Koyama (1967) observed that the ship's yawing motion could be described by a
,i sinusoid during autopilot, control, that is:
i; I y = sinCe: t) =? iJ = e: cos(e: t) (6.178)
~I Hence, the percentage loss of speed during course control can be calculated by
[I using the elongation in distance due to a course error, see Figure 627, This
approach uses the fact that the length of one arch La of the sinusoid can be

:I calculated as:

,I (6.179)

266 Automatic Control of Ships


Figure 6.27: Sinusoidal course error dming autopilot controL

Hence, the relative elongation due to a sinusoidal course enor is:

t:>L La - L
L= L
In fact, this term can be interpreted as the percentage speed loss during a si- ,i·
nusoidal maneuver. Consequently, Koyama proposed minimizing the speed loss
term E: 2 /4 against the increased resistance due to steering given by the term 82 •
This leads to the following performance index:

min J = 100 ( ~)2

~ (T(
4T i o E:
A 82) d
. T
!'::i 0.0076 (T( 2
T io E: +
A 82) dT (6181)


J - loss of speed (%) ,~.

E: - heading enor (deg) "
8 - rudder angle (deg)
A - weighting factor

The weighting factor A is obtained by normalizing E: 2 such that E: 2 :s L Koyama

suggested a A-factor of approximately 8-10. Experiments show that such high
values for A avoids large rudder angles and thus high turning rates. Therefore,
A = 10 will be a good choice in bad weather where it is important to suppress
high frequency rudder motions.

The Steering Criterion of Norzobin (1972)

Norrbin (1972) has suggested minimizing the loss term:

11053 = (m + Xv,) V7 + Xcclili c2 8 + (X,., + mIc) 72 + X.xl (6.182)
arising from (5 . 9). Consequently, an optimal controller should minimize the cen-
tripetal term V7, the square rudder angle 82 and the square heading rate 7 2 . "
6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 267

The disturbance term X ext is assumed to be negligible. For most ships the sway
velocity 11 is approXimately proportional to r (see Exercise 5.1), that is:
!I 11(8) = K v(1 + TV 8)r(s) ;::J b(s) (6.183)

K (1 +Ts)
where k = Kv/K is a constant. Hence, the centripetal term vr will be approxi-
mately proportional to the square of the heading rate, that is:

I (6.184)

The next step is to assume that the ship's yawing motion will be periodically
(sinusoidaly) under autopilot control such that the following holds:

Here w, is the frequency of the sinusoidal yawing. Consequently, the criterion for
increased resistance during turns can be expressed as a quadratic criterion similar
to that of (6.181), see Exercise 6.7. The only difference between the criteria of
Norrbin and Koyama is that the A values arising from Norrbin's approach will
be different. In fact, Norrbin suggests values around A = 0.1. Experiments show
that A= 0.1 may be an optimum choice in calm sea,
The optimal choice of Ashould be a trade-off between accurate steering (small
A-values) and economical steering (large A-values). In rough sea Norrbin's crite-
rion (A = 0,.1) might result in undesired HF motion of the rudder since higher
controller gains are allowed, This suggests that a trade-off between the A val-
ues proposed by Koyama and Norrbin could be made according to the weather
conditions as:

(calm sea) 0.1 ::; ,\ ::; 10 (rough sea) (6.186)

Nonbin expresses the losses due to steering in the term while Koyama includes
the same losses in the term {P. This is the main reason for the great difference
in the values of A.

The Steering Criterion of Van Amerongen and Van Nauta Lemke (1978)
Since the increased resistance due to steering is dominated by the component
caused by the turning, Van Amerongen and Van Nauta Lemke (1978, 1980) sug-
gest including an additional term r 2 in the criterion (6.181) to penalize the turn~
ing.. Moreover, the following criterion is proposed:

(6 187)


b~-- _
268 Automatic Control of Ships

J - percentage loss of speed (%)

1 - the LF component of the heading rate (degjs)
£: - the LF component the heading error (deg)
{j - the rudder angle (deg)
Al,2 - weighting factors

For a tanker and a cargo ship, Van Amerongen and Van Nauta Lemke (1978,
1980) give the following values for the weighting factors Al and A2 corresponding
to the data set of Norrbin (1972),
tanker: L= 300m Ar = 15,000 '!I'
cargo ship: L = 200m Al = L600

Solution of the Optimal Steering Criteria

Consider Nomoto's 1st-order model in the form:

T ' i+ (UjL) T = (UjL)2 K' {j (6,188)

Straightforward application of optimal control theory to the criterion of Van
Amerongen and Van Nauta Lempke (1978), yields (see Appendix D):



.~ .
Rd = (6,191)

The proof is left as an exercise. The solution of the criteria of Koyama and
Nonbin is obtained for Al = 0 and A2 = A which yields:



From these expressions it is seen that K p depends on a weighting factor while

K d depends on K p as well as the model parameters K' and Tt Hence, accurate
steering requires that K ' and T ' are known with sufficient accuracy: This suggests
that the optimal controller should be combined with a parameter estimator for

-rd ,..fl!riiii
6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 269

estimation of K' and T'. Van Amerongen (1982) claims that K p and K d will be
in the range of:

0.5 < K p < 5; (6.194)

for most ships.

Extensions to Nomoto's 2nd-Order Model

Consider Nomoto's 2nd-order model in state-space form:

x=Ax+Bu (6195)
where x = [v,r, ,pjT, u = 0 and

B=[~] (6.196)

Let the control objective be described by:

(6 . 197)

where C is a known matrix specifying the control objective and Yd = C Xd is

the desired output. The steady-state optimal solution minimizing the quadratic
performance index (assuming Y d = constant):


where P > 0 and Q 2: 0 are two weighting matrices, is (see Appendix D):

u = G1 X + G 2 Yd (6.199)

G1 - _P-1BTR= (6.200)
G2 = -P-IBT(A+BGltTCTQ (6.201)

and R= is the solution of the matrix Riccati equation:

(6 . 202)
This approach requires that all states are measured or at least estimated. The
robustness of optimal autopilots for course-keeping control with state estimator
is analyzed in Holzhiiter (1992).

....... ._--"'I
270 Automatic Control of Ships

Limitations of the Steering Machine

In Section 5A it was shown that the limitations in the rudder rate could intro-
duce an additional phase lag. This efI'ect can lead to instability of the optimal
controller. One intuitive solution to this problem could be to apply a gain schedul-
ing technique. For instance, the output of the controller could be automatically
reduced as soon as the controller rate of change is so large that it will cause
Van der Klugt (1987) proposes to use the automatic gain controller (AGe) of
Figure 6.28 to adjust the controller gain. In Figure 6.28 Oc is the controller output,
{jmax is the maximum allowed rudder rate, and the signal y is the maximum of
three signals; (1) the maximum rudder rate, (2) the absolute value of the time
derivative of the commanded input and (3) the output of a memory function.

y(k) = max
I {jerk) I (6.203)
A' y(k - 1)

where 0 < A < 1 is a forgetting factor . An estimate of the signal {jerk) can be
computed by numerical derivation, for instance (see Appendix B.3):

to steering
from autopilot machine

Bc Bd

Smax ','
Imaximum I
rudder rate
Bmax .. .~
Bc I Sel .'
f I maximum I
I detector I
y ;~,

I memory

Figure 6.28: The automatic gain controller (AGe), Van der Klugt (1987) and Van
Amerongen et aL (1990).


where l/Td is the cut-off frequency. The gain needed to adjust the controller is
computed as:
6.3 Course-Keeping Autopilots 271
, r,

wind and

f---'=+---+ Steering
,Iww~ ••• ~.~. __ wr __ ~w ••• _.~ __ • • • w_~_,r • • • __ • ' __
"T __ •

Figure 6.29: Diagram showing a linear quadratic optimal autopilot together with the
automatic gain controller.

o< A ::; 1 where A = 6max (6,205)

Hence the output from the AGC will be:
{: ,

Notice that if \60 1is larger than 6max the gain A is instantaneously decreased and
thus the desired rudder angle Od to the steering machine is decreased. When \60 \
is not too large any more, the memory function ensures that the gain A slowly
increases, In fact, the memory function is the major mechanism which reduces
the phase lag introduced by the steering machine,
The robustness of the AGC mechanism has been demonstrated by Van der
Klugt and Dutch co-workers (Van der Klugt 1987). They conclude that the AGC
.' i mechanism is highly effective during rudder rate limitation.

6.3.4 Adaptive Linear Quadratic Optimal Control

An adaptive optimal course-keeping autopilot can be derived by means of Lya-
punoy stability theory (Fossen and Paulsen 1992). Consider the linear ship steer-
ing dynamics in the form:

Let 1/Jd = constant denote the desired heading., Consider a 2nd-order system:

"'~, .
where a", can be interpreted as the commanded acceleration. Hence, we can
formulate the optimal control problem as:
272 Automatic Control of Ships

Here the tracking error 'if;d - 'if; is weighted against the yawing rate ~ and the
commanded acceleration a", with weighting factors '\1 and ).2, respectively. This
yields the following steady-state solution for the optimal commanded acceleration:



The proof is left as an exercise. Integral action may be obtained by modifying

the co=anded acceleration according to:

a", = J(p ('if;d - 'if;) - J(d ~ + J(i l ('if;d - 'if;(r)) dr (6.212)

where a suitable choice of K i is:

K·~-P- (6.213)
, 5Kd
This corresponds to Ti = 5 Td in a PID-controller.

Computation of Optimal Rudder from Commanded Acceleration

The control input is simply computed by transforming the commanded accelera-
tion according to: :i

10 = ma", +d~1 (6.214)

where the hat denotes the parameter estimates.. Let us define the parameter
estimation errors as m = m- m and d = d- d ,. Consequently, the closed-loop
dynamics can be written:

m [,p - a",] = m a", + d ~ (6.215)

Substituting the PD-controller (6.210) into this expression, yields:

m [~+ J(d~ + J(~ ('if; - 'if;d)] = ma", + d ~ (6.216)

Optimality with respect to (6.209) requires that m = 0 and Cl = 0 (no parametric
uncertainties). With these goals in mind a parameter estimator can be derived
by applying Lyapunov stability theory. Let the closed-loop dynamics be written
in abbreviated form as:
1 T-
:i: = Aa: + b -4>
e (6.217)

where a: = ['if; - 'if;d, ~lT is the state vector and

6.4 Turning Controllers 273


Theorem 6.1 (Adaptive Linear Quadratic Optimal Control)

The control law (6.214) with the optimal commanded acceleration (6210) and the
parameter update law.:

8= -rcjJe r=rT>o (6.219)

where e = eT x and

(6 . 220)

where P = pT > 0 and Q = QT > 0, yields a stable system

Proof: Define a scalar function.'

- T 1 -T
V(x,B)=x Px+-B
r- 1-B (6.221)

Differentiating V with respect to time yields.:

11 = xT(ATp + PA)x
+ 2. ll(r- I + cjJ bT P x) (6.222)

Finally, substituting (6219) and (6.220) into (6.222) yields.:


which according to Lyapunov stability theory for autonomous systems ensures that
,pet) - t J/1d and ,pet) - t 0 as t - t co, and that is bounded. It should be noted that
e will converge to zero only if the system is persistently excited This is, however,
not necessary for perfect tracking.

6.4 Turning Controllers

During course-changing maneuvers it is desirable to specify the dynamics of the
desired heading instead of using a constant reference signal as in the course-
keeping modus. One simple way to do this is by applying model reference tech-
274 Automatic Control of Ships

2nd-Order Reference Model

The reference model can be selected as a 2nd-order system by combining Nomoto's
1st-order model and a PD-controllaw, that is:

TWd+Wd = Ko (6224)

o = Rp (WT - Wd) - K d ~d (6.225)

where Wd, ~d and {;d are the desired outputs and W, is the commanded (pilot)
input., Defining two reference model design parameters Tm and Km as:

Tm - (6,226)
Km - (6,227)
implies that the reference model (6,224) and (6.225) can be written as:

(6,228) ,,
where Tm and Km are two design parameters describing the closed-loop behavior
of the system. This model is shown in Figure 6,30. Alternatively, we can express
(6,228) by:

(6229) ,,

~ i

Figure 6.30: Reference model for course-changing maneuver.

~." i

by requiring that: