"
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
Norway
John Wiley & Sons (SEA) Pte Ltd, 37 Jalan Pamimpin #0501,
Block B, Union Industrial Building, Singapor~ 2057
Preface xiii
1 Introduction 1
3 Environmental Disturbances 57
3.1 The Principle of Superposition . 57
3.2 WindGenerated 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 WaveInduced Forces and Moments 73
3.3 Wind. " ' " 7' 76
331 Standard Wind Spectra . 76
viii CONTENTS
I,
CONTENTS IX
Bibliography 455
Index 475
Preface
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,
Acknowledgments
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, ,/
xiv PREFACE
'l'hor L Fossen
January 1994
I
Chapter 1
Introduction
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 semisubmersibles. Examples of such systems are:
For practical purposes the discussion will concentrate on three vehicle categories:
small unmanned underwater vehicles, surface ships and high speed craft.
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.
, :,
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 trackkeeping controller (autopilot) to enSUT'e that this mute is followed
by the ship.
wind,
waves and
t CUfTen~
1 Feedforward
control system
I
I
u
: Actuators :
'C
I
I Dynamics h I Kinematics h
 control
Feedback
system . Vehicle
motion
sensor
r
Tl d 1;
I Reference I I Guidance I I Kinematic ft
I generlltor I I sensors I I transfonnation I
t weather
data
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 control 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.
o
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:
It is recommended that one should read Chapter 2 before Chapters 37 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 (287212 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
(14521519) 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
motion.
zaxes, 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
COORDINATE FRAMES
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 bodyfixed reference
frame, The origin 0 of the bodyfixed 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:
u
(surge)
p
(roll)
q
(pitch)
V W
(sway) (heave)
y
o
Earthfixed
)~~X
y
z
Figure 2.1: Bodyfixed and earthfixed reference frames.
2.1 Kinematics 7
, ,
The motion of the bodyfixed 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 earthfixed 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 bodyfixed 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
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 bodyfixed frame and 7" is used to describe the forces and moments acting
on the vehicle in the bodyfixed 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 bodyfixed reference frame to
the earthfixed reference frame will be derived.
Based on this definition Euler stated in 1776 the following theorem' {or rotation
of two rigid bodies or reference frames,
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=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:
(2.6)
S=ST
This implies that the offdiagonal matrix elements of S satisfy Sij  Sji for
i '" j while the matrix diagonal consists of zero elements.
o
The set of all 3 x 3 skewsymmetric 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
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 =
cB
0 1
° SB]0 C %,,p =
cl/J S7/;
~sl/J
0]
cl/J 0
_·s<jJ c<jJ
[ sB o cB [ 001
(2.8)
where s . = sinO and c . = cosU. The notation Oi,a denotes a rotation angle a
about the ia..·'ds. Notice that all Ci,a satisfy the following property:
det C = 1
The bodyfixed 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:
V2 ~
= [ ] + Cx,</> [ ~ ] + Cx,</>Cy,o [ ~ ] = J Z1(TJ2) TJ2 (2.13)
[~o sr/!
c~ cOcr/!
c~::] sr/!tO cr/!tO]
1
I
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
,I
e
(2) Rotation over pitch X 2
angle e about Y2
Note that v, = v,
Y,
!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 xyzconvention showing both the
linear (u, v, w) and angular (p, q, r) velocities.
12 Modeling of Marine Vehicles
(2.15)
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..
o
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 bodyfixed reference frame
relative to the inertial frame.
177=cos11 (220)
2.1 Kinematics 13
e =0 [ :~ j
e:3
=0 [ >. sin
cos ~
~ ] ., o:::: f3 :::: 2rr (2.22)
TJ
This parameterization implies that the Euler parameters satisfy the constraint
eT e =0 1, that is:
(2.24)
(2.27)
with respect to time, which yields:
·T
S(t) = C(t) C (t) (2.29)
This shows that the matrix S(t) is skewsymmetrical. Postmultiplying all ele
ments in (2.28) with C(t) and using the fact CT(t)C(t) = I, yields:
(2.32)
where w(t) is a unique vector defined as the angular' velocity of the bodyfixed
rotating frame with respect to the earthfixed 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:
(2.34)
C3 c2 ]
17 cl
(2.35)
Cl 17
C2 C3
(2.36)
2.1 Kinematics 15
,'
Implementation Considerations .1
(2,37)
is satisfied in the presence of measurement noise and numerical roundoff errors,
For this purpose, the following simple discretetime algorithm can be applied:
3, Normalization:
e(k + 1)
e(k + 1) = lIe(k + 1)11
4, k = k + L Return to 2,
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
3
J 44 = tr (J l ) = "Z,Jj j \
j=.1.
3. Let 1 ::; i ::; 4 be the index corresponding to:
4· Define:
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{; (xyzconven
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:
, ,
One solution to (2.39) is:
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.
1
p =  e: = ). tan 
f3
(2.44)
7J 2
For this particular choice, the coordinate transformation matrix takes the form:
2
C = 1+ 1 + pT P S(p) [S(p)  I] (2.45)
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 fourparameter 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,
where
mvc= le (2.47)
=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.
L=TV (2.50)
Finally, we apply the Lagrange equation:
!! (OL. )
dt OTJ
_ 01,
OTJ
= JT(TJ) T
(2.51)
which in component form corresponds to a set of 6 secondorder 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 bodyfixed 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:
v = [U,V,W,P,q,T]T (2.53)
Consider a vehicle with bodyfixed 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:
(2.54)
(2.55)
(2.56)
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 RigidBody Dynamics 21
(2 . 57)
(2..58)
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 Zoaxes and
I xy = I yx , I xz = I zx and I yz = I zy are the products of inertia defined as:
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)
(2.61)
m= lvPAdV (2.62)
22 Modeling of Marine Vehicles
1/' Volultle
elcltlcnt
,v
r
o,~= x
..... 0
Rigidbody
y
o
ro
:;tx
Earthfixed
reference frallle
y
z
Figure 2.3: The inertial, earthfixed nonrotating 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 bodyfixed coordinate system
to the vehicle's center of gravity can be defined as:
i
vehicle's geometrical properties. Since the hydrodynamic and kinematic forces
and moments are given in the bodyfixed reference frame we will formulate New i
i
ton's laws in the bodyfixed reference frame. j,
When deriving the equations of motion it will be assumed that: (1) the vehicle
is rigid and (2) the earthfixed 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 starfixed reference frame or a reference frame rotating with the Earth, while
marine vehicles usually are related to an earthfixed reference frame, To derive
the equations of motion for an arbitrary origin in a local bodyfixed rotating
coordinate system we need the formula:
2.3 RigidBody 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 earthfixed 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 bodyfixed and
earthfixed 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)
Hence,
Vc = Vo +W x Ta (269)
The acceleration vector can be found as:
(2.70)
which yields
ho A Iv T X V PA dV (2.74)
mo A fv T X i.J PA dV (2.76)
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 
i
Vo x fv V PA dV (2.78)
or equivalently
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 righthand side of this expression can be rewritten by using
the definition (2.63), that is:
2.3 RigidBody Dynamics 25
.1
r T x Vo PA dV = (Jrv T PA dV) x Vo == m Ta x Vo
.Iv
(2"84)
~
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
The rotational equations of motion are often referred to as the Euler equations"
Equations (2.72) and (2.87) are usually written in component form according to
the SNAME (1950) notation, that is:
,I
The three first equations represent the translational motion while the three
last equations represent the rotational motion.
Property 2.2 (M RE )
The parameterization of the rigidbody inertia matrix M RB is unique and it sat
isfies:
M RB =M~B > 0;
where
M
RB
= [mI 3x 3
mS(ra)
ms(r a )]
10
= [ 1
0
mzo
mYG
1zola
o
mXa
mxo
Q
~~o ~fo
1 11 =
1;;:;;r;;.
Iv
I::.!/
:f]
Ill::'
I::.
(2.91)
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).
o
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
.,
I
1
T=2v™v (2,94)
Hence, we obtain:
(2,97)
which after substitution of (2,96) and (2.97) proves (2,93), This result was ,first
proven by Sagatun and Fossen (1991).
C () [ mS(vl)  mS(S(v2)re) ]
RB
03X3
V = mS(vd mS(S(v2)re) mS(S(vl)rcj)  S(lo V2) (2.98)
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
(2.102)
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, skewsymmetry, positiveness
etc) of the nonlinear equations of motion are exploited.
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 bodyfixed 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 RigidBody Dynamics 29
(2.103)
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:
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)
mlyczC x~  IxCyclxczc
rnlxczc yb   IxCYClyczC
mlxCYC zb  IxczClyczC (2 . 110)
are satisfied. The proof is left as an exercise.. Hence, the rigidbody equations of
motion can be expressed as:
This representation ensures that the X o, Yo and Zo axes will correspond to the
longitudinal, lateral and normal direction of the vehicle, respectively.
Forces on the body when the body is forced to oscillate with the wave excitation
frequency and there are no incident waves.
The radiationinduced forces and moments can be identified as the sum of three
new components:
(2) Radiationinduced potential damping due to the energy carried away by gen
erated surface waves.
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 31
 added inertia
 hydrodynamic damping
 restoring forces
32 Mode ling of Mari ne Vehic les
 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:
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)
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.
Remark 1: In a real fluid the 36 elements of M may all be distinct but still
A
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 waveaffected zone, symmetry and frequency
independence have been shown to be reasonable assumptions. This is also a good
appmximation for positioned ships (U ~ 0).
o
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
doublebody theory can be applied (Faltinsen 1990). Expanding (2.119) under the
assumption that M A = M';;, yields:
d 8TA
=
dt 8u
d 8TA
 =
dt 8v
d 8TA
 =
dt 8w
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 35
daTA aT aTA
  =
A
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
 = vu+qPNA (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):
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 offdiagonal 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
(1978)
by defining.'
Proof: Substituting:
(2.126)
0 0 0 0 U3 U2
0 0 0 U3 0 Uj
0 0 0 u, Uj 0
(2127)
CA(v) = 0 U3 U2 0 b 3 b2
U3 0 Uj b3 0 b j
u, Uj 0 b2 bj 0
where
Surface Ships
For surface ships like tankers, cargo ships, cruiseliners 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:
00]["]
YvYr v+ [ 00
Yvv 
.x:uu~T ] [ U ]
v
r
Nil Ni' Yitv + Yrt
N
"i o T
00]["]
Y;Yr v + [0 0 0
0
(YvV+YrT) ] [
XiJu
U]
V
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:
o 0 0 0 Z",w Yvv
o 0 0 Z"'w 0 X"u
o 0 0 Yvv X"U 0
(2.130)
o Z",w Yvv 0 NiT Mqq
Z"'W 0 X"u Nir 0 [(pp
Y;v Xuu 0 Mqq Kpp 0
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
_ jL/2 (2D)
All  Xu  All (y,z) dx ~ O.lOm (2131)
L/2
jL/2 (2D)
A 22 = Yv = A 22 (y, z) dx (2.132)
L/2
jL/2 (20)
A 33 = Zw = A 33 (y, z) dx (2.133)
L/2
jL/2 (2D)
Al<l = Kp = A 44 (y, z) dx (2.134)
L/2
jL/2 (2D)
Ass Mq = Ass (y,z)dx (2135)
L/2
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.
2,
The twodimensional added inertia moment in roll, pitch and yaw can be rewritten
according to:
where L, Band H are the main dimensions of the vehicle, For a rectangleshaped
body Table 2,3 can be used to compute twodimensional added mass derivatives
2.5
V
2.0 /
1.5
/
I ,
1.0
0.5
5 10 b/a
(2140)
~. (::l'D} .....
:4" (w)
, AA
'\
\ :
"'!.\
:" \
,
OB
""~'__,~
\' ~ ~
,,1
06
('D)(W)
?4 ····,aA· ..··· ......
: ".
02 ":'::  ~  _.  
I~
°O~:fO5;:::'''=5,2;,::'2,5
w2 R
9
Figure 2.4: Twodimensional 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.
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 semiaxes, 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
z
Figure 2.5: Ellipsoid with semiaxes a, band c,
diagonal added mass derivatives (crosscoupling terms will be zero due to body
symmetry about three planes):
ao
x"  2  ao
m (2142)
(30
Yv  Zw = m (2,143)
2  (30
Kp  0 (2.144)
1
Nr  M q =5 (2145)
e=1(b/a)2 (2147)
Hence, the constants ao and (30 can be calculated as:
(30  (2,149)
ao
(2.150)
2  ao
42 Modeling of Marine Vehicles
f30
(2.151)
2  f30
k' (2.152)
4
Iy=Iz=51rpab 2( 2
a +b) 2
(2.156)
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).
Ds(v) = linear skin friction due to laminar boundary layers and quadratic skin
friction due to turbulent boundary layers.
Proof: The property is trivial since hydrodynamic damping forces qre known to
be dissipative. Therefore, the quadratic form:
o
In practical implementations it is difficult to determine higher order terms as well
as the offdiagonal 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:
Xu
D(v) =  ~ (2.158)
[
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 noncoupled 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,
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 radiationinduced 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
 l
Yv = 21
L 2
/
L/2
(2D)
B 22 (y,z) dx (2,161)
N =21 l
L 2
/ (?D)
 r x 2 B 22 (y,z)dx (2.162)
L/2
2 ,
,
1,8 \
,
Hi \
,
1,4 \' '~" .. ",.;
0.8
06
04
02 . ~,.,.,
,
'..
.""'.~,,., ,., . , .. " .. ,'" ~ ,. ,.
°0:":0'::S:2R:1'::.S2:::2S
 
"'
9
It should be noted that most ship control systems are based on the assumption
that A(w) and B(w) are frequencyindependent (w = 0) because the control
system is only designed to counteract for lowfrequency motion components.
Skin Friction
Linear skin friction due to laminar boundary layer theory is important when
considering the lowfrequency motion of the vehicle. Hence, this effect should
2.4 Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments 45
Wave drift damping can be interpreted as added resistance for surface vessels
advancing in waves. This type of damping is derived from 2ndorder 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 2ndorder wave drift forces are less than 1% of the 1storder wave forces
when the significant wave height is equal to 1 m and 10% when the significant
wave height is equal to 10 m.
1
f(U) = 2 P GD(Rn) A IUI U (2.163)
Rn= UD (2.164)
v
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
B . .·... .
. .....
0.6
· .....
klQ=j19~~
0.4 :': ; ; ,,;. .. .. ., ...
. ..
Rn
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).
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 bodyfixed coordinate sys
tem with:
(2.166)
(2.167)
Notice that the za.xis is taken to be positive downwards . Expanding this expres
sion yields:
(W  B) se
(W  B) cesr/>
(W  B) cecr/>
(2168)
(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
(2.170)
o
o
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
!i7=J(TJ)v! (2.173)
where
M=MRE+MA>O
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:
I
M=MT>O
Proof: C(lI) is skewsymmetrical under the assumptions that C RE(ll) and C A(V)
are skewsymmetrical.
o
50 Modeling of Marine Vehicles
M = limM(w)j
W~O
0= lim O(w)j
W~O
D = limD(w)
W~O
(2,179)
(2.180)
This relationship has its analogy in the dynamic description of robot manip
ulators where the 0 matrix can be calculated by using the socalled Christoffel
symbols (see Ortega and Spong 1988), Christoffel symbols, however, are not
defined for vehicles in terms of bodyfixed velocities ~
m I::! 0 0 0
M
[ m21
m"0 m22
0
0
m" m:H
0 0
m"
m"
m,.
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
mu 0 mlJ 0 ml5
!vI = m'l
m"
0
0
ffi'2::!
m"
0
0
me:!
m"
m"
0
0
m2·i
0
mH
0
m"
0"
m"
0
m"
0
+]
m'6
0
m66
mU 0 0 0
o m22 m23 m:at o
m15 m16]
0
!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
0 0 0 ml5
[ m;' m22
0
0 m24
0
0
0
!vI = 0 m"
0
m'l
0
m42
0
0
0
0
0
m"
0
0
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 xyplanes of symmetry (port/starboard, fore/aft and bot
tom/top symmetries).
!vIv+Dv=r (2_181)
the sy=etry properties of the damping matrix D will be equal to those of the
inertia matrix IvI.
(2182)
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 rigidbody dynamics reduce to: '.
o o m(xar + v) ]
m o mu (2183)
mxa mu o
M=
[
mX.
0 mYit
o mxc Yf
0] (2 . 185)
o mxc ¥f J;  Nf
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)
r
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.
o
Recall that:
(2.190)
(2..191)
where TRB is the rigidbody kinetic energy, TA is the fluid kinetic energy and V
is the potential energy defined implicit by:
8V
07] = 9ry(17) (2.192)
\
T = TRB + TA = ~ i1 T JT(M RB + MA)r iI
1
= ~ i1T Mry(17) iI (2.193)
(2.194)
(2.195)
( ) _ 'T 8Mry(17)
M· ry1717 (20197)
817
implies that (2.189) can be written:
(20198)
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)
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 xdirection with a speed u(t) = 2 (m/s) and in
the ydirection 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
bodyfixed and earthfixed acceleration in the x and ydirections.
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 rigidbody 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.
2.6 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
(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 skewsy=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:
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
which can be expressed in terms of the skewsymmetric operator S() E 88(3) according
to:
Fina]]y show that (2.100) and (2.101) can be derived from (2.98) and (2.99).
2.13 Derive the nonlinear bodyfixed vector representation for a marine vehicle moving
in 6 DOF by applying the QuasiLagrangian 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:
• Wind
• Ocean currents
,
8[D v (v)v] 8g(1]) :
N p = 8[D p (v)v] (3.4) 1
v
N = 8v G=
8v v=vo 81]
TcurrentM FK VC + MA li c + N p 1/c...........
= '..'....
+ .N v 1/c ".
(3.6)
FroudeKriloff diffraction forces viscous forces
where M FK may be interpreted as the FroudeKriloff 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:
MFJ(= [ mI 3x3
mS(rB)
m~(rB) ]
10  ~
[. 0
0
0
ffiz B
m
0
0
mZB
0
0
0
ffi
mYB
ffiXB
0
ffiZB
mYB
I.
7:r:",
mZB
0
ffiXB
I:r:v
Iv
rn"0 ]
mXE
7=:
I!J;J:.
mYB ffiXB 0 I=, 7'1::' I,
(3,9)
where rB = [XB, YB, zB]T is the center of buoyancy.
and simple
Often this appro ximat ion is also used for ships due to its intuiti ve
In the next
way of treati ng slowlyvarying CUITents in terms of relative velocity,
sections we will discuss mathe matic al models for vc, 'T wav~ and 'T wind.
~I
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)
, )"
,
cy,
lThe peak frequency of the wave spectrum is often referred to as the modal fr~quen
3.2 WindGenerated 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 xa.xis can be written as a
sum of wave components (Newman 1977): '.
1; (x,t)
t 1
1
T , ;.
1; (X,t)
H
x
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.
N
((x, t)  :L A; cos (Wit  kix + <Pi)
i=l
~ 1 ki Ai
+ L.."2 0
cos 2(Wi t  kix + <Pi) + O(A i3) (3.14)
i=l
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
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.
Bretschneider Spectrum ,
A more sophisticated spectrum than the Neumann spectrum has been proposed
by Bretschneider (1959). The twoparameter Bretschneider spectrum is written:
PiersonMoskowitz Spectrum
Independently of this work Pierson and Moskowitz (1963) developed a wave spec
tral formulation for fully developed windgenerated seas hom analyses of wave
spectra in the North Atlantic Ocean. The PiersonMoskowitz (PM) spectrum is
written:
5(0) (m 1s)
10,,,,.,,,,,__,,
ooloJ.,_l_JLLL~HS~l~3~·m::::~:~~·~·~=~2I::;oE.8~~0~9~~
. 0,2 0.3 0.,4 0..5 0,,6 0,7 '
frequency (rndls)
Figure 3.3: Figure showing the PMspectrum for different values of H,.
(319)
where
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 narrowbanded, the PM,.spectmm can be
reformulated in terms of significant wave height, that is:
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) 001 1L2486 83103 6.0616
2 Smooth (wavelets) 0.10.5
3 Slight 0.5L25 3L6851 28.1996 2L5683
4 Moderate L252.5 40.1944 42.0273 409915
5 Rongh 2540 12.8005 15.4435 2L2383
6 Very rough 4.. 06.0 3.0253 4.2938 7m01
7 High 6.090 \ 09263 L4968 2.. 6931
8 Very high 9.0140 1 0.1190 0.2263 0.4346
9 Phenomenal Over 14.0 0.0009 0.0016 0.0035
J
1
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: ~
j
2 j
V
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:
Wo 
t: (3.26)
i
To  2
1f (4B
£ (3.27) II
II
. I
3.2 WindGenerated Waves 65
Hs (m)
25
'.
20
15
10
0
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),
yields:
Wo = 0.88
g
V = 0.40 V(9
If, (3.28)
\
Hence, the ma.'dmum value of S(w) is:
5A
Srn"Aw) = S(wo) =   exp (5/4) (3.29)
4Bwo
The Bretschneider spectnim is described by two parameters H, and Wo and
is t)lus referred to as a twoparameter spectnJm. Notice that if Wo is chosen
as 0.40 vg/ H, the Bretschneider spectrum reduces to the oneparameter PM
spectrum.
For k = 0, we obtain:
A
l
OO
mo = S(UJ) dw =  (3.31)
o 4B
66 Environmental Disturbances
A
mr  0306 B3j,j (3.32)
V1rA
m2  (3.33)
4jB
For the PMspectrum the average wave period is defined as:
(3.34)
(3.35)
H, = 4y'7iiO (3.36)
I
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 PMspectrum, that
is:
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 nonfully developed seas the following spectrum has been proposed by the
ITTC.
I
I
.I!'a
3.2 WindGenerated Waves 67
JONSWAP SpecJrum
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 nonfully 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
windgenerated waves under the assumption of finite water depth and limited
fetch The spectral density function is written:
. _
Y exp [(0.191WTI1)2]
 M (3.40)
y2a
where
S(WO)JONSWAP
"(= (3.43)
S(WO)PM
This value is usually between 1 and 7.
1 .. 50
I
.,
2
0 50 100
0
0.05 0.1 015 02 i
sec Hz ~
v( t) F",,(w) ~
5 ~
600 .~
0 400
200
5 0
0 50 100 005 01 0.15 0.2
sec Hz
w(t) Fww(w)
4
300
2
~.
200
0
AJ
100
2
4 0
0 50 100 0.05 01 0.15 0.2
sec Hz
F"",,(w) I
q;(t) X 10'
40
2.5
20 2
15
0
20
0..5
40 0
0 50 100 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
sec Hz
3.2 WindGenerated Waves 69
,
e(t) POO(W)
15 6000 ...
10
4000
5
·5
~ I~
2000
·10 0
0 50 100 0.05 0.1 0.15 02
sec Hz
'f;( t) P,p,p (w)
10
600
5
400
·5
200
·10
·15 0
0 50 100 0.1 02 03 004 05
sec Hz
Figure 3.5: Experimental timeseries 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.
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:
I
70 Environmental Disturbances
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 highfrequency 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 PMspectrum. 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:
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:
StateSpace Model
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)
(3.56)
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 \ ....
I
I
.... ...
~)
5 . . ;
o
o 05 1.5 2 3 3.5 4 45 5
Frequency (rad/g)
1h(jw)'
]\:(1)
20 ... ; .. i·.· .
'"
"0
"ca"
0
0
20 .. i .. .. "'. .
,, ' ","
. ''. .
40
102 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
w
2
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
(3.59)
0 0
a3 a2
Yh = [0 0 1 0] [ ~~~ ], (3.60)
XM
The number of unknown parameters can be reduced by assuming that the de
nominator can be factorized according to:
2
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 highfrequency 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 2ndorder 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.
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
p = 30°.
Following sea Head sea
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 2ndorder
wave disturbances can be combined t.o yield:
Si (X, t ) = d(i(x,
dx
t).
= 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,
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 blockshaped 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
suggests
assumed to be undist urbed . Moreover, the principle of superp osition
that:
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 1stor
disturbances (Kalls trom 1979):
N
Xwave(t) = L'p 9 BLTcos (3 Si(t) (3.74)
i=l
N
Ywave(t)  L p 9 BLTsin(3 Si(t) (3.75)
i=l
N
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:
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
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,
S  k i 916700w
(3,78)
w(w)  [1 + (191 wjVw(10)J2l 4 / 3
where
= 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)
S ( ) k 5286 Vw(lO) (
ww  [1 + (286wjVw(10))2]5/6 3,,79)
These spectra are based on landbased 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 nondimensional form according
to:
o::; f.
~1
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
77
where
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. 1518 and
and Leigh (1983) and Karee m (1985); see the 10th ISSe (1988)
references therein.
Hence, we can choose the time and gain consta nt accord ing to:
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
1jf
I1
x r j
r
I v. i1
L. . Y
We can simulate timeseries 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 zeromean 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,
slowlyvarying 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:
(3.88)
acting on a surface ship.
3.3 Wind 79
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
equations:
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 
12
+ B 2 B2T + B 3 B + B4~L + B sL + B6 A (3.93)
L
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
iR (deg) Bo BI B2 B, B, Bs Bo S.E.
10 0.096 0.22 0.015
I
20 0176 0.71 0.023
30 0225 138 0.023 029 0.030
40
50
0.329
1.164
1.82
1.26 0121
0.043 059
0.242 0.95
0.054
0055
'I
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 ,
160
0.022 ;1
170 0.125 0.046 0.012
Mean S.E. 0.044 .,,
',"
~:';
·i"
"<;
a
~?
3.3 Wind 81
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)
Here the nondimensional force and moment coefficients C Xw , CYw and C Nw aTe
given as a function of iR in Figures 3.93.1L 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 yzplanes, we can approximate:
CXW
O.B~~~~~~ ....~ ~ ~"
~
.... : 
; ....
O.B .
. ,
:"'l' ...
, "."
0.. 2
o
02
0.4
0.6 "
Ballas
:,
ted tanker. ,
OB
FuIIy loaded t~nkel
.1'_'_...L.._~_.....,
e_' _ _~_..L ..._~ _'
o M ~ W 00 100 lM 1~ lW 100
'Yr (deg)
,
0.1 'i. , ..
.E
~
02 ~.
.\\ ." .. ' : ~
. .. ; ~
~
03
'\ ;Fully.; load~.: d tanke r ,/
\ ;
0.4 ..\ : ' "~" ';'" .~ . ": I
"/'
~ . I
: \
: I
0.5 .: .\. .:.E •
~ " \ : , /j.
. ,,: '"1"'';'''
"
/, (deg)
. , '.
~,
015 . . . .
Fully lbadecl tan~er
.. ..~
"
0.1 'r"''~""T'
,: ~' :
0,05
,:.,
o
BaUasted tanker
·0.05
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. '
£=325 (m)
Assume that the wind speed at a 20 (m) elevation is V",(20) = 66 (knots). Hence,
we can compute (see Equation (3.84)):

84 Environmental Disturbances
(3.101)
where
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)
V3etup = component due to setup 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: '
Here V,(O) (m/s) is the surface speed of the tidal and d > 10 (m) is the water
depth.
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
(3,106)
where Vc = tuc, Vc> Wc> 0, 0, Or is a vector of irrotational bodyfixed current veloc
ities

86 Environmental Disturbances
Method 1:
Section 2.L I has already shown that the earthfixed linear velocity could be
transformed to bodyfixed linear velocities by applying the principal rotation
matrices. Let the ear thfixed current velocity vector be denoted by [u~, v~, w~].
Hence, we can compute the bodyfixed components as:
(3.107)
where
(3109)
Hence, the nonlinear relative equations of motion (3.11) take the form:
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:
(3.114)
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 earthfixed current velocity, that is:
(3.116)
where Ci,j is the transformation matrix defined in (2.8) and Vc is the average
current velocity in the earthfixed reference frame. Expanding this expression
yields:
E
Uc  Vc cos Cl< cos f3 (3 . 119)
E
Vc  Vc sin f3 (3.. 120)
wE
c  Vc sin Cl< cos f3 (3.121)
88 Environmental Disturbances
 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)
as:
Substituting the expressions for u;; and v;; into (3.124) finally yields 3
,
'~y
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
4. k = k + 1, return to step 2
o
Similar algorithms for aCt) and (3(t) can be used to simulate timevarying direc
tions. We will now show how current disturbances and 1storder wave distur
bances can be included in the ship steering equations of motion.
a,2
a22
0] [
0
VL 
rL
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 slowlyvarying currents (see
Equation 3.126). The subscript L is used to denote the lowfrequency motion
components. The highfrequency oscillatoric motion 7/JH of the waves can then be
~_I
90 Environmental Disturbances
added to the model by simply augmenting (3.128) to the linear wave model (356)
and (3.57), which yields:
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
(3.130)
where v is zero mean Gaussian white noise process This particular way of mod
eling the shipwave interactions is attractive for' control systems design and state
estimation.
o
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'
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.
(3.131)
is the modal frequency for the PiersonMoskowitz spectrum Find an analytical ex
pression for the peak frequency of the JONSWAP and the modified PiersonMoskowitz
(MPM) spectrum.
3.3 Plot the spectral density function for the Harris spectrum together with a linear
approximation of the same spectrum in a dBIog10(w) diagram for Vw (10) E {ID (knots),
20 (knots), 50 (knots) }. Is the linear approximation valid for the whole frequency
range?
3.4 Compare the spectral formulations for the Harris, Davenport and, Ochi and Shin
spectra by plotting Sew) versus w in a dBIog 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
topics:
e Feedback linearization
e Nonlinear tracking
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
,
;
i
I
1
 1
94 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
(4.1)
(4.2)
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.
KT
n>O n>O
Va <0 Va > 0
J.
.,
n<O n<O "
v;. > 0 v.< 0
KT
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 Jovalues often show a nonlinear behavior; see Van Lammem et aL (1969) and
Fossen (1991), pp 4547.
4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 95
In the general case the forward and bac.kward thrusts will be nonsymmetricaL
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:
(45)
Here Qlnln > 0 and QlnlV. < 0 are design parameters depending on propeller
diameter, shape of the duct, water density etc
The above coefficients will also depend on nand Va since (44) and (4,5) are only
firstorder 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: 0.104), Using the result, (44)
implies that the propeller force developed by a single propeller can be described
by the nonlinear function:
(4.7)
96 Stabi lity and Cont rol of Unde rwate r Vehic les
(",/
!
v<o v=o v>o
by letting B = B I and:
Ir=B ul (410) I
i
I
(4.11)
Moreover, this
Notice that for zero velocity, that is v = 0, this will always be true,
jth prope ller
implies that the propeller force in the ith DOF developed by the
can be descri bed by:
I
"
4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 97
Actuator Dynamics
Most thruster systems are driven by small DC motors designed for underwater
operating conditions The dynamic model of a speedcontrolled DC motor can
be written:
L adia
dt 
R
 'a i a 2rr
K
NI n + Ua (4.13)
dn
2rrJm dt  KM i a  Q(n, Va ) (4.14)
i
,j Q (Nm)
,~. ~prDpeJrer      
,~ : ~L~..,
I
!,
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1 Ua (voltage): n (rps)
I I
>
I I
I
I
1
I
1
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
J= ~uTWu (4,17) I
2
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:
(4,23) ,',. :
,~
Substituting this result into (4,21) yields the genemlized inverse: ,~,
H,:
~,
u = Bt" r (4,,25)
In the case when all inputs are equality weighted, that is W = I, (4,24) simplifies
to:
4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 99
(426)
This simplified result is known as the MoorePenrose pseudo inverse" Notice that
for the square case (p = n), Bt is simply equal to B 1
(4" 28)
.6.lI(t) = vet)  vo(t); .6.ry(t) = 1)(t) 1)o(t); M(t) = r(t)  TO(t) (4.32)
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:
Defining Xl = b.v and X2 = b.TJ, yields the following linear timevarying model:
MIG(t) ] [
J*(t)
Xl]
X2 +
[ MI]
0 u (442)
.I
'"
4.1 ROV Equations of Motion 101
[ ~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]
[~1 ~];
co'>!'o sin>!,o
J = J1 = sinwo cos1/Jo 0 (4.45)
[ o 0 1
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.
(4.54)
M>O (4.55)
Notice that Jl(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:
(iii) V > co as 1I1J1I > co and lIiJlI > co. This is satisfied for (4.48).
o
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
V(V,t)=~VTMV (4,58)
which can be interpreted as the ''pseudokinetic'' 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:
(4.61)
where K d is a positive r'egulator gain matTix of appmpriate dimension, Hence:'
(4.62)
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 inturn 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
o
(4.63)
where TJd E JR6 is the desired output from the prefilter, '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 PIDcontrol
law for tracking of the desired state 'TId is the topic for the next section.

106 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
environmental
disturbances
i'····',···,··,',··,,·,········
from
r
pilot ~
,
; feedforward
..
;: ROY d .
IJI
g(.) , t;
!; ..
•
1,
environmental sensor
disturbances noise
from
pilot
However, most ROV systems for offshore applications use only simple P and
PIcontrollers for automatic heading and depth control since it is difficult to
measure (estimate) the velocity vector v. A standard PIDcontrol design can be
improved by using the vehicle kinematics together with gravity compensation..
Moreover, we will show that perfect setpoint regulation can be achieved in terms '~
of Lyapunov stability theory if TpID is transformed according to:
(4.65)
In addition, we will assume that the control input vector is related to the thruster
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 107
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 PIDcontrol designc Moreover, it is not necessary to perform a
gainscheduling technique to counteract the timevarying behavior of the dynam
ics and kinematicsc However, precautions against saturation and integral windup
should be made. This is illustrated in Figure 4c6 where the PIDcontrollaw of the
EAVEEAST vehicle at the University of NewHampshire is shown. This design
is performed under the assumptions (without loss of generality) 'TJd = constant,
J('TJ) = I and g('TJ) = o.
Vehicle 11
Dynamics
'u = B
1
[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:
(4.70)
which yields
(4.73)
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: '/
(4.74)
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
,
1,
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
Arimoto and Miyazaki (1984) have shown that the results above can be general
ized to include integral action, Let:
(475)
denote the generalized momentum of the vehicle, Hence, it can be shown by time
differentiation of a Lyapunov function candidate:
V(x)=x
1 T
MI
aI
~ a
K
la]
pK i X (4,76)
2 [ 0 K aK
i i
that V .:; 0 and that 17 converges to 17d = constant. This is based on the assump
tion that the PIDcontrol law is taken to be:
(4,78)
K d > M~ (4079)
K i > 0 (4.80)
2
Kp > Kd+K i (4.81)
a
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
tu = Bt [J (7]) K
T
p e  v
K'd + 9(7])] I (4.84)
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
ROV
 (passive)
feedback
control law .,.
(strictly
passive)
,
{.
"
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 statespace form
as:
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:
1
V = 2" x T P x (4 . 89)
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:
(4.92)
and P satisfies the Lyapunov equation:
(4.93)
with Q = QT 2: o. Hence:
. 1
V=yTuxTQX (4 . 94)
2
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:
(4.95)
112 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
(4.96)
where H(s) = diag{hi(sn (i = L.T) to be strictly passive the transfer functions
hi ( s) must satisfy:
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 highspeed surface effect ships (see Section 7.1).
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:
(4.103)
,,
z
4.3 Conventional Autopilot Design 113
x x y
B c
A block diagram of the control system is shown in Figure 48 Under the assump
tion that Yd = constant and w = constant, the following steadystate solution is
obtained; see Appendix D for details:
G1 _ _pl B T R
oo (4.104)
G2  P1BT(A+BG1)TCTQ (4.105)
G3  PlBT(A+BGltTRooE (4.106)
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 Manalysis technique in the technical literature (see e.g.
Maciejowski 1990). Nevertheless, the design of a socalled Moptimal controller is
still an active area for resear ch.
114 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
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 singlescrew 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 NDREAUV (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 NDREAUV (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 .
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:
(4112)
116 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
Va
" .
.
\ " • • •" " ~" • • . ,, • .. • • • • • • • • .. • ..• • • • • • • • • .. • • • .. • . . " • ••••• H •••• "" "
,
" ••
where
(HI3)
PIOper tuning of the PIcontIOl 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.
;~
(4114) i
1
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,
, 34r,.,,,,,~_,_,
'22
'1200! ;'OCO'.S;".',.,S"'2,2",S,,*,;,,""',S!4
(hour.,)
Figure 4.12: Desired and actual propeller revolution versus time for the NDREAUV.
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,
o
m  Yu mxe  Y;
mxe  Nu I,  N r
[ o 0
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 statespace
forID, yields:
(4.118)
where the choices of aij and bi should be quite obvious. Consequently, the transfer
function between ,p and oRis obtained as:
Autopilot Design
The heading contIOI system can be designed by applying a PIDcontrollaw:
I(s)
,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:
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),
(4..125)
where K p and K d are the proportional and derivative gain, respectively, Hence,
steadystate 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
onoff or relay nonlinearity which would cause a limitcycle (chattering) if integral
action is added. However, the magnitude of the steadystate errors, 12 degrees,
was in the same order as the accuracy of the fluxgate compass. Consequently,
there is not much gained by including integral action. For the PDcontrollaw the
looptransfer junction (4·122) reduces to:
l(s)
__ 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 Bodediagram.
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.
o
300
;;;, 250
~
:3
;;;
"" 200
150
0 50 100 150 200
time (min)
,"
,• .1
I,
.I,L!
1"1
.1. ,"",
r 'f"') , r:: I "
,,;. '" ..
:1 '! 11' I I Jl
uN ~,; A.
' rt'IT
I,"
'
4
o 50 100 150 200
time (min)
Figure 4.13: Long time mission [or the NDREAUV where the heading is changed in
steps of 10 degrees each 10 minutes.
200,,
195 ou,',
a
ID ~.O.5
:s!. 190 ID
"2. ~ ~1
•
185
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)
4,,',,...,.,,,,
w1l
, ,
, ,
" ,
:'"
"
':' :
,
" ,
" '
" ,
,.'.
..
•.. J.I1iv~
. . . .
2 .':==:':,:6.;;0,:!=:O:,::':=:1.':4::0.=,::::::l
0 20 40 80 100 120 160 180 200
time (s)
Figure 4.14: Fullscale 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
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)
(io+f::"z) = (sin Oo+cos 00 f::,,0)( Uo +f::"u) +(cos 00 sin OoM)(Wo + f::"w ) (4.132)
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.
with obvious definitions of aij and bi . Alternatively, we can write this model in
terms of the hydrodynamic derivatives a.s:
m 
mXG 
Zw
Mw
mXG  Zq
I.  M q
00 0]
0
[
o 0 1 0
o 0 0 1
Zw muo  Zq o
+[
Mw
0
1
mXGUO  Mq
1
0
BG,W
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.
x  Ax + bos (4.138)
y  eT x (4.139)
,
where:
eT=[OOOl] (4.140)
Applying the Laplace transformation to this model yields the tr ansfer function:
e + [~]
(=aZB) IV
IllMrj
o o [q]
0] 0 Os (4.142)
.,
uo o Z 0
'~
:'
~.

;11
4.4 Decoupled Control Design 123
,. Mq
= (4144)
,0
2 VBGzW(Iy  M q)
Consequently, the natural period in pitch is:
(4145)
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 PIDtype 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
measurements.

124 Stability and Control of Underwater' Vehicles
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.:
(4.148)
Z (m) () (deg)
60 5
0
40
5
10
20
15
00 20
2 4 6 8 0 2 468
(minutes) (minutes)
8 (deg) q (degjs)
4 2
2 1 ..
.~
1
4 2
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 "
(minutes) (minutes)
Figure 4.15: Fullscale depth changing maneuver for the NDREAUV. The bias in
the pitch rate time series is due to a small offset in the rate sensor.
Hence, we can choose C 3 and C 4 such that the closedloop pitch dynamics is
stable. Next, we can use the Telationship.:
must have all its roots strictly in the left halfplane to ensure that (z = Zd =
constant) in steadystate. However, environmental disturbances can cause steady
state erron for this approach since integral action is omitted. A fullscale depth
changing maneuverfor the NDREAUV is shown in Figure 4·15.
o
 ._ 
126 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
,>0
s=o
,<0
slope ).
(40155)
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:
(4..158)
Hence, the following expression for m s is obtained:
"
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 127
v = m!; 8= d Ixl8 2
+ 8(T  mx,  d Ixlx,) (4 . 161)
S
x
Xr  Xd  Ai:
Ih  ..
T
IImx""+dIT
xX=TII
:i:
xr' = Id  .Ai x.L,.
:i:,
s = X  xr
m
dl:i:1
Kd
I K sgn() I
~
if s> 0
sgn(s) = { if s = 0 (4.163)
1 otherwise
yields:
(4165)
(4.166)
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
Chattering
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:
v ~ ( Kd + d Ixl + ~ ) 8
2
(4.169)
(4.171)
The boundary layer thickness can also be made timevarying to exploit the ma..'{
imum control bandwidth available. See Slotine and Li (1991) for a closer descrip
tion on timevarying boundary layers.
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for RaVs 129
m x + d Ixlx = T (4..172)
with m = 200 kg and d = 50 kg/m. The SISO sliding controller can be complLied
as"
(1) PDController:
m=O Kd = 500
d=O K=O
m =0 . 6m m ~ 0.5m
d = 1.5 d d ~ 0.5 d
K I
= (m x, + d Ixl x,) 1+0.1 Kd = 200
In the simulation study the closedloop 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 PDcontroller Note that the con
trol input for the sliding controller is relatively smooth due to the lowpass filter
structure of the boundary layer..
o
(4.175)
:
 J
130 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
[ml (m/s]
desired osition 05 ._ _."de"'s"il"'·e"d;.v"'e...,lo"'c...,itL,_ __,
o
o
05
1
0L...I..i.02L.03='=0,...J40
0 10 20 30 40
time (s] time (s]
(m/s]
[m] nosition error velocity error
03 ,,""="r"'"'r, OA
~~
"
0.2 ""
..:' 
~ ~
oA
I'
'_ 11 ''
IV ,
10
"" I,
" >,
'! ~.
02
Figure 4.18: Performance study of the sliding controller (solid) and the PDcontroller
(dotted)
(N] (N]
200 ._ _..'P''O"'''c"'oTnt"ro"'I"'le"'r~_, SI mQ contra 11 er
200
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
s
OA r======t==:;:;:===l
0.2 .. .... 0.2
o I~ f\
0.2
\T .. 0.2
~
OA
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 PDcontroller and the
sliding controller.
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for R.OVs 131
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 coauthors 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:
(4.178)
Here k is the feedback gain vector Substituting these expressions into (4,176)
yields the closedloop dynamics:
x=Acx+bu+f(x); (4.179)
Hence, the feedback gain vector k can be computed by means of poleplacement
by first specifying the closedloop state matrix A c . In order to determine the non
linear part of the feedback control law we first premultiply (4.179) with h T and
then subtract h T Xd from both sides, Hence the following expression is obtained:
7»0 (4.181)
where j(x) is an estimate of f(x), yields the erdynamics:
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
(4.. 186)
1
Veal = '20'2 (4.187)
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 )
It===~=====~~:o:1
3 2 1 0 2 3 cr
er tanh(O'/1~)
o
_L_~2~1'o:.L.'c2l3 cr
3
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}.
if lu/rP1 > 1
otherwise
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
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 adynamics is obtained for' the following feedback control law.' :'
i·
Hence, n is computed as the signed square root of the righthand side of (4·193).
o
(4.196)
when hi for (i=l .... 3) are the components of h To stabilize the swayyaw dy
namics, we choose k = [k j , k 2 , O]T such that.
(4.197)
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 swayyaw dynamics. Hence, two of the closedloop eigenvalues '\1,2
will simply be given by the upperleft 2 x 2 sub matrix of A c ' that is'
(4.198)
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;
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;
(4.204)
[
,pd ] _
id 
[0w~ 2(w
1] [..pd ] + [ ul~0]
n rd 1pc
(4.206)
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)
,
0.5
,,
o • ,:,>' '. ......
06 0.. 5
0 50 100 0 50 100
time (sec) time (sec)
1/J (deg) 8 (deg)
25 5
.:....~....
20
0
15
10L~'
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 PIDcontrol law is applied to this system.
o
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:
..
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 137
eigenvalue specifications_ Since there is one pure integration in the pitch channel
this mode can be removed 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 Srdorder poleplacement problem, Finally,
(4_209)
and
1
Os = k wk z qk4 z+ ;0 [hI wd+h2Qd+h3ed+h4zd71 tanh(u!<p)] (4,210)
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
~ M ROV
cl v
n(o)
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 1storder error dynamics:
M (v  a u ) = M (D + AV) = 0 (40215)
The calculation of the commanded acceleration vector is shown in Figure 4024
The reference model is simply chosen as a firstorder model with time constants
T = diag{Tl, T 2 , "" T 6 } and Tv as the commanded input vector. Note that in
steadystate:
lim
t~oo
Vd(t) = Tv (4216)
mu+dlulu=r (4217)
The commanded acceleration is calculated as.
(4219)
o
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
yields:
(4.222)
The nonlinear control law:
(4.224)
Defining
(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 steadystate reference vector, that is
1Jd(OO) = r~
(4.231)
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,:
(4,232)
(4.233)
o
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 141
psi (rad)
10 15 tlme(s) 20
psi (rad)
0.5
o
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}.
lim Vd(t) = 0;
t_oo
lim 1Jd(t) = rry
t_oo
(4.237)
The proof is based on time differentiation of a Lyapunov function candidate:
(4.239)

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):
B *( v,u ) = 8b(v,
8u
u) (4.245)
al.l* = Vd
.. 
2'~
AV  A
\2
V (4.249)
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 143
(4.. 250)
(4.252)
This in turn suggests that the bodyfixed commanded jerk a~ should be computed
by means of the earthfixed commanded jerk a~ according to:
(4.254)
is asymptotically stable, Notice that in the implementation of the "nonaffine"
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) .
IT = Ma v +n(I/,T/) I (4.255)
where the hat denotes the adaptive parameter estimates, yields the error dynam
ics:
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
77
T s
v
e 1,
s
Figure 4.27: Adaptive feedback linearization applied to the nonlinear ROV equations
of motion.
(4.263)
4,5 Adva nced Autop ilot Desig n for RaV s
145
p = pT > 0 (4.264)
Differentiating V with respect to time and substi tuting the error
dynamics into
the expression for V, yields:
y=C x (4.267)
In order to prove that V ::; 0 we can choose:
(4,268)
where Co > 0 and Cl > 0 are two positive scalar s to be interp reted later, furthe r
more we choose:
(4.271 )
If in additi on, we use the fact that ;z.T !VI ryZ is bounded, we can establ 3
ish: ('" EO R )
by requiring:
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).
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:
~
•.
_.__._. _._ 
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 147
(4.279)
(4.280)
 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_
. ~T_
V = sTD,s + erle + sT (JTr  M ,ii,  c,7J,  D,7J,  g,) (4.286)

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):
(4,290)
cancels out the last term in the expr ession for V, such that:
(4.293)
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.,
"
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 149
0 rnr
rnr o g( "I) = [0 0 0 0 jT
C(I/) = 0
o
[
Yiiv Xuu
For the nonadaptive case we compute the control force and moment vector ac
cording to:
(4.295)
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.
o
Velocity Control
(4.298)
(4.299)

150 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
Integral Action
Although the above tracking controllers are of PDtype (position/attitude) and
Ptype (velocity), integral action can be obtained by redefining the measure of
tracking according to:
(4.. 302)
More generally, it can be proven that this substitution can be made without
affecting the previous stability results by defining:
while v, and v, are calculated through (4.279) and (4.280) For the posi
tion/attitude scheme, this substitution implies that:
(4.305)
where P, D and I are the proportional, derivative and integral gains, respectively.
• Velocity scheme
which suggests that the virtual reference trajectory should be computed as:
°
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)
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 PIcontrolled DC motor, that is:
K
h DC ( s) = (DCmotor) (4.313)
(1 + T1 s )(I + T2 S )
where T1 and 'T2 are the motor time constants and K is the motor gain. Further
more}
hPI ()
Kp(1 + Ti S ) (PIcontroller) (4.314)
S =
riB
where 'T, is the integral time constant K p is the proportional gain constant. Hence,
the resulting closedloop transfer function is I(s) = hDc(s)hPI(s) which implies
that:
..:':.(s) =
I(s) "" 1 (4.315)
1+I(s)
Uc 1+1';s ;;.
e = (4 318)
(4.320)
Then the signals e and T remain bounded and u and ii converge to zero as
t + 00.
(4321 )
o
It seems reasonable to choose the maximum singular values of the gain matrices
K u and K v according to:
(4.322)
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)
(4.323)
where u= U  Ud and Ud is computed by time differentiation of
(4.324)
The parameter estimates e and T are updated through to the differential equa
tions;'
154 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
e
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.
V =
1 T
2 [s l.\IJ~ s + uT Tu + 6T r I 6 + ~ 1 2
L, : T, ] (4327)
i=l O!l
(4.. 328)
Substituting the system equation (4281), (4.312) into this expression and using
the definition (2.. 177) together with (4.277), (4.279) and (4.280) yields:
TIT ~T I
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.

I
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 155
(4.332)
o
°
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.

156 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
08
~
0,6
0,5
OA
0
0.2
05
20 40 60 [s] 0 20 40 60 [s]
o~ \ I rr'""
0,2
03 L:~
o
V _ _~
20
~
40
..J
60 (s]
oo~
002
0,,04
o
''/
20
'I \.
40
~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:.:::.;:.:::.;:.:::cco    j
~'/
0.5 ~
o:r~

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.
 i
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 157
i';tri;;tiy'p;;s';i~~"""""""'" ....
s
··• K(s)
i: : BI :
.::
s ··
· w_ •• ..
:·••••••r__.•
IJ I
~
·:
_._r
~w ••••• _.
.__ __ .
._.
.~ .._:
•• ~
I rl
:.
·
,__e=l;;_. rJi21 
~
.~
····, ~ ..
 :.
j I B3 I <pe i
: I I :
·L.P?_S_~~':~ . i.
Figure 4.30: Closedloop equivalent system, adopted from Brogliato and Landau
(1991). Notice that stability according to this figure is based on the assumption that
J is nonsingular.
Hence, the following theorem, see Appendix G3, ensures that the measure of
tracking ej converges to zero in finite time.
(4.. 339)
where K(s) is a vector function describing the closedloop dynamics; see block
Bl in Figure 4,30.
 "
158 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
1
Block Bl I,,
The closedloop 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
to:
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:
(4.345)
we have that
1
(r, €l)T 2: 2s7(0) Mry(TJ(O)) s(O) (4.. 346)
This shows that the mapping T > €l is passive..
 
I
_.'
4.5 Advanced Autopilot Design for ROVs 159
Block B3
r = rT >0 (4.347)
Hence,
(el>lP8)T  f eflP8dT
_ .1rT er
0
l 8 dT ? _~8T (0) r l 8(0)
2
(4.348)
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:
I
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:
(4353)
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 timevarying noise term T We also see that V no longer can be
guaranteed to be nonincreasing 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
DeadZone Technique
Peterson and Narendra (1982) propose stopping the adaptation when the output
enor el becomes smaller than a prescribed value /::; by introducing a deadzone
in the adaptation law. This is due the fact that small tracking errors mainly
contain noise and disturbances. This suggests that:
aModification
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 amodification scheme To avoid
I

...
I
4.6 Conclusions 161
(4.. 358)
e
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.
elModification
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 elmodification. 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 modelbased 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 PIDtype 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 earthfixed reference frames to obtain a linear control problem, whicl1
is usually solved by applying a simple control law of PIDtype.. 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 timevarying reference trajectories
in 6 DOF. Extensions to adaptive control theory are done both for the feedback
linearization and passivitybased scl1emes.
::::::::'1
162 Stability and Control of Underwater Vehicles
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 online.
(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.)
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 poleplaced in
terms of a Pill control law with acceleration feedforward.
MiJ + C(r/) V + D V = r
o
M=
[
mX.
.
0
u
mYti 0]
mXG  Yf D = [ X
0u
o mXG Nu 1=  Nf 0
'""I~'
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):
(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 statespace model for the DSRV
(b) Find and plot the characteristic equation roots versus total speed:
in the range 18 knots (1 knot = 1.68 ft/s). Is the DSRV openloop 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 nondimensional 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 nondimensional
data (Healey 1992):
(a) Write down the linear steering equations of motion and find a statespace 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:
(b) Repeat the analysis under (a) but this time by including the roll mode, that is:
What is the steadystate roll angle developed by the turn? Does the SDV
exhibit nonminimum 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
Waves Sensor
wind and nOise
currents
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
(ii) The heave, roll and pitch modes can be neglected (w = p = q = w = p = q = a),
Applying these assumptions to (2,111) yields:
(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 !
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
X  X(u,v,T,iL,8,T)
Y  Y(V,T, il,T,8) (5.5)
N  lV(v,T,v,r,8)
From (5.1) and (5.5), we obtain the following nonlinear expression for the surge
equation:
I
2
m(it  VI'  XGT ) = X(11" V, T, it, 8, T) (5.6)
with
where
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 propellerinduced 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:
2
C =V.2 +CjT (5.10)
where an average Crvalue for the rudder profile is:
\ 8
CT' ~ 0.8a (5.11)
1rpD2
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).
which yields:
m(v+uor+xa i ) = Y
(5.16)
Izi+mxa(u+uor) = N
Linear theory suggests that the hydrodynamic force and moment can be modeled
as, Davidson and Schiff (1946):
M [ 
m 
mXG 
YNil
v mXG  Y,]
1;:  N r
Nu) _
( 0 
[Yu
N v
muo 
mXatLo 
YeN ] b= [NY'< ]
r u
(5.19)
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:
(521)
with
det(M)
T1T2 
det(N)
nllm22 + n22mU  n12m21  n2lml2
T1 +T2 
det(N)
n21 bl  nllb z
KR  det(N)
m21 bl  mll bz
K R T3  (5.25)
det(N)
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
~ .. ,
Figure 5.2: Variables used to describe the motion in the horizontal plane.
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 .
'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
 Timedomain:
 Transfer function:
'p K
5(~) = s (1 +Ts)
I
The 1storder 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 2ndorder models is compared in an amplitudephase diagram.
%
% MAIN PROGRAM
'l. 
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+T2T3;
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 = phase1360;
phase2 = phase2360;
end
clg,subplot(211),semilogx(w1,20*log10(mag1)),grid
xlabel('Frequency [rad/s] '),title('Gain [dB]')
hold on,semilogx(w2,20*log10(mag2),''),hold off
subplot(212),semilogx(w1,phasel),grid
xlabel('Frequency [rad/s] '),title('Phase [deg]')
hold on,semilogx(w2,phase2,''),hold off
....
;;;_::::::'~===,.,
176 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
o
50
100 ,,,c.wJ.W,'''u'.u.ll_'''~=_'~~=_'~~""
10" 10·3 10" 10" 100 10'
Frequency [rad/s]
120
140
160
180 L.J...i....i.i..lJ.ilii....i.w..;k_..:.....;...l.JJ..il~~~c.h;:;:;;:=="""'""'"..l.W
101 10·3 10'" 10" 100
Frequency [rad/s]
150..,
10'
, ..i!,,,i..i.u.i\":,'''J..i..i..·'""':.,,
10" 10"
:..c.i.Li..ii..i...i..i..W':''1J..i.ll¥_'
.L',,I
10" 100
:~.;
.:=::::
10'
Frequency [rad/s]
'. ,
i
ISO r'~.,...,..,.,.,.,~r"r'T.,.."'P'ih!,,as"Te,, f'd",er¥r"
l",...,,....,.,..,..rm,."...,.,.rrn
' [ 4:./;':'_: ij
~
200 i ~ .
[ • oiltarik.'
250L..i'''~'./' . '"
300 Li.....i..c.i..UJ.u'::'''L.i.i.iii:'.....L.L.w..i.i.U.,,I..c..i..W.
'.u.i.....i.....J...c.i..W.i.iJ
10" 103 10" 10" 100 10'
Frequency [rad/s]
Figur'e 5.3: 1storder (dotted) and 2ndorder (solid) Nomoto models for a stable cargo
ship and an unstable oil tanker. ,
:.,
5.3 The Linear Ship Steering Equations 177
(5.32)
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 Primesystem 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 socalled Bissystem
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 1.31.5. The normalization variables
for the Prime and Bissystems are given in Table 5.1. The nondimensional
quantities in the Prime and Bissystems will be distinguished from those with
dimension by applying the notation 0' for the Prime~system and 0" for the
Bissystem.
J
]\,11=
m' 
y.'
[ m,,'N"'
Xa  11
" y '. ]
mX G 
I'N"
:: r
N'( u')
o  [:Y:
. N'
m'uoY:
'" N'
11
] b'= [Y;]
N'
m xGu,o  r 0
.... _._.....,..,""""'=..._...,..",==="'
178 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
Table 5.1: Normalization variables used for the Primesystem and Bissystem
where
I Uo Uo
Uo = ~ 1 (5 . 35)
U Jeuo + 6.U)2 + 6.v2
for small values of 6.u and 6.v . The nondimensional system (5.34) can be related
to the original system (518) by simply applying the transformations:
U
V =Uv l ; r =  rI . (5.36)
L '
o
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 nondimensional
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
I I
[iJ]
r
• + [h I
nil
I
IT n 21
~L ni2
I
IT n 22
] [ v ] = [ b~ ] 8
r
. b'
2
R
(5.37)
21
(L/U)2 T; T~ ,p(3) + (L/U) (T; + T~) 1/1 + l~ = (U/L) K' {) + K' T~ 8 (5AO)
where the nondimensional time constants Tf are defined as: Tf = T i (U/ L) jor
(i = 1,2(3) and the nondimensional gain constant is K' = (L/U) K.
o
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, twodimensional hydrodynamic coefficients
for added mass and damping can be computed for each strip and summarized to
yield the threedimensional coefficients (see Section 2.4..1). Consider the linear
11
I
ship model: ]
I
m  Y,;
[ mXG  N,;
mXG  Yr ] [ ~ ] +
I z  Nf r
[Yv
Nu
mUQ  1";
mXGuQ  Nr
] [ v ]
r
= [ Yo ]
No
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
Yu
I
(5.44)
NIT  Nr 1 I
t pL3TU = 4 Yu (5.45)
,
1':1 Y, A,
t p LT U2 = p 4" LT
7f
(5.46)
,
NI 
l
N,
pl,2T U2 = 2 Yj
1 I
(5.47)
2
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,
(5.48)
where m (kg) is the mass of the ship, r denotes the radius of gyration and:
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.

182 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
port
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.
0
,. , •••••••••• , •••• " " ••••• , •••••• " ,. • • " " •••••••••
, . . .t
,,,
, "
"
• I
"", '
l'"
Dc j
,,
,,
,
i

rudder
contral ~
algorithm ,,
,,,
. ,
,,
~
.tt . h
K
, (I +If')
:" :
::
,, ''
,," ''
""'
", '
"""
"
.

+ K
, (I +T ,)
d
1
,,
,
8
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)."
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:
0 o~ 0$ 0  0
from
0
autopilot
, ~.~/ .:'

,
::,' .
,....
I
rudder I
rudder r.lle
limiter limiter
Figure 5.6: Simplified diagram of the rudder control loop (Van Amerongen 1982)
.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).
Oc = A sin(wot) (5.57)
2 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det norske Veritas (DnV), Lloyds ete
184 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
r;t;;;;j;;g'~~~hi;;~""""""""j
I
_"''"'O'? j Autopilot
l
,
Oo!
j.,....
0 . r·r. :i j
0 !
1'
Ship
I
'1
'v
i rudde<
l ••..••.••.•.....•I}.r::H~t.:
I
..1
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 theory. A simple contmller of PIDtype will usually suffeT fmm Teduced
peTformance but it will be stable.
.'..
,.
"
Figure 5.8: Influence of the ruddel limitel (Van del Klugt 1987) .
o
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
Stgn.
o
5.5 Stability of Ships 185
Autopilot Ship
Figure 5.9: Simplified system with rudder rate limiter (Van der Klugt 1987).
20
_00
Figure 5.10: Influence of the rudder rate limiter (Van der Klugt 1987).

186 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
'l.
'l. m x + d x + k x = k x_d .,
;'
clg
[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';'.:!~:·,· )" ;,\~ ~
o
5.5 Stability of Ships 187
I 6 r,,..,,,~~
10 12 14 16
t (5)
Figure 5.11: Step responses for the 2ndorder massdamperspringsystem (5.62) with
lPd = 1.0, w = 1.0 and'; E {02, 08, 1.0, 2.0}
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)
• 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 = 
m
= 
T
>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 StraightLine 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 straightline
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 = 
m
= 
T
<0 and
L Nonoscillatoric ( 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
tem.
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 coursestable 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
sections..
5.5 Stability of Ships 189
06~
0.4l _ _ i_====::==:·:=j··===r:I=J=J
~
,,   , 
02 
o''''''':''~' x(t)
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
yet)
1 ,._~__,_!'D"'i"'re"'ct"'io"\n"'a"ls~ta""b"'i'!li"ttlv__'"
(cov"'e'ird~a"'m"""o'e"d)4__~~,
Q8 it ,
!
0.6 : , , : ,
0.4f;;""~:::;:=::L.~ L _
0.2 .....
00'','''''''''' x(t)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
O''''~~~_=_'',J x(t)
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
yet) po5ltlOna
.. motIOn sta bT
I Itv
1 .
0.8 , .
...
0,6
 ......, :
004 ~
0.2 
o x(t)
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 5.12: xyplots 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
Hence, the uncontrolled 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'aightline stable while the oil tanker' is unstable.
o
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 xzplane symmetry the G matrix takes the following form:
0 0 0 o
G =
000
0 0 z~
o
o
o
Zo
0]
0
0
[
o 0 0
o 0 M~
K"o o
M,
0
0
o 0 0 o o 0
This implies that the restoring forces only affect the heave, pitch and roll modes.
If we also have yzplane symmetry, Zo = M, = 0, the force and moment compo
nents are:
Zo = + pg If A wp
x dA (569)
= Zo (5.70)
=pg\l(ZB  za) + pg If A wp
2
Y dA =pg\l GMT
t::. 
(5.71)
Mo =pg\l(ZB  za) + pg if A wp
x 2 dA ~pg\l GM L (5.72)
where
5.5 Stability of Ships 191
GM,.sin $
This implies that the restoring force in heave and the restoring moments in roll
and pitch (neglecting crosscouplings) 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
(5.74)
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)
1 3
h < 12 BL (5.77)
W.
•
= JpgA wp
mZw
(5.78)
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
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):
\
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:
01,2 are often referred to as the controlsfixed stability indexes for straightline sta
bility. Alternatively, a straightline stability criterion can be derived by applying
Routh's stability criterion.
Routh array
An an an 2 a n 4
,\nl anl 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:
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.
A C
B 0 (5.89)
C
Hence, necessary and sufficient conditions for the ship to be stable are:
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
N r  mXaUo Nu
=c==
Y;  muo . Y
> (5 . 93)
u
where each side corresponds to the moment arms for the yaw force (Y;  muo) r
and the sway force Yu v, respectively Consequently, straightline 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
A B
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:
.....
196 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
4
cn (5.23  388 CB (~) +00050 (~)2) > 0 (5.. 96)
(597)
where V' is the displaced volume of the ship. For large tankers CB "'" 0.. 800.84,
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:
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
BIT
5
CB =OA
4
Unstable
CB = 0 .. 6
3
CB = 0 .. 8
2
1
Stable
LfT
10 20 30 40 50
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 socalled Routh anay yields:
A C
B D
(5.106)
BCAD
B
o
D
Hence, sufficient and necessary conditions for the ship to be dynamic stable on
course are:
....

198 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
,,
f
,!
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 rigidbody 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 3rdorder 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:
ii
where 6x = x  Xo and:
(5.112)
A 3rdorder 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
Assumptions:
1. NIost ship maneuvers can be descr'ibed with a Srdorder tr'uncated Taylor ex
pansion about the steady state condition u = uo.
Simulations of standard ship maneuvers show that these assumptions are quite
good. Applying these assumptions to the functions (5,110) yields:
' 1 1 1}
(5.114)
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
model.
~~==~~~=====~_ ..
200 Dynamics and Stability of Ships I
•
Speed Equation:
(1  X")
u
U = L 1 ~X"
2 UtiU + L g ~X"
2 2 1
24 uu:,u U
4
+ 9 (1 t) T" + (1 + X" 'UT'
)VT
1
rr T 2 + L 2 9 1 (31 X"uvvv U IV IV 2 + L _1 4" X cIclaa Ic IC15e
2
+L( Xc11 +"21 X") (5 .115)
Steering Equations:
where
(5 . 118)
This number simply tells how far from the zaxis the entire mass m might be
concentrated and still give the same I z . Semiempirical methods for estimation
of the fQrce and moment derivatives are found in Nonbin (1970).
A quasistationary approach can be used to model the effective rudder angle.
Nonbin (1970) gives the following expression for l5e :
(5.119)
~
""~
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:
2_
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:
In Appendix E.1.2 a more general version of this model describing large tankers
in deep and confine waters is presented.
Speed Equation:
Steering Equations:
~
:::,
I
"<
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,
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:
B =
Ya Ko
Ka
Yo]
[ Na No
(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)
where ffi x , my, Jx and Jy denote the added mass and added moment of inertia
in the x and ydirections about the z and xa.'(es, respectively, The center of
added mass for my is denoted by ay (xcoordinate) while Ix and Iy are the added
mass zcoordinates of m x and my, respectively, The terms on the righthand side
of these four equations are defined as:
Christensen and Blanke suggested that the nonlinear steering and roll dynamics
can be approximated by the following set of equations:
!]
mzaYp mXG  Yi, 0
[ mzG
mXG
m<
_v
0
Kv
Nu
Ix  Rp
0
0
0
Ix N,
0
0
0
1
:]
r
~
=
0 0 0 0 ,p
('.
\'"
/
=======================::::::== """=
5.7 Coupled Equations for Steering and Rolling 205
where the forces and moments associated with the roll motion are assumed to
involve the squareterm 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.
(5 ..140)
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:
with obvious definitions of aij and bi ; see Christensen and Blanke (1986) for
details
[~~]=[A~~
x~ A A~~][X~]+[b~]o (5.144)
A~~ x~ b~ w
......
206
I I I v
r swayyaw
"1 5 I
'V
states
I I
I A'V'V
[ B'V I I
(;
I A'V~
rudder I
angle I A,p'V
r B. I r "1
lA""",
r I l p roll
'5 I <p states
Figure 5.15: Diagram showing the swayyaw and roll subsystems (Christensen and
Blanke 1986).
(5.145)
and
(5.146)
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
coursechanging maneuvers_
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
coursechanging 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
""""
i 0,,< 0
Rudder Path of center
execute of 8r.lvity
Tilctic:l1 diametl:r
(OIl 180 deg change
u Sll:;ldy of headillS)
turning
ramus
R
. . . . . . . . . . .   _ _= .=.>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 steadystate
solution of v and r, yields:
muo  Y,
mxauo  N, ][ ~]  (5.147)
where U = vu 2
+v 2 (5.149)
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 nondimensional quantities by:
(R)
L
= 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.
Recall that the dimensionless (with respect to speed U and hull length L ) Nomoto
gain and time constants were defined as;'
::::::::,====. ,========"",.",
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
1storder' mode/,. Hence,
0
20
20 °
T..+
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) in 1963. For larger ships, ITTC
has reco=ended the use of a 100100 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 zigzag 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)
PullOut Maneuver
In 1969 Ray Burcher proposed a new simple test procedure to determine whether a
ship is straightline stable or not. This test is referred to as the pullout maneuver
(12th ITTC 1969a). The pullout 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
Port i············
I;
time
Starboa rd
r
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
~."'
time
The pullo 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.
•. "
The direct spiral test was published first in 19491950 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 tline 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 rO 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 straightline unstable ships it is recommended to use Bech's reverse
spiral maneuver.
7) = R(r) (5.157)
where R(r) is a nonlinear function describing the maneuvering characteristic..
This can be understood by considering Nomoto's 2ndorder 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:
~~_ .•'
214 Dynamics and Stability of Ships
I S"ble ,hip
r (degl,)
\.
starboard
Ko < 0
(Linear lheory)
 Dieudonne and
Bech spiral
Il Unstnble ship
r (degl,)
...........
........
starboard port
on(deg) ::+.¥+...: on (deg)
i Dieudonne spiral
r;
Bech spiral
Figure 5.21: 1'0 diagram showing the Dieudonne and Bech spirals for both a stable
,'i.
and unstable ship" Notice the hysteresis loop in the Dieudonne spiral for the unstable
ship.
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 2ndorder models, respectively. These models are written:
5.8 Steering Maneuvering Characteristics 215
(5.160)
(5.162)
bi
ni = jbJ (5.165)
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 TO 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 onetoone whereas the unstable ship will have
three solutions corresponding to 0 = 0, see Figure 5.21.
:::: ~~~~~·~~~=~~=="'l
I
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:
(5.170)
for ships with aft rudder, see (5.150), the following considerations can be obtained:
Stopping Trials
The most co=on stopping trials are probably the crashstop and the lowspeed
stopping trial. Crashstops 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 crashstops. Consequently, this
maneuver will be strongly affected by both the wind and the ambient water
conditions"
In the maneuvering trial code of the 14th ITTC (1975) the lowspeed stopping
trial is recommended for navigation purposes. Like the crashstop maneuver, the
lowspeed 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.
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:
N
wind distance
lateral deviation
.. :
s
track
reach
head
reach
astern executed
distance
astern order
approach
course
7/J'(t') = K' [t'  T' + T' exp( (t' IT'))] a'(t') (5.173)
Hence,
') 1 ~1.,..,.
exp (1 I T "" 1  TI + 2(T')2 (5.175)
which yields:

.....
::....,======",,~
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 zigzag maneuver, the pullout maneu
ver, Dieudonne's spiral maneuver, Bech's reverse spiral maneuver and stopping
trials
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 "
.i"
maneuvering tests is also found in the 14th ITTC (1975), while a detailed guide
on how to perform fullscale 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 2ndorder model be wI'itten in the form:
(51'77)
Show that the resulting transfer function between o(s) and v(s) can be expressed in a
similar manner as: .~
";
(5.178)
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 1storder
model for r·(s)/o(s).
5.3 Consider the linear coursekeeping equations of motion in Appendix E.1.3 corre
sponding to a container ship..
(a) Neglect roll and find a nondimensional statespace model in sway and yaw for
the container ship.
(b) Compute the Nomoto time and gain constants for both the 1storder and 2nd
order models.
(c) What are the nondimensional eigenvalues of the model? Plot both eigenvalues
with dimension and as a function of speed U. Is the ship straightline stable?
(d) Is the container ship straight·line stable if Abkowitz's criterion for straightline
stability is used?
(e) Compute the Norrbin measure of maneuverability. Is this ship easy to maneuver ?
5.4 Consider the linear coursekeeping equations of motion in Appendix E.1.3 COrre
sponding to a container ship.
(a) Find a a nondimensional statespace model in sway, roll and yaw for the container
ship.
(b) What are the nondimensional eigenvalues of the model? Plot all three eigenvalues
with dimension and as a function of speed U. Is the ship straightline stable?
Compare the results with those from Exercise 5.3 (c). Does the ship exhibit
nonminimum 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 coursekeeping equations of
motion (see the Matlab mfile at the end of Appendix E.L3). Compare the
simulation results with those under (c) and explain what you see.
(e) Perform a 100100 zigzag maneuver and plot the Bech spiral. Explain the results.
5.5 Simulate a turning test, a 100100 zigzag maneuver and a pullout maneuver for
the Mariner Class vessel given in Appendix E.Ll.
(a) Use these tests to estimate the Nomoto time and gain constant (1storder 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:
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 rudderroll 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
• Deadband techniques
• State estimation
(6.3)
Kw S
h w • ve (s ) = S
2 + 2 I'.,WoS + Wo2 (6A)
'~
6.1 Filtering of FirstOrder Wave Disturbances 223
....
~","~...,,'
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.
waves
\jf
ship Ir~
deadband
W'hip« We (6 . 7)
HF rudder motions can be suppressed by lowpass filtering. For instance, a first
order lowpass filter with time constant Tf :
1 1
hLP(s) = 1 + T fS W,hip <. T <. We (md/s) (68)
f
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 nth order Butterworth filter to
attenuate the HF wave motion. The Butterworth filter is obtained by solving the
Butterworth polynomial:
(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 lowpass filter (n = 1...4) and radius
(cutoff frequency) wf = 1.0 (rad/s). For the complex conjugate pairs, the relative
damping ratio ( is given by the angle <p between the positive yaxis and the arrows in
the figure, according to the formul" ( = sin <p.
.
The pole configuration (only lefthalf plane) shown in Figure 63 can be repre
sented by the following simple transfer functions: .
(n = 1)
(n = 2)
(n = 3)
(n = 4)
o
The main disadvantage with the lowpass 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
100
10°
Frequency (rad/s)
o········:.:·,········:······,···~
. ",,',
:n 4
400 ';_ _'_'''''''';;_ _'_'''L'''''
10. ' 10° 10'
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 6.4: Bode plot showing the Butterworth lowpass filter for wf = La (rad/s)
and (n = LA).
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 FirstOrder Wave Disturbances 227
·5
·15
Frequency (rnd./sec)
~
~ 0 .V , ",.'"
lI:
Figure 6.5: Bode plot showing the 2ndorder notch filter for Wn = 0.5 (rad/s) and
(= O.L
h () _ 8
2
+ 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:
Wo= f¥4B

5
(6.14)
I
I
I
t.,
"""'=,~=
j .
,.,
;1
Since the estimate of Wn can be poor and one singlenotch 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
8
hc(s) = (6.16)
i=l
o...,c...,....,~;=::=..,c,,..:,...,..,..,....,:==;=c',...,.."
'"
.~
10
_20
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 ••;. .:••;. !.; : : : :.. , .:..;.!
I~
1 I
16 lif lC
Frequency (rlld/sec)
Figure 6.6: Bode plot showing three cascaded 2ndorder notch filters with hequencies
Wl= 0.4 (rad/s), W2 = 0.63 (rad/s) and W3 = 1.0 (rad/s) and <; = 01.
00  Wo (617)
,pL  TL (618)
1 TL + KT (0  00 ) + WL
"h  
T (6..19)
i I
The oscillatoric motion of the waves is usually described by the following transfer
function:
(6.20)
where WH is a zeromean 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
1'
interactions on a dynamically positioned ship. Later Balchen and Norwegian
"! coworkers 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 statespace representations:
:i
.i (H  ,pH (6.,21 )
, i
or alternatively:
, '
j ,

230 Automatic Control of Ships
~
·1
By combining the ship and wave model the heading angle can be expressed as a
sum:
while
noise
rM~d~i·us~·by·········"······l"""··"·····"···l
l stnlc e:ltlmator
!
I I ;
wave model i
measurement
noise
v"
o! ,I 'Vc 'Vu!
2t::_{la;u;to~P~ilo~t~~;H~Sh;iP~m~Od~e~11
'V,
!
,_.,._ _ __ .. _~ .
Figure 6,7: Lowfrequency (LF) and highfr'equency (HF) submodels, Notice that the
autopilot uses feedback from the LF yaw angle.
State Estimator
We will now illustrate how poleplacement 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(OOo)+Kd,p,pL,pH) (6 . 28)
where the hat is used to denote the state estimates and K i (i = O. A) are five
unknown estimator gains to be determined,
e
6.1 Filtering of FirstOrder 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 2ndorder wave
model.
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
as:
(6.31)
/
Ko
~ ·U~~
K2
••' __ " .
hU ••_ •••••
, Kj
A
°0 ~ A
~
& 
([>
f
L
• K f>.< )  ' _1
L  T
V
, I
,~ I Figure 6.8: Modelbased wave filter.
One way to calculate the estimator gains Ko, K 1 and Kz is by applying a pole
~
~' which suggests a small value for Ko. Indeed, this is a reasonable assumption since
i'
\ ; the rudder offset is slowlyvarying 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):
~,·1
i II,
1f(8) = 8z + (K1 + liT) s + (Kz + KdT) (6.32)
"t
Since this a 2ndorder system, we can specify the relative damping factor ( and
natural frequency W n by requiring that (6.32) should be equal to the polynomial:
(633)
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)
(6.36)
Furthermore, the innovation process can be lowpass filtered according to:
1
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:
2
.
'"
U
'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:
"
6.1 Filtering of FirstOrder Wave Disturbances 233
1 o
I
T o (6.42)
o o,
o wTi
 w~/T K I + w~ Kz
(6.46)
(6.47)
Furthermore, the eigenvalue assignment can be done by requiring that the error
dynamics must satisfy:
4
IT (s  Pi) !lrr(s) (6048)
i=1
I
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:
I
Ek=f.L (6.49)
where k = [K I , Kz, K 3 , KilT is the estimator gain vector and:
IJ _ /T
wZ IT
2(wn + w~ 2(:n
w
Z
0
w~/T
0
0
j (6.50)
.  [
(liT + 2(wn) 1 w~ liT
1 0 0 1
PIPZP3P4 ]
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 696.11, respectively.
234 Automatic Control of Ships
f.~
J
~
.:J
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) .
60
, ; 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 Pivalues according to:
·llilHDi]TIillRm . . ·····1·· .~
f.:
SOl •...
10
4
I it iiiJlb\:U~~i
10~ 1~1 10°
Frequency (rad/sec)
10'
.•~
1~
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 lowpass
filtered for frequencies higher than Wn
the left of the openloop 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 1storder 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
i
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
statespace form according to: .
o 0 0 w; 2 ( W n o
It is then straightforward to show that:
"." ....
~ "
236 Automatic Control of Ships
(6.60)
Moreover, it can be seen from the Bode plot that the lowfrequency yaw angle
state estimate can be generated by using two filters:
(661)
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 lowpass 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
(lowpass, highpass, notch etc.). Simulation results verifying these observations
have been documented in Grimble et aL (1980a). ,.
'~
:j."
K _ {0.03 for t::; 100 (s) ,f
w  0.10 for t > 100 (s)
(6.62)
which yields a closedloop 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:
~ ·10 .04
:~" 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
~' time (5) time (s)
~ 6.'1f;L 2x 10
·3 6.TL
~
006
ii:
;'i
'*"
0.04
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). ., ,
~~)=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
Process
noise
Measurement
w noise
v
Control U Plant f_<l_ZiKalman 1:::5?'__ State
input ,1 filter estimate
t :: ,
(6,68)
,
"
has full rank.
Definition 6.2 (Observability: TimeVarying System)
A linear' timevarying 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 FirstOrder Wave Disturbances 239
~:
"
j
"
1 Table 6.1: Summary of continuoustime Kalman filter (Gelb et al. 1988).
x(O) = xo
Initial conditions X(O) = E[(x(O)  x(O))(x(O)  x(OW] = X o
State estimate :i:(t) = A(t) x(t) + B(t) u(t) + K(t) [z(t)  H(t) x(t)]
propagation
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)
: !
ContinuousTime SteadyState Kalman Filter
An attractive simplification of the continuoustime Kalman filter is the steady
state solution obtained for the timeinvariant system:
K oo = X oo HT R'l (6.72)
where X 00 is the steadystate solution of the matrix Ricatti equation:
.' , ,
T'L
.,  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'rI = 'l/JH 0'
, = 0
{H = {H {'rI = {H(U/L) v = v
(678)
Hence, the scaled shipwave model can be written in vector form as:
x' (i) = A' x' (i) + b' u' (i) + E' w' (i) (6.79)
with timeinvariant 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
..~
r
6,1 Filtering of FirstOrder 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
j k' =!r' X'co hi (6.80)
!
00
I r
The last step in the design involves transforming the constant gain k;" to:
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 discretetime version of the wave filter can be designed,
A f = A,KooH (6.85)
A discretetime representation of this model is (see Appendix RI):
~! (Afh)N
1
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.
~ ,,,
.:""T,
.~ I
1 .,
~~
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 nondimensional
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 (' = 0.010.1) whereas the wave frequency W n can be treated as a
tunable pararneteL In some cases it can be advantageous to estimate W n online
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).
In this section we will show that the peak frequency of a wave spectrum can be
estimated by fitting all ARMAmodel (see Section 6.8.4) to the following wave
transfer function approximation:
6.. 1 Filtering of FirstOrder Wave Disturbances 243
(6.90)
(6.91)
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:
(6.92)
where hHP(S) is a highpass filter with cutoff frequency lower than the dominat
ing wave frequency. This is based on the assumption that the highpass filter will
attenuate LF motion components generated by the control input u(s), according
to:
(6.93)
If this holds, then ,pH(S) "" ,}H(S) in the actual region of the wave disturbance
(see Figure 6.14).
deg
..(fu
~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
6.15):
(6.94)
,
244 Automatic Control of Ships
co n2 I~
white W
noise
Figure 6.15: Blockdiagram showing linear wave model in terms of .pH and ~H'
 Tfs
'l/;H(S) = 1 + Tfs 'I/;(s) (HighPass) (695)
with filter time constant Tf . Hence an estimate of I;H(S) can be computed ac
cording to:
This is advantageous since the filtered signal (H(S) can be described by a sim
ple ARmodel corresponding to a 2ndorder wave disturbance model while pure
derivation of w(s) implies that 'if;H(S) must be modelled as an ARMAmodeL
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
A( ZI) = 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):
P(k  l)q'J(k)
K(k)  (6.101)
A + q'JT(k)P(k  l)q'J(k)
Here y(k) = tH(k) is the filtered signal, q'J(k) = [y(k1), y(k2), y(k3)]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 discretetime
equation:
1
Zi = exp(h Si) ==? Si =  In(z;) (6.104)
h
where Si (i = L.3) is the continuoustime 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 2ndorder
wave model, that is:
SI,2 = a ± j {3 (6.105)
Hence, the wave fr'equency estimate is:
1.. 21~==>~=~~==,,*
06
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).
This section describes the most important thrust devices and machinery in ship
speedpropulsion systems.. Emphasis is placed on propellers as thrust devices,
prime mover control, ship speed control and speed control for cruising..
_ V.
J0   (6.107)
nD
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 nondimensional 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 socalled 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: 0.050.2) 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:
1t
TJH =   (6.110)
1w
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:
Jo KT KQ
TJ8== (6.111 )
2Jf K QE K QE
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:
i
I.:
st::
248 Automatic Control of Ships
1 ~ .. . .
:. ~ :.
!'~
. '
. ' .,"..;
o
0,.5 ,.; ,
~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).
;1 I,,
T  11njnInln + 11nJV. InlV. (6.115) ,
~",.
(.
It
Q  Qlnjn Inln + QjnJV. InlV. (6116) ';\'
,
;,r I
>1;
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
'". I
where maneuvering properties need to be improved, where a ship has equipment :'
;'.f.
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:
I,
6.2 Forward Speed Control 249
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)
:1
 positive shaft speed, ship speed ahead, negative pitch
 positive shaft speed, ship speed astern, positive pitch
"
11
,j
!
/i
&
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
0,8
~
..•...................•..
~
OA ~ : "'.. .. .j
~ ==r~
:S 0,,2 .. KI a~ 1ado;'; pItch
1i! : j ..................
'~ 0
m
.§ 0,,2 ." :...... .
g, OA
!;2
0,.6
'>
, :;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)..
1 5
~O·KQ at 100% pitch
2
;;
;;;
c
.Q
~
c pO%
m
E 0.,5
'i5
c ~
0
c
0
"~ 0
~O~'HHHHI
~O.5
.
.:
:"
.~.
,... "':
,""
. ;.
: ;
0.5 o 0.5
J ~ advance number
,.
J
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). .. .
An
6.2 Forward Speed Control 251
(6.124)
where
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)
Imn = Qm  Q  Qf
Neglecting the friction torque, we obtain the following transfer function:
!
1
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
y
Diesel
dynamics
main engine
Qm
f".....",>II~mS

I
r
2 ..... T(n, Va )
QCn, V )
a
~ >..
~ 5;lJ
Xlulu
I
(mX il ),
Va propeller
characteristics
Vc. :::. ( t to.) ) U [11"'11!
Figure 6.20: Simplified diagram showing the speedpropulsion system (Blanke 1981)
'
252 Automatic Control of Ships
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:
1
T= 2Nn (6129)
Here N is the number of cylinders each rotating with n (rps). The value of the ,..
time constant is .approximated as:
(6.130)
Qm(S)= K y (6.131)
Y 1 +Tys '::,
~
;
(3) Model of Ohtsu and Ishizuka (1992)
~
,ij
Statistical identification of the governorpropeller 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.
Fuel t
Pitch Ind.. RPM
1
Mode Strategy
Selection +
Supervision
Pitch Piteh
. Control
Strategy
II L' ·ts I
mu I
Thrust
Estimate
Figure 6.21: Block diagram showing engine controller and limiting functions (Blanke
: ,
1994).
,
,
;
6.2 Forward Speed Control 255
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:
I
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
(6.140) ;
i
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
j
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
l
Tj = Tu = l1nln 0 Inlnu + l1nlv, Inl(1  w)u
2
(6.141)
i
,,
Qn Qlnln IOlln 3 1 + QlnlV. 0 Inln(1  w)u
With the ship speed being given by the more general expression:
[ ~: ] = fI(u,O,n) (6.143)
I
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 gradientbased 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:
,
;'1
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
(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.
Speed
Control
System
Pd
nd
!p,
.......~ Governor' ~
Prop clIer
Thrust
Controller
t'rd ~
y
/9
Wilh I Diesel I ~~
Pilch I Engine I
Overload
Control
Bd
I CP Propeller ~
I Conlrol
T" f B
n
"
u  Thrust and Ship
Speed Estimator B
i u
Figure 6.22: Control loops in the speed control hierarchy (Blanke 1994).
u,.•::::::~«~.=_~="= __          . ;
258 Automatic Control of Ships
1
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 setpoint, it would not be wise to use additional power to
decrease the ship speed to the setpoint. Therefore a nobraking 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.
From the propeller equations, the obvious possibility for the estimation of pro
peller thrust is to use the thrust relation. Moreover:
..
6.3 CourseKeeping Autopilots 259
Waves,
wind and
currents
)·1 Autopilot I i ,I
lie
i
:
" Steeri.ng
machme
I Ii
•
i. •••.•_......•.__•..•.••..••••••••••••••__••
I
I ShIp
. Ii
,H
i ,....
••••••• :
i
T7/J+7/J=K8 (6..148)
Based on this simple model we will discuss control laws of po, PD and PIDtype
utilizing feedback from the LF state estimates. The performance and robust
ness of the autopilot can be evaluated by using the simulation setup showed
in Figure 6.24. The proposed simulator models 1storder 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
_ " .. .
" " " , ', " , " " , ...•.•..• , "., .•... .. ,.:
',
1 :
i i
" '
"
1 i
,;
. . . ._ _ ••••••, _ __ ~ •• ....  •••.,  • • •<, " . .••... "
'V
,.•..•.. _."',.~~_ _ _ __ , " , , _ ,.:
"
! j'V
. Oc!~
autoPllot~ _
jL
j l
" .!
l ":~~~ ~.~~?~?.'.:. !.:.~.~~.~~:.~~~:l.~ "" ,..,._,._ " _..~.._ ".." l
PControl
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 closedloop dynamics:
1 ± )1 4TKKp
A12
,
=
2T
(6151)
Since, 14TK K p < 0 for most ships, it is seen that the real part of the eigenvalues
are given as:
1
RePl,2} =  2T (6.152)
Consequently, the suggested Pcontroller will not stabilize an openloop unstable
ship (T < 0). For stable ships (T > 0) the imaginary part of the closedloop 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:
(6.153)
6.3 CourseKeeping Autopilots 261
PDControI
Since, the use of a Pcontroller is restricted to openloop 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 PDtype in the
form:
(6.154)
Here K p > 0 and K d > 0 are the controller design parameters. The closedloop
dynamics resulting from the ship dynamics and the PDcontroller are:
(6.155)
This expression simply corresponds to a 2ndorder system in the form:
(6.156)
with natural frequency W n (rad/s) and relative damping ratio (. Combining
(6.155) and (6.156) yields:
I+KKd
(6.157)
(= 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:
K_ Tw ;. K_ 2T (w n l (6159)
p K ' d K
Here Wn and ( can be treated as design parameters.
j1I;"....
'
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:
Im
+.::;10...
<Xi
 Re
1
T
,
1
""'''' ""'"''''......_.. [I (T < 0)
Figure 6.25: Plot showing the poles of the uIlBtable ship (.) and the PDcontrolled
ship (X). The relative damping ratio and natural frequency of the closedloop system
is: ( = sin q\ .and W n = J a. 2 +/32, r~spectively. .
PIDControl
(6.163)
where K p > 0, K d > 0 and K i > 0 are the regulator design parameters. Applying
this control law to Nomoto's 1storder model
where 00 is the steadystate TIldder offset, yields the following closedloop char
acteristic equation:
I
(6 . 165)
I
I
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:
i
!
I
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:
(6.167)
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
(6 . 170)
The rootlocus curves for increasing values of K i are shown in Figure 6.26 Notice
that the system is stable for K i = 0.0013 (SI) indicated by the three asterisks in
Figure 6.26. .
o
lm
01
005
increasing Ki
o I:, , Re
..a,05
01
/t
<11 <105 o 005 0.1
Figure 6.26: Rootlocus curve for the unstable tan1ter with PIDcontrol 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 nondimensional gain K' and time T' constants are
known.
Substituting these results into the expressions for K p and K d finally yields:
:I calculated as:
,I (6.179)
,I
I
~
,.=,..
266 Automatic Control of Ships
E
t
t:>L La  L
(6.180)
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:
..
...
"~
where
2
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 CourseKeeping 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
!I 11(8) = K v(1 + TV 8)r(s) ;::J b(s) (6.183)
iI
,
.1
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:
(6.185)
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 tradeoff between accurate steering (small
Avalues) and economical steering (large Avalues). 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 tradeoff between the A val
ues proposed by Koyama and Norrbin could be made according to the weather
conditions as:
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)
where
b~ _
268 Automatic Control of Ships
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),
.1
tanker: L= 300m Ar = 15,000 '!I'
cargo ship: L = 200m Al = L600
(6.189)
where
(6.190)
.~ .
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:
(6.192)
(6.193)
E~
.f.t!
",.
rd ,..fl!riiii
6.3 CourseKeeping Autopilots 269
estimation of K' and T'. Van Amerongen (1982) claims that K p and K d will be
in the range of:
x=Ax+Bu (6195)
where x = [v,r, ,pjT, u = 0 and
B=[~] (6.196)
(6 . 197)
(6.198)
where P > 0 and Q 2: 0 are two weighting matrices, is (see Appendix D):
u = G1 X + G 2 Yd (6.199)
Here
G1  _P1BTR= (6.200)
G2 = PIBT(A+BGltTCTQ (6.201)
(6 . 202)
This approach requires that all states are measured or at least estimated. The
robustness of optimal autopilots for coursekeeping control with state estimator
is analyzed in Holzhiiter (1992).
....... ._"'I
270 Automatic Control of Ships
{jma:.<
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
A=
Smax ','
y
Imaximum I
rudder rate
Bmax .. .~
t
Bc I Sel .'
d'd
f I maximum I
I detector I
y ;~,
i
I memory
function
II
Figure 6.28: The automatic gain controller (AGe), Van der Klugt (1987) and Van
Amerongen et aL (1990).
(6.204)
where l/Td is the cutoff frequency. The gain needed to adjust the controller is
computed as:
6.3 CourseKeeping Autopilots 271
, r,
Waves,
wind and
currents
f'=++ Steering
machine
,Iww~ ••• ~.~. __ wr __ ~w ••• _.~ __ • • • w_~_,r • • • __ • ' __
:
"T __ •
Figure 6.29: Diagram showing a linear quadratic optimal autopilot together with the
automatic gain controller.
(6.206)
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 coworkers (Van der Klugt 1987). They conclude that the AGC
.' i mechanism is highly effective during rudder rate limitation.
(6.207)
,
i,
Let 1/Jd = constant denote the desired heading., Consider a 2ndorder system:
(6.208)
"'~, .
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 steadystate solution for the optimal commanded acceleration:
(6.210)
where
(6.211)
K
K·~P (6.213)
, 5Kd
This corresponds to Ti = 5 Td in a PIDcontroller.
...
6.4 Turning Controllers 273
(6.218)
where e = eT x and
(6 . 220)
 T 1 T
V(x,B)=x Px+B
m
r 1B (6.221)
11 = xT(ATp + PA)x
m
e
+ 2. ll(r I + cjJ bT P x) (6.222)
(6.223)
which according to Lyapunov stability theory for autonomous systems ensures that
e
,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.
o
~:
TWd+Wd = Ko (6224)
T
Tm  (6,226)
l+KKd
KKp
Km  (6,227)
l+KKd
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 closedloop behavior
of the system. This model is shown in Figure 6,30. Alternatively, we can express
(6,228) by:
(6229) ,,
~ i
by requiring that:
t
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.