BACKSTEPPING DESIGNS FOR NONLINEAR

WAY-POINT TRACKING OF SHIPS

Knut Eilif Husa  and Thor I. Fossen 
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Engineering Cybernetics, N-7034
Trondheim, NORWAY (E-mail:tif@itk.ntnu.no, http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Fossen Thor/)

Abstract. Nonlinear tracking of ships in terms of way-points for route planning is discussed. A
tracking control law that handles dierent curvatures of a path, e.g. combinations of straight-lines
and circles, is developed by using nonlinear backstepping. Exponential stability is proven by applying
Lyapunov stability theory. An extension to integral action is also made. However, only convergence
is guaranteed for the case when integral action is included.
Key Words. Way-Point Tracking, Guidance of Ships, Marine Systems, Ship Control, Nonlinear
Backstepping.

1. INTRODUCTION 2. ROUTE PLANNING

Since the kinematic equations of motion are highly
nonlinear during turning of a ship, the authors
propose to use nonlinear backstepping and Lya-
punov stability theory to solve the ship tracking
problem (Krstic et al., 1995). This implies that
the nonlinearities in the system equations can be
The path of a ship will normally consist of a set of
n way-points (p1 ; p2 ; : : : ; pi ; : : : ; pn) with coordi-
nates pi = (xi ; yi ). The ship is supposed to move
on a straight line between these points. Track
changing maneuvers are performed in such a way
that the ship moves on a circle arc. The circle
handled without linearization.
This paper proposes a smooth nonlinear control
law for tracking of both straight-lines and circle
arcs. It is important that the transition between
the control modes is smooth in order to avoid ac-
tuator ripples. The proposed control law avoids
conguration is mainly chosen because radar dis-
play systems like ECDIS and ARPA use circles.
A track changing maneuver in connection with
a way-point can be managed in several dierent
ways. Some alternatives are listed and illustrated
below (see Figure 1):
1. moving on a circle where the way-point pi
the switching problems between the straight-line denes the center.
and circular control modes which is a major prob- 2. moving on a circle which intersects the way-
lem when applying linear theory and dierent con- point pi .
trollers. Lyapunov stability and attraction are 3. moving on a circle where the way-point pi is
proven for the way-point tracking control law. outside the circle.
Low-frequency disturbances due to currents, wind
and 1st-order wave disturbances are compensated
for by adding integral action in the controller. Ex- +pi
+pi
pi +

tensions to output feedback can be done by apply-

ing the observer backstepping approach of Fossen
and Grvlen (1997).
1. 2. 3.

An alternative nonlinear way-point backstepping +p +p + pi-1

approach has been proposed by Godhavn (1996).
i-1
i-1

This is an under actuated approach where the

time-varying positions (x(t); y(t)) are controlled
by means of one single rudder. Linear quadratic
Gaussian (LQG) ship tracking systems have been Fig. 1. Three turning concepts.
discussed by Holzhuter and Schultze (1995). This
is based on the assumption that the system equa- The third turning concept is the one most com-
tions can be accurately described by a linear monly used. For instance, the Norwegian ferry
model approximation. ship Kong Harald has adopted this solution

4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC'97) 1

(Holzhuter and Schultze, 1995). The wheel over X (North)
point (WOP) has to be known in order to employ
this concept. The WOP indicates the point where ψ
the ship leaves the straight line and enters the cir- u
cle arc and vice versa on the beginning of the next
straight leg.
U

The presentation above is, however, not realistic x

in the light of the ship dynamics. A ship cannot
change its yaw rate instantaneously. A more re- v

alistic picture can be obtained by considering the

turning maneuver as three phases:
1. zero yaw rate
2. yaw rate acceleration/de-acceleration
3. constant yaw rate
y Y (East)

The WOP will now, however, not indicate the
start of the turning maneuver. This is because
it is impossible to be on the prescribed circle path
and at the same time increase the yaw rate. It is
then proposed in Holzhuter and Schultze (1995)
to use a model-based track construction. Instead
of starting the turning maneuver at the WOP, a
new model-based wheel over point (WOPin) is de-
Fig. 3. Coordinate system describing the ship motion
where is the heading angle, u is the forward
velocity, v is the sway velocity and U is the
total speed.
where r is the yaw rate,  is the rudder angle and
K and T are two constants. Because the path of
a ship consists of both straight line segments and
ned about one ship length before the WOP. By
the time the ship passes the WOP, it will have
the right yaw rate. However, the ship will now
not be able to intersect the WOP and, hence, the
circle path of the ship will dier from the one pre-
scribed. In other words, the circle center will be
shifted by some meters. When the ship is about
to leave the circle, counter-rudder is applied by
the time the ship passes the model-based wheel
over point WOPout. The ship will then reach the
straight line segment with zero yaw rate. Figure 2
taken from Holzhuter and Schultze (1995) shows
the principles.
pi
+
circle segments, two ways of motion will be con-
sidered, straight line motion and radial motion.
3.1. Straight-Line Motion
The kinematic relations according to Figure 3 give
the full state-space model in straight-line motion:
x_ = u cos ? v sin
y_ = u sin + v cos (2)
_ = r
p cruise condition: u  0 and v  0. Hence
During
U = u2 + v2  u, such that (2) in combination

WOPout with (1) can be approximated by:

WOP x_ = U cos
y_ = U sin
_ = r
WOP in

(3)
r_ = ar + b
where a = ?1=T and b = K=T .
Fig. 2. Illustration showing the placements of the
WOP, WOPin and WOPout , and the path of
the ship versus the prescribed circle path. 3.2. Radial Motion:
By applying polar coordinates the (x; y) coordi-
nates of a circle with radius R and angle increment
can be written:
3. SHIP MODEL
x = x0 + R cos
The ship dynamics is described by Nomoto 1st-
order model (Nomoto et al., 1957): y = y0 + R sin (4)
1 K where (x0 ; y0 ) is the center of the circle which
r_ = ? r +  (1) must be shifted for each way-point. Time dier-
T T

2 4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC'97)

 smooth controller, handling all the curvatures of
the path.
X (North)

R (y,x) 4.1. Control Objective

γ
In order to develop a smooth tracking control law,
consider the model (7). It is convenient to dene
Y (East) R~ = R ? Rd where Rd denotes the radius of the
prescribed turning circle and, R~ is the circle arc
deviation. Rd is governed by the tracking system
in such a way that the ship performs its maneu-
vers in a prescribed manner. Figure 5 shows the
principle.

Fig. 4. Coordinate system describing the ship motion

during the radial motion.
entiation of (4) gives: Rd
    _ 
x_ cos ? sin
= sin R (5)
y_ cos R _ Rcom

Combining (3) and (5) and solving for R_ and _

gives the radial state-space model:
R_ = U cos( ? )
Fig. 5. Illustrates how the circle radius decreases from
_ = ? UR sin( ? ) (6) Rd = 1 to Rd = Rcom as the ship is approach-
ing the turn.
where R  Rmin > 0. Notice that this expres-
sion has been obtained by considering a clockwise When the ship is moving on a straight leg, the
turning direction. circle radius Rd is innitely large. In practice
Rd = Rmax where Rmax  0. During the turn
the ship moves on a circle with constant radius
3.3. Resulting Model Rd = Rcom . As pointed out before, the transi-
tion between a straight line and a circle cannot
In order to describe both turning directions, a fac- be carried out instantaneously. This means that
tor s (s = 1-clockwise, s = ?1-counter clockwise) Rcom must be ltered in order to give a smooth
is introduced. Hence the resulting model is writ- transition. Filtering through the 4th-order lter:
ten:
4
Rd =
x_ = U cos (s + )4 Rcom ; >0 (8)
y_ = U sin
R_ = U cos( ? ) will give a smooth Rd . Here Rcom is the desired
U radius. The time constant of the lter must be
_ = ?s sin( ? ) (7) chosen such that large rudder angles are avoided.
R Figure 5 indicates that it is the circle center of the
_ = r turning circle that approaches the path when Rd
r_ = ar + b is decreasing and not the opposite. This implies
that R_ d = 0 with respect to the path.
4. LYAPUNOV STABLE CONTROL LAW
4.2. Control Modes
During a track changing maneuver the ship will
enter all the three phases described in Section 2. Two control modes are needed to describe the
One approach to the problem is to employ three tracking of straight-lines and circular paths. Let
separate controllers handling its respective part of yd be a reference signal which denotes the o-
the path. However, the switching between the in- set to the prescribed path (desired cross-track er-
ternal modes will cause discontinuities in the con- ror). Normally yd = 0, but a non-zero value
troller. Hence, it is advantageous to design one might be chosen if minor path corrections should

4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC'97) 3

be performed. Large track changes are handled by X @1 (i)
dening a new way-point (circle) with coordinates ? @ 1 x_ ?
@x 1 (i?1) yd (17)
(x0 ; y0 ) and by dening Rcom 6= 0 and yd = 0.
1 i=1 @yd
This can be summarized according to: The clf V1 is now augmented with a quadratic
Straight-Line Motion: Rd = Rmax = constant term in z2 to make the new clf V2 = V1 + 21 z22.
where 0  Rmax < 1, s = 0 and yd = 0 The expression for V_2 is:
(yd 6= 0 can be used for minor track changes)
Radial Motion: Rcom = constant and: V_2 = ?c1z12
 2
4 +z2 z1 + s x U+ R sin2 (x2 ? x4 )
Rd =
(s + )4 Rcom ; >0 (9) 1 d
+U sin(x4 ? x2 )(z3 + 2 ) (18)
!
s = 1 or s = ?1 (clockwise, counter clock- 2
1 x_ ? X @1 y (i)
wise) and yd = 0 during turning. ? @
@x1 1 (i?1) d
i=1 @yd

4.3. Nonlinear Backstepping To make V_2 negative denite (except from the cou-
pling term between z2 and z3 ) 2 is chosen as:
During the development of the way-point tracking
control law it is convenient to dene 4 states: x1 = 2 (x1 ; x2 ; x4 ; yd; y_d; yd ) =
~ x2 = ; x3 = r and x4 = . Hence (7) can be
R; 
U2
U sin(x4 ?x2 ) ?s x1 +Rd sin (x4 ? x2 ) (19)
1 2
written as: 
P2 @ (i)
x_ 1 = U cos(x4 ? x2 ) ? R_ d ?c2 z2 ? z1 + @
@x x_ 1 + i=1 @y i? yd
1
1 (
1
1)
d
x_ 2 = x3 (10)
x_ 3 = ax3 + b where c2 > 0 and:
U @1 @2 @2
x_ 4 = ?s sin(x4 ? x2 ) = ?c1 ; = c1 ; =1
x +R1 d @x1 @yd @ y_d
where Rd > 0 is given by (8). The development of The expression for V_2 is then:
the tracking control law consists of three iterative
steps: V_2 = ?c1z12 ? c2 z22 + Uz2z3 sin(x4 ? x2 ) (20)
Step 1. Two error variables z1 and z2 are dened
as: Step 3. The expression for z_3 is:
z1 = x 1 ? y d @2 @ @
(11) z_3 = ax3 + b ? x_ 1 ? 2 x_ 2 ? 2 x_ 4
z2 = U cos(x4 ? x2 ) ? 1 (12) @x1 @x2 @x4
X3
@2 (i)
Stabilizing (11) with respect to the control Lya- ? (i?1) yd (21)
punov function (clf) V1 = 12 z12 gives: i=1 @yd
The last clf is introduced as V3 = V2 + 21 z32. V_3
V_1 = z1 (z2 + 1 ? R_ d ? y_d) (13) is:
Choosing 1 as: V_3 = ?c1z12 ? c2 z22

1 (x1 ; yd ; y_d) = ?c1 z1 + y_d + R_ d (14) +z3 Uz2 sin(x4 ? x2 ) + ax3 + b ? @
@x x_ 1
2
1

where c1 > 0 yields: P3 @ (i)
? @ 2
@
@x x_ 2 ? @x x_ 4 ? i=1 @y i? yd (22)
2 2
4 (
2
1)
d
V_1 = ?c1 z12 + z1 z2 (15)
4.4. Control Law
Step 2. The third error variable z3 is introduced:
The control input  is chosen such that V_3 becomes
z3 = x 3 ?  2 (16) negative denite:
The derivative of z2 is: 
 =
1 ?c z ? Uz sin(x ? x ) ? ax + @2 x_
b 3 3 2 4 2 3 @x1 1
z_2 = ? U sin(x4 ? x2 )  3 !
X
?s x +U R sin(x4 ? x2 ) ? x3 + @ 2 x_ + @2 x_ +
@x 2 @x 4
@2 (i)
(i?1) yd (23)
1 d 2 4 i=1 @yd

4 4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC'97)

where c3 > 0 and: motion model (10) should be augmented to:
 
@2
= ? 1 1 + c c ? s U 2 s2 x_ 1 = U cos(x4 ? x2 ) + 1
@x1 Usx 1 2
(x1 + Rd )2 x x_ 2 = x3 (26)
@2 = cx (?z ? c z x_ 3 = ax3 + 2 + b
@x2 Us2x 1 2 2
U
?s x1 U+ R s2x (x4 ? x2 ) ? c1 Ucx
2
x_ 4 = ?s sin(x4 ? x2 )
d
x1 + Rd
_1 = _2 = 0
+c1 y_d + yd ? c1 ? c2 + s x +U R 2cx )
1 d
@2 = cx (z + c z + s U 2 s2 + c Uc where 1 denotes the velocity oset and 2 de-
@x4 Us2x 1 2 2 x1 + Rd x 1 x notes the rudder oset. Introducing osets into
the system equations implies that the stability
?c1 y_d ? yd ? c1 ? c2 + s x1 +U Rd 2cx ) proof should be performed with a new denition
@2 = 1 (1 + c c ) of the state variable z1, that is z10 given by (25).
@yd Usx 1 2 Hence, it can be shown that z10 ; z2 and z3 converge
@2 = 1 (c + c ) to zero. Hence:
@ y_ d Usx 1 2 Zt
@2
= Us1 z10 = 0 =) z1 +  z1 dt = 0 (27)
@ yd x 0

where cx = cos(x4 ? x2 ) and sx = sin(x4 ? x2 ). Moreover x1 = R~ converges to yd. It should be

The expression for V_3 is: noted that the price for changing the control vari-
ables from (z1 ; z2 ; z3 ) to (z10 ; z2; z3 ) is that only
V_3 = ?c1 z12 ? c2 z22 ? c3 z32 < 0; 8zi 6= 0 (24) convergence can be guaranteed even thought the
original system (system without integral action)
The error system can be written as: was exponential stable.
" #
?c1 1 0
z_ = ?1 ?c2 U sin(x4 ? x2 ) z
0 ?U sin(x4 ? x2 ) ?c3 6. SIMULATION STUDIES
where z = [z1 ; z2 ; z3 ]T . If x4 ? x2 =
? = The simulations were performed on a stable ship
k; k 2 f0; 1; 2; : : :g the control law is not (Fossen, 1994; pp. 173) with a = ?0:017 (1/s)
dened. However, this is not a practical prob- and b = 0:002 (1/s2). Euler's method was used
lem since during tracking on a circle
? = for numerical integration with time step 0.1 sec-
k + =2; k 2 f0; 1; 2; : : :g, see Figure 4. It onds. The controller parameters were chosen
is unlikely that the ship will be in the singular as c1 = c2 = 1 and c3 = 10. The ship was pro-
conguration
? = k, k 2 f0; 1; 2; : : :g grammed to perform a right-hand 90 degrees turn
during normal operation. Since V_ is negative with turning radius Rcom = 400 m. Figure 6
denite for all values x 2 IR4 ? fxj
? = kg, shows the xy-plot of the ship's path through the
k 2 f0; 1; 2; : : :g it is straightforward to show,
by applying Lyapunov stability theory (Khalil,
1996), that the equilibrium point z = 0 is ex-
ponentially stable.
5. EXTENSIONS TO INTEGRAL ACTION
turning maneuver. The dashed circle arc indicates
the prescribed path versus the real path. The
radial deviation between the paths is shown in
the upper plot of Figure 6. It shows, as pointed
out before, that the circle center of the real path
is shifted by some meters compared to the pre-
scribed circle path. This is due to the time it
takes to accelerate the ship into the appropriate
yaw rate. The lower plot, however, shows the ra-
dial variable x1 which indicates the real tracking
Integral action can be obtained by redening the
tracking error z1 as:
Zt
z10 = z1 +  z1 dt; z1 = x 1 ? y d
0
The further development of the control law will
follow the same procedure as in Section 4. Slowly-
varying sea currents, wind and wave disturbances
can then be modeled as o-sets to the system
equations in (10). This implies that the radial
4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC'97)
error.
Integral Action. The integrator design parameter
was chosen as  = 0:1, and the ship was pro-
(25) grammed to perform a 90 degrees right-hand turn
with a turning radius of 400 m.
The plot of x1 = R~ in Figure 9 shows that inte-
gral action makes the tracking error vanish. The
rudder bias in steady state compensates for the
constant rudder oset.
5
 0

−2
800

[m]
−4

600 −6

Lattitude [m]
−8
0 50 100 150 200 250
400 Time [sec]
−4
x 10
1

200 0.5

[m]
0
0
−0.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Longitude [m]
−1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time[sec]

Fig. 6. The ship's path through the turn (x0 =

390; y0 = 400). The intersections between the Fig. 8. Top: the radial deviation from the prescribed
solid lines and the path mark the WOPs. The path. Bottom: the radial control variable x1 .
dotted line marks the WOPin while the dashed
line marks the WOPout . The dashed circle arc 0.2

shows the prescribed path through the turn. 0

[m]
−0.2
100

−0.4
[deg]

50
−0.6
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time[sec]
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [sec] 40
1.5
30
[deg/sec]

1
20
[deg]

0.5 10

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [sec] −10
50
−20
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [sec]
[deg]

Fig. 9. Integral action from t = 35 sec. Top: the

−50
0 50
Fig. 7. Top: the heading angle . Middle: the yaw
rate r. Bottom: the rudder angle .
7. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper an exponentially stable way-point
tracking control law for ships has been de-
rived. The control law was derived by using the
backstepping design methodology and Lyapunov
methods. The controller parameters proved to
be easy to tune. In order to handle environmen-
tal disturbances integral action has been included.
Extensions to output feedback control can be done
by applying the observer backstepping approach
of Fossen and Grvlen (1997).
8. REFERENCES
Fossen, T. I. (1994). Guidance an Control of
Ocean Vehicles. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fossen, T. I. and 
A. Grvlen (1997). Nonlinear
output feedback control of dynamically posi-
radial variable x1 that indicates the oset to
100 150 200 250
Time [sec]
the circle arc. Bottom: the rudder angle .
tioned ships using vectorial observer backstep-
ping. To appear in the IEEE Transactions on
Control Systems Technology.
Godhavn, J.-M. (1996). Nonlinear tracking of un-
deractuated surface vessels. In: Proceedings of
the 35th Conference on Decision and Control
(CDC'96). pp. 975{981.
Holzhuter, T. and R. Schultze (1995). Operat-
ing experience with a high precision track con-
troller for commercial ships. In: Proc. of the
3rd IFAC Workshop on Control Applications in
Marine Systems (CAMS'98). pp. 270{277.
Khalil, H. K. (1996). Nonlinear Systems. Macmil-
lan.
Krstic, M., I. Kanellakopoulos and P. Kokotovic
(1995). Nonlinear and Adaptiv Control Design.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Nomoto, K., T. Taguchi, K. Honda and S. Hi-
rano (1957). On the steering qualities of ships.
Technical report. International Shipbuilding
Progress, Vol. 4.

6 4th IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft (MCMC'97)