Tristan Perez and Mogens Blanke

Plenary Talk Presented at the 8th IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems,
Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany
Tristan Perez*, *** and Mogens Blanke**,***

* School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
** Dept. of Elec. Eng. Automation and Control, Danish Technical University, DENMARK
*** CeSOS, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim NORWAY
8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany
Motivation
The effects of roll on ship performance became more
noticeable in the mid-19th century when:
Sails were replaced by engines

Broad arranges changed to turrets
Many devices have been proposed leading
to interesting control problems
W. Froude (1819-1879)
Performance can easily fall short of expectations because of

deficiencies in control system design due to
Fundamental limitations due to system dynamics

Limited actuator authority
Disturbances with large changes in spectral characteristics
Outline
Ship Roll Control Devices
Working Principles,
Performance,
Historical aspects
Key aspects of ship roll dynamics for control design
Models,
Wave-induced motion
Simulation and control design models
Control System Design
Objectives,
Fundamental limitations,
Control strategies
Research Outlook
Unsolved problems, new devices
I - Ship Roll Control Devices

Performance,
Working Principles,
and Historical Aspects
Ship Performance and Roll Motion

Ship roll motion
Affects crew performance
Can damage cargo

May prevent the use of on-board equipment
From a ship operability point of view is necessary to

reduce not only roll angle but also roll accelerations.
5
Bilge Keels
10to 20% roll reduction (RMS)

Low maintenance
No control
No occupied space
Low price easy to install
Increase hull resistance when damping is not needed
Not every vessel can be fitted with them (ice-breakers)
U-tanks
40 to 50% roll reduction (RMS)

Active/Passive
Independent of the vessel speed
Anti heeling
Heavy
Occupy large spaces
Affects stability due free-surface
Intering Rolls-Royce
Gyro-stabilisers
60% to 90% roll reduction (RMS)

Performance independent of the vessel speed
1906
Torpedo Boat
1914 to 1925
active control
1914,1924
Twin Gyros
Schlick
(Germany)
Sperry
(USA)
Fieux
(France)
Today
Time
Halcyon
Ferretti
Sea Gyro
Shipdynamics
Seakeeper
Japanese aircraft carrier Hosho 95% RR with

Sperry Gyro
Conte di Savoia 1932
8
8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock,

Germany
Fin-stabilisers
Performance depends on speed
Control is important for performance
Easy to damage
Most Expensive stabiliser
Can produce noise affecting sonar
Dynamic stall
Rolls-Royce
Rudder Roll Stabilisers (RRS)

Performance depends on speed

Control is important for performance
Special rudder machinery
Fundamental limitations in control due to
non-minimum phase dynamics (NMP)
10

Germany
Historical Aspects
T. Perez (2005) Ship Motion Control, Springer
11
II - Key Aspects of Ship Roll Dynamics

for Control Design
Models
Ocean Environment
Wave-induced motion
Dynamics of Roll Motion

General model form to describe ship motion:
! n "
pb/n
= [N, E, D, , , ]T .
!
13
nb
pb/n
bb/n
"
= [u, v, w, p, q, r]T .
Kinematic model:
= J()
Kinetic model:
M + C() + D() + g() =
Models for Control Design

For control design, output disturbance models are usually adopted:
Motion Time
series
Control
Forces
1DOF, 4DOF
Force to motion
For roll motion control problems this model is simplified to
14
1DOF: roll
4DOF: surge, roll, sway, and yaw
Dynamics of Roll Motion1DOF Model

Consider only roll motion,
= p,
Kinematic model:
Ixx p = Kh + Kc + Kd
Kinetic model:
Hydrodynamic
moments
Control
moments
Disturbance
moments
Hydrodynamic Moments:
Kh Kp p + Kp p + Kp|p| p|p| + K()

Potential
Effects
15
Viscous
Effects
Hydrostatic
Effects
Dynamics of Roll Motion4DOF

Motion Variables:
= [ ] ,
T
= [u v p r]T ,
i = [Xi Yi Ki Ni ] ,
T
Kinematic model:
Kinetic model:
= p,
= r cos r
MRB + CRB () = h + c + d
h MA CA () D() K()
16
Ocean Environment
Usual assumptions for sea surface elevation
Zero-mean
Gaussian (depth dependent)

Narrow banded
Stationary (20min to 3 hours)
(t):
All necessary information is then in the wave elevation power spectral

density (Sea Spectrum):
(, )
17
Sailing Condition and Encounter Spectrum

Encounter Frequency
Sailing Condition
Speed
Encounter angle
2 U
e =
cos()
g
18
(e ) = !!
!1
()
2U
g
!
!
cos()!
Wave-induced Motion Motion

Seakeeping Model
Motion spectrum
S ()
Wave spectrum
F(j,,U)
G(j,U)
Wave to force FRF
Force to motion FRF
F(j, ) = [F1 (j, ), . . . , F6 (j, )]T
G11 (j, U )
..
G(j, U ) =
.
G61 (j, U )
Roll RAO:
Motion Time
series
G16 (j)
..
2
1
=
([M
+
A()]
+
jB()
+
G)
RB
.
G66 (j, U )
H4 (j, , U ) =
6
!
G4k (j, U )Fk (j, , U )
k=1
19
S ()
Example Roll RAOs Naval Vessel @15kt

H4 (j, , U ) =
6
!
4.2 Seakeeping Theory Models

G4k (j,
U )Fk (j, , U )
73
k=1
|H4 (, U, )|
&!*+,
'#*+,
(!*+,
-#*+,
.!*+,
$!#*+,
$%!*+,
$&#*+,
$#!*+,
$(#*+,
(
'
%
&
!
%!!
%"#
%
$#!
$"#
$!!
$
#!
!"#
!
Fig. 4.6. motion RAO Roll of the naval vessel benchmark at 15 kt for different
angles.
RAO
are given
as a function of the wave frequency.
20 encounter
8th IFAC
CAMS,The
Septmotion
15th-17th,
Rostock,
Germany
III Motion Control Design

Objectives,
Performance Limitations,
and Control Strategies

Germany
Control Design and Performance Limitations

From the ship performance point of view, the control objectives are
Reduce roll angle
Reduce roll accelerations
Actuators
u
Output sensitivity
cl (s)
S(s) !
ol (s)
22
Kc
ol
Ship
cl
Control
Roll spectrum relations
cl () = |S(j)|2 ol ()
Control Design and Performance Limitations

If the closed-loop system is stable minimum phase and strictly proper,
the following Bode integral constraint applies
log |S(j)| d = 0
cl () = |S(j)|2 ol ()
|ol (j)| | cl (j)|

RR() = 1 |S(j)| =
|ol (j)|
23
Example Performance Limitations

Gyrostabiliser (Perez & Steinmann, 2009)
24
Non-minimum phase Dynamics

In some cases, the location of the actuators may result in NMP
dynamics (with a real zero at s=q.)
Then, we have a Poisson-integral constrain:
log |S(j)| W (q, )d = 0
q = q + j0
q
W (q, ) = 2
q + 2
25
Non-minimum phase Dynamics

::;*4+5.*8.,8323532<*=>?:@*!*AB%CDE+5FD$G#!
#&"
Example Blanke
et al (2000)
'())*+,-).*'./0123(,
!&"
26
"
#!
#"
4+5.6.'3(/*78.19
$!
$"
%!
Energy of Wave Excitation

The energy of the wave excitation changes with the seastate and sailing conditions (speed and heading)
(t)
For example a change in encounter angle can shift

the energy significantly:
27
2rudder
b
4rudder zCP
L
(8)
6rudder xbCP L,
Fin Stabilisers (minimum phase case)
b
are the coordinates of the cenwhere xbCP and zCP
ter of pressure of the rudder (CP ) with respect to
IDOF model including fin forces:the b-frame. The center of pressure is assumed to
be located at the rudder stock and half the rudder
span. The rudder data
is shown in Table A.4.
= p,
[Ixx + Kp ] p + (Kp +
Control issues:
Parametric uncertainty
Sensitivity-integral constraints
Control strategies:
For the stabilizer fins, the center of pressure is

2
halfway
along
the
span
of
the
The
2 rf Klocated
U
)
p
+
K
=
K
2U
Kfin.
coordinates of the center of pressure with respect

to the b-frame are given by the vector rbCP see
Figure 1.
PID, Hinf
28
ing
the
is a
The
with
and
bas
(Pe
for
CG
ob
zb
yb
rbCP
CP
y!
y !!
z !! z !
Fig. 1. Reference frames used to compute fin

forces.
in
whe
and
%
n
For
Fin Stabilisers and NMP Dynamics

If the response from the fins is NMP, then the IDOF cannot be used, in
this case roll-sway-yaw interactions need to be considered to avoid
large roll amplifications at low frequencies.
Observations about fin NMP dynamics were made by Lloyd (1989).

29
Fin Stabilisers Dynamic Stall
CL [-]
CL [-]
Experimental results of Galliarde (2002) (MARIN, Ned)
e [deg]
[deg]
e [deg]
Time [s]
30
Fin Stabilisers
Perez & Goodwin (2003): MPC constraints effective angle of attack.
31
Rudder Roll Damping
Potential discovered from autopilot without wave filter (Taggart 1970)
Results reported by van Gunsteren in 1972 (the Netherlands)
Cowley & Lambert (1972) used roll fbk, reported yaw interference.
Carley & Duberley (1972) integrated rudder-fin control
Carley (1975) & Lloyd (1975) recognise limitations of NMP dynamics
Baitis et al.(1983) highlighted need of adaptation
Advent of Computers in 1980 resulted in several successful results
Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, United Kingdom
Hearns & Blanke (1998) limitations using the Poisson Integral
Perez (2003) analysed min variance and RR vs yaw interference
32
Performance Limitations (Hearns & Blanke, 1998)
!S(j)!
If the controller does not

adapt, we can easily
have roll amplification
33
33
1
1
"
(1 ,2 )
(1 ,2 )
Performance Limitations Perez et al. (2003)

Limiting Optimal Control with full knowledge of wave spectrum:
J = E[2 + (1 )( d )2 ]
Minimum variance case (=1):
34
E[ ] 2 q (q)
2
Actuator limitations on RRD
Actuator rate limits may affect performance
Maximum required here
Maximum attained
here
35
35
AGC Van Amerongen et al (1982)
36
Performance Limitations Perez et al. (2003)

IVC OCP: Rudder angle RMS limited to 15deg
37
Performance Limitations Perez et al (2003)

IVC OCP: Rudder angle RMS limited to 15deg
38
Performance Limitations
At low encounter frequencies,
RR vs yaw interference can be large

MNP dynamics limits RR achievable performance.
At high encounter frequencies,
39
Limitations of rudder machinery usually dominate RR

achievable performance.
Performance Limitations (quatering seas RR 40%)
40
Performance Limitations (beam seas RR 64%)
41
Control Strategies
PID,
Hinf
Loop
shaping
Adaptive LQG
Model Predictive Control
Switched control
Nonlinear control
42
42
Changes with Speed (Blanke & Christiansen 1993)
Rudder to Roll TF: G (s) =
c (1 + sz1 )(1 qs )
(1 + sp1 )(1 +
s2
sp2 )( 2
p
*+,-./01
+ 2p sp + 1)
;+,-./01
&'(
!&'(
&'%#
!&'(:
&'%!
Changes in dynamic
response due to speed
coupled with changes in
disturbance spectrum
results in a strong need
for adaptation.
&'%)
!&'9
&'%(
!&'9:
&'%
!
"
#
$
%&
23//4-56728
%%
"
;+,-31</%
#
$
%&
23//4-56728
%%
;+,-31</(
!&'9
!&'&(:
!&'9:
!&'&9
!&')
!&'&9:
!&'):
!&'&)
!&':
!&'&):
!&'::
!
43
"
#
$
%&
23//4-56728
%%
"
#
$
%&
23//4-56728
%%
H2 Optimal Design
() = Hd (j)Hd (j)
E(2 ) = !Hd QV !22

C (s) =
G
(s)
1
(G )
s+q
= G (s)
sq
V = Hd G
1
Hd Hd
sq
1
s+q Hd Hd
s+q
Hd (s)
= Hd (s) + Hd+ (s)
sq
This shows the strong dependency on sea state, sailing conditions and
changes in the vessel model --- adaptation is required.
44
Direct Sensitivity Specification (Blanke et al. 2000)

Targeted (Desired) Sensitivity:
Sd (s) =
s2
d2
(1 +
+ 2d sd + 1
s
d )(1
s
d )
S(s) = (1 + C (s)G (s))1
s
C
(s) = (Sd (s)1 1)G1
(s)
45
1+
s
q
s
q
P (s)1
Direct Sensitivity Specification (Blanke et al. 2000)

s
C
(s)
k1 s
=
c d
s2
p2
s2
d2
+ 2p sp + 1 (1 + s )(1 + s )
p1
p2
s
+ 2d s + 1 (1 + sz1 )(1 + q )
d
::;*4+5.*8.,8323532<*=>?:@*!*AB%CDE+5FD$G#!
#&"
Successful performance
was demonstrated for the
SF300 patrol boat of the
Danish Navy
'())*+,-).*'./0123(,
!&"
46
"
#!
#"
4+5.6.'3(/*78.19
$!
$"
%!
Gyro Stabilisation
!s
!m
Spin angular momentum
Kg = Is s
!p
!g
!w ,
l
n
I44 + B44
+ B44
|| + C44 = w Kg cos ,
! "# $
g
Ig
+ Bg + Cg sin = Kg cos +p
! "# $
m
47
Gyro as a Damper
p : q
e
I44 + (B44 + nKg q) + C44 = w
n- number of gyros
q-constant
48
Increase of roll damping

due to the gyrostabiliser
Gyro-control Design
Gyro full state control: p = Ka Kr

Roll to precession Transfer function:
(s)
(s)
Kg s
G(s) =
=
=
,
2
!
!
(s)
Ig s + Bg s + Cg
(s)
Bg!
= Bg + Kr ,
Cg!
= Cg + Ka
The control design objective becomes:
p : q
|G()| q,
arg G() 0
Ship
gyro
This can be achieved by forcing two real poles on G(s) (Perez Steinman, 2009)
49
Irregular Sea Performance (Perez & Steinamnn 2009)

Roll Reduction in RMS: 82%
Vessel displacement: 360 ton
Gyro unit weight: 13 ton
50
MCMC Conference, Sept 2009
50
IV - Research Outlook
New Devices
Unsolved Problems

Germany
New Devices
Flapping fins (Fang et al. 2009 Ocean Engineering 36)
Added mass
52
Form and Vortex drag
New Devices
Rotor Stabiliser (Quantumhydraulic.com)
53
Parametric roll
Parametric roll is an auto-parametric resonance phenomenon

whose onset causes a sudden rise in roll oscillations.
54
Two-day Tutorial, Ancona, Italy, Sept 2010
Conditions for PR
The following conditions can trigger the effect:
Hull designs with significant bow flare and hanged stern

Sailing in longitudinal waves
Wave length close to the length of the vessel
Encounter frequency is twice the roll natural frequency
Low roll damping
Parametric roll is particular of modern container ships,

cruise ships, car ferries, and fishing vessels.
55
Two-day Tutorial, Ancona, Italy, Sept 2010
Restoring in Waves Dynamic Stability
K() = g GZ()
56
Videos
57
Conclusion
For over 100 years different devices have been proposed to control
roll motion (reduction)
Most of these devices require control systems to work
Control design is not trivial due to
58
Fundamental limitations
Widely-varying disturbance characteristics
Actuator limited authority
Current State and Research Outlook
New developments are being put forward by yacht industry
Gyros, Flap fins, rotor stabilisers (need for zero speed performance)
Navies are still considering RRD
Submarines need roll control at low speeds when in the surface
Research outlook
Adaptation to sea state and sailing conditions still remains an issue

New devices with interesting hydrodynamics
Integrated vessel and roll control design (performance prediction)
Parametric roll
59
Thank You
Death Roll of Sailing Vessels

60

Tristan Perez and Mogens Blanke

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tristan Perez and Mogens Blanke

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plenary Talk Presented at the 8th IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems,

Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Tristan Perez*, *** and Mogens Blanke**,***

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Sails were replaced by engines

Performance can easily fall short of expectations because of

Fundamental limitations due to system dynamics

Ship Roll Control Devices

Key aspects of ship roll dynamics for control design

Control System Design

Unsolved problems, new devices

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

I - Ship Roll Control Devices

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Ship Performance and Roll Motion

Affects crew performance

Can damage cargo

From a ship operability point of view is necessary to

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

10to 20% roll reduction (RMS)

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

40 to 50% roll reduction (RMS)

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

60% to 90% roll reduction (RMS)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hosho 95% RR with

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock,

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Rudder Roll Stabilisers (RRS)

Performance depends on speed

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock,

T. Perez (2005) Ship Motion Control, Springer

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

II - Key Aspects of Ship Roll Dynamics

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Dynamics of Roll Motion

M + C() + D() + g() =

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Models for Control Design

For roll motion control problems this model is simplified to

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Dynamics of Roll Motion1DOF Model

Kh Kp p + Kp p + Kp|p| p|p| + K()

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Dynamics of Roll Motion4DOF

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Gaussian (depth dependent)

Stationary (20min to 3 hours)

All necessary information is then in the wave elevation power spectral

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Sailing Condition and Encounter Spectrum

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Wave-induced Motion Motion

Wave to force FRF

Force to motion FRF

F(j, ) = [F1 (j, ), . . . , F6 (j, )]T

G4k (j, U )Fk (j, , U )

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock, Germany

Example Roll RAOs Naval Vessel @15kt

4.2 Seakeeping Theory Models

III Motion Control Design

8th IFAC CAMS, Sept 15th-17th, Rostock,

Control Design and Performance Limitations

Reduce roll accelerations

Tristan Perez, and Mogens Blanke,***