A FRESH VIEW ON PROPULSION CONTROL (II)

Douwe Stapersma, Arthur Vrijdag, Netherlands Defence Academy,

Hugo Grimmelius, Delft University of Technology,
The Netherlands

ABSTRACT
This paper explores the development of propulsion control systems on board RNLN warships since the advent of gas
turbine driven ships and Controllable Pitch Propellers in the 1970'ties. The requirements for finding new ways of control
with more emphasis on real operational conditions that came from both industry and the Navy are explained. An overview
is given of the research that followed with the successes but also with the inevitable blind alleys that we were entrapped in.
The paper reflects on the deeper differences between the control system proposed and tested recently and the classical
systems that have served us for many years. Also the paper gives an outlook what needs to be done in order to make the step
from proof-of-principle to commercial realisation.

KEY WORDS
Propulsion dynamics, Propulsion Control System, Controllable Pitch Propeller,

1. INTRODUCTION propeller pitch (combinator curve). Due to the lack of a

In an earlier paper (Stapersma [12]) the authors were
looking for radically new ways of using controllable pitch
propellers in ship propulsion control systems. After two
PhD research projects (Schulten [14], Vrijdag [22]) the
authors will look back on the original ideas and present
their present view along with a summary of the findings of
the two PhD projects. As such this paper gives an account
of almost 10 years of research on the dynamics of ship
propulsion carried out by Delft University of Technology
(TUDELFT) and Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA)
in conjunction with The Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN),
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN),
Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands (WPNL) and IMTECH.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPULSION
CONTROL SYSTEMS OVER TIME
The propulsion control systems as presently used onboard
RNLN warship originated in the 1970'ties and came about
simultaneously with the change from steam to gas turbines,
i.e. with the introduction of the COGOG Tromp and
Kortenaer class of frigates, Sanden [1], Toorn [2], Berg
[4]. For the first time they featured integrated control of
the gas turbines, the controllable pitch and clutches in the
gearbox with remote supervision from the Technical
Control Center (where the system physically was located)
and single lever control from the bridge. The “single lever”
took in our ships the form of “digital pushbutton control”
of a virtual shaft speed which still is a unique feature of
Dutch frigates. The sequential control of starting/stopping
of the gas turbines and change over from main to cruising
gas turbines and vice versa as developed then are still in
use although the hardware changed from solid state
electronics to microcomputers. According to Sanden [3]
the control of power was realized by translating the virtual
shaft speed command into setpoints for shaft speed and
governor on aero derived gas turbines, power and thus ship
speed was controlled primarily by a set of fuel schedules
(feed forward control). These schedules were influenced
by the actual propeller pitch during manoeuvres. Feed back
control of actual shaft speed consisted of a differentiating
action to control the shaft speed during transients and an
integrating action to achieve the combinator curve in
stationary operation. Excessive thrust and torque during
slam accelerations were prevented by introducing pitch
rate of change as a control variable, according to Berg [4].
A version for a CODAG frigate was developed in the same
era for the Indonesian Navy where for the first time the
limitations of the modern turbocharged diesel engine were
encountered. As a result of the presence of a governor on
the diesel engines the fuel schedules could be avoided but
now during transients the propeller pitch rate had to be
controlled in order not to exceed the torque limitations of
the diesel engines.
Ideas on (cavitation) noise optimisation resulted in an
experimental VS4 installation (Mulder [5]) on board of
one of the S-frigates. Apart from noise sensors, this
installation also featured a thrust sensor and a hub mounted
electrical pitch measurement. The measured noise was fed
into an optimisation program that used a steepest descent
algorithm to iteratively determine the pitch offset for
minimum noise. At the same time a correction was added
to the governor setpoint to ensure that the average thrust
was maintained. The experiments were only partly
successful and the VS4 installation was removed
afterwards.
The CODOG driven M-frigates originally had the same
type of propulsion algorithms (without VS4) although now
implemented in a computer and being part of an
Integrating Monitorng & Control System (IMCS) with
Local Control Units (LCU's), the Automatic Propulsion
Control System (APCS) being just such an LCU and now
being located in the engine rooms near the machinery.
Problems with the very narrow operating envelope of the
diesel engines later resulted in the introduction of
sophisticated (fuzzy control) rate limiters of the pitch
including active pitch reduction of which a short
description can be found in Vrijdag [22].
project (DYLOPROPS) aiming at a better understanding of
the dynamic loading of CPP's in seaway, understand the
possible wear effects in the propeller hub and thinking
about improving the control of CPP's. The effects of
different control schemes on sailing in seaway were
investigated in Grimmelius [7], [8], [11], Spronsen [11]
and Dallinga [19].
Command

In fact in the classic systems the static control was Engine Propulsion Pitch
Control Control Control
achieved by setpoint generators (combinator curves) for System System System
shaft speed and/or fuel flow and for propeller pitch. Disturbances

Dynamically the problem always has been that the speed f

x
θ θ
setpoint and/or fuel flow could be changed much faster M shaft M prop β β F p ro p F s h ip
Diesel Eng Propeller Propeller Ship
than the propeller pitch. Together with the fact that the Gas turbine Torque Thrust Resistance
+ - + -
shaft speed loop in the overall propulsion system is much n n va n va
vs
faster than the ship speed loop this led to ever more
complicated rate control of the setpoints, not only the rate 1 1 Ship
Rotor
Dynamics 2 πI ∫ m∫
translation
of the propeller setpoint (although for controlling the load β
Dynamics

this is the most important one) but also the rate of change n va vs
÷
n
of the fuel flow setpoint and/or the rate of change of the 1-w

closed loop control speed setting.

Disturbances

3. ISSUES DURING REAL

Fig 1 Generic block diagram of propulsion system with
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS command tracking input and disturbance input on
The classic systems were designed and optimised for the ship resistance and propeller inflow
linear accelerations (slam acceleration and crash stop). multiple input
Real operational conditions however stipulate that also the
effects of heavy seaway and for warships of course sharp
turns are an essential requirement of military missions. But
MOBILITY
the effects on mechanical and thermal overload of the CONTROL SYSTEM
engine then are quite complicated, not only because the
extra load required for the driving the propeller in these
conditions (seaway and turn) is not so easy to predict but
also since it is not so easy to define what exactly the SHIP MOVEMENT
mechanical and thermal limits are for diesel engines, gas ACTIVE FORCES surge VELOCITY INDUCED
yaw
turbines and for that matter electric motors. Of these the propulsion
rotor dynamics
sway
FORCES
rudder forces
roll
modern turbocharged diesel engine is the most delicate. propulsor
pitch hull forces
heave

A systematic and modular way of modelling the

propulsion system was initiated in Stapersma [6] with an
emphasis not only on command tracking but also on
disturbance rejection, see Fig 1. In Schulten [10] the
propulsion system of Fig 1 was presented as part of an
even more general ship mobility model, see Fig 2, which is
now the basis of all ship modelling activities at TUDELFT
and NLDA.
It was realised that seaway not only disturbs the ship
resistance but more importantly cause ship movements and
also orbital velocities in the water near the propeller. These
two effects result in a net disturbance to the inflow of the
water into the propeller. This directly influences propeller
thrust and torque, the latter being right in the middle of the
shaft speed loop. This caused Wärtsilä Propulsion to invite
MARIN, TUDelft and NLDA to embark on a research
DISTURBANCES
wind
waves
Fig 2 Ship mobility concept
The effects of sailing in a turn were presented in Schulten
[13]. The manoeuvring in a turn together with the
development of an advanced model of a diesel engine was
the topic of a PhD research (Schulten [14]). The
manoeuvring model was an existing model (FRESIM)
developed by MARIN for the RNLN. This model was
enhanced by a hypothesis for the crossflow velocity
distribution in the propeller plane during a turn and the
associated load increase on both propellers. This could 4. IDEAS ON PROPULSION CONTROL
explain the difference in loading between the inner and
In the middle of the developments described in the
outer shaft, see Schulten [14]. The diesel engine model
previous section the authors took time to reflect, Stapersma
(Grimmelius [18]) was a mean value first principle model
[12]. The main considerations were:
developed to answer the questions raised with respect to
thermal and mechanical overload. Already in Grimmelius - The core propulsion system has two controlling
[8] and [11] some wear parameters were proposed that can variables, fuel flow/rack and propeller pitch (being the
be used to weigh these wear effects during the design of a output of a hydraulic servo system). When combined to
control system. a single lever command the simplest control arises: no
(feed back) control: see Fig 3.
But since all these proposals entailed a more liberal use of
- The core propulsion system has at least two state
the propeller pitch control, research was undertaken to
variables, shaft speed and ship speed see block diagram
improve the band width of the actuating system of the
Fig 1
present controllable pitch propellers (Wesselink [16]).
Also a broad research of wear mechanisms in controllable
pitch propellers was started (Godjevac, [17]). This research Command
is focused on sliding wear and fretting phenomena
(Godjevac [24]) in the blade foot bearing and will result in
a PhD thesis end of 2009.

In the meantime Vrijdag [15] proposed that a faster pitch fdem Input θdem
Demand
control in principle could contribute to avoid cavitation System
and as such lower the cavitation noise during operational
conditions in particular in seaway, but also during
manoeuvring: straight sailing or in a turn. This caused the fset θset
RNLN together with the Australian and Canadian Navy to
actuator actuator
embark on a project (Propulsion Control for High
Cavitation Inception Speed: PCS4HICIS) in which the f θ
operation of such a control system had to be demonstrated
Propulsion Plant
on board a frigate. The project was managed by MARIN
who also was responsible for organising the full scale y1 yn
trials. Wärtsilä Propulsion and IMTECH were the
industrial partners. The results were presented in Vrijdag Fig 3 No Control
[20], [21] and [23]. The actual controller development took
place in a PhD project that was running parallel (Vrijdag
[22]).
Command Command

n ndem Input θdem fdem Input ndem n

Demand Demand
- + System System + -
controller controller

fset θset fset θset

actuator actuator actuator actuator

f θ f θ

Propulsion Plant Propulsion Plant

n n

Fig 4 Shaft speed control by fuel rack (left) or pitch (right)

- By adding a speed governor the speed setting replaces Command
fuel flow/rack as a controlling variable, see Fig 4 left.
Fuel rack/flow now could be disturbed severely but
pitch remains unchanged. This is the classic solution.
- In principle a speed governor could replace the pitch
setting as a controlling variable: see Fig 4 right. In n ndem KT,dem KT
Input
Grimmelius [11] it was shown that this could be Demand
beneficial for seaway as the pitch takes the disturbance + System + -
and the fuel rack will be constant. In Stapersma [12] it
controller controller
was concluded that command tracking could be
difficult. fset θset
- Two controlling parameters make it possible in actuator actuator
principle to have two controlled variables and a host of
f θ
candidate variables were considered. A requirement is
that one of the two parameters should be Propulsion Plant
"commanding", i.e. that one parameter must be
proportional with ship speed in a monotonous manner. n KT
- It was felt that a parameter characterising the propeller
operating point should be included. Cavitation buckets Fig 5 Shaft speed control by fuel rack, KT control by
tend to be depicted versus non-dimensional thrust pitch
coefficient:
T
KT = The block diagrams shown in Fig 4 (left) of course is
ρ ⋅ n 2 ⋅ D4
incomplete and only shows the crude principles of the
Therefore this variable seemed a logical choice present control systems. The actual implementation of the
although measuring thrust was considered not all that classical propulsion control would look like the block
easy. When combined with a classic speed governor diagram in Fig 6 (left), showing not only the combinator
the scheme shown in Fig 5 emerges and this was found curve and the (for a diesel engine separate) governor speed
satisfactory in Stapersma [12] for linear acceleration. It control but also the main functions of the Propulsion
was further researched in Schulten [14] for a turn Control system itself, i.e the setpoint generation for the
where it was found that in order to maintain KT governor and the rate limiter of the propeller pitch. For a
constant the pitch was reduced severely resulting in a gas turbine the governor function is part of the PCS and its
large speed loss during the turn. This was quite output is fused with the fuel schedule, the latter also being
beneficial for the thermal loading of the diesel engine. the output of the combinator curve, see Fig 6 (right)

Command Command
θ Propulsion ndem Input θdem θ Propulsion ndem Input θdem
Control Demand Control Demand
System System System System

nset θrate nset θrate fdem

+ n
+
n
- -
controller
controller
+
fset θrate θset fset + θrate θset
actuator actuator actuator actuator

f θ f θ

Propulsion Plant Propulsion Plant

n n
θ θ

Fig 6 Actual scheme of classical propulsion control for diesel engine drive (left) and gas turbine drive (right)
5. ESTIMATION OF ANGLE OF ATTACK But what is the meaning of this J-value? The mean or calm
water advance coefficient is:
Although the idea to have at least one propeller non-
dimensional parameter as a controlled variable was good,
vA vA 2π ⋅ r
the choice of KT was not. The advance coefficient J was J= = ⋅
rejected because it was then thought that information of the n ⋅ D 2π ⋅ n ⋅ r D
angle of attack i.e. of the propeller load was insufficient,
citing from Stapersma [12]: In analogy a local advance coefficient could be written as:

"At first the advance coefficient or the angle of the flow at v a ,local 2π ⋅ r
J local = ⋅
some distance of the blade seems logical: v t ,local D
vA
J= The axial and tangential wake velocities have a mean
n ⋅D (calm water) component and disturbances:
 vA   J 
β = arctg  = arctg 
 0.7 ⋅ π ⋅ n ⋅ D   0.7 ⋅ π  v a ,local = v A + ∆v a, wake distr + ∆v a ,seaway
But these are not a measure of the angle of attack and that
for two reasons. First for that purpose the pitch angle must v t ,local = 2π ⋅ (n + ∆n ) ⋅ r + ∆v t,wake distr + ∆v t ,seaway
be subtracted (which could be done) and secondly it is the
variations of the advance velocity that are causing the all Then also the local J can be written as a mean (calm water)
important load variation of the propeller blade. Now component and a disturbance
although these wake speed variations can, given the sea
state, be predicted nowadays with advanced software, it J local = J + ∆J
seems far away to measure these speeds continuously on
board for the purpose of control. But the effect of angle of After some algebra:
attack (and thus initiation of cavitation) perhaps can be
deduced from a torque or thrust coefficient".
∆J =
1
n⋅D
( )
⋅ ∆va, wake distr + ∆va ,seaway −
J
2π ⋅ n ⋅ r
( ) J
⋅ ∆v t, wake distr + ∆v t , seaway − ⋅ ∆n
n
So that is how we arrived at KT. The hint to look at angle
of attack was taken up by Vrijdag [20]: Now the tangential velocities change during one
revolution, i.e. are shaft frequent, they will cancel out in
It can be derived that the local angle of attack contains the mean value and essentially (as was shown by Schulten
pitch θ, flow angle β and a correction for the shock free [14]) will cause a shift of the KT-J diagram and thus an
entry angle αi as follows: error. Also the circumferential distribution of the axial
wake is shaft frequent. Neglecting the error one still is able
α eff = θ − β − α i to observe the variations in J due to axial flow variations
caused by seaway and the resulting response of the shaft
Working this out gives: speed:
~
 P   c1 ⋅ v A  J = J + ∆J meas
α eff = arctan 0.7⋅R  − arctan  − αi
 0. 7 ⋅ π ⋅ D   0.7 ⋅ π ⋅ n ⋅ D 
144 42444 3 144424443 with:
θ β

The shock free entry angle αi is is dependent on camber ∆J meas =

1
n ⋅D
( J
)
⋅ ∆v a ,seaway − ⋅ ∆n
n
and on induced velocities near the leading edge while
constant c1 is a correction factor that can be used for In the end the advance velocity, including information
tuning.. about seaway is:
Also the suggestion that wake speed or for that matter ~ ~
vA = J ⋅ n ⋅ D
advance velocity vA could not be measured for control
purposes proved not true. This could be solved if one is
ready to believe that the propeller characteristics and in Last but not least speed alone is not commanding, certainly
particular the KT-J diagram (for all pitch values) may be not when pitch is allowed to vary in order to control a
used also in dynamic conditions. Then by measuring thrust propeller parameter. But then one should recall the virtual
(which can be done after all), shaft speed and pitch, the KT shaft speed already used from the beginning which is
value can be calculated and then the value of J be read "commanding". Citing from Vrijdag [20]:
from the open water propeller diagram.
"The single lever command should have the property that
it allows intuitive use and it should be monotonously
increasing with ship speed. In the Royal Netherlands Navy Command
commands on the bridge are given in terms of the virtual θ + nvirt,dem
Virtual - Data
shaft speed setpoint. This virtual setpoint is a virtual Shaft
nvirt Base
speed
number (in rpm) that has the property described above. n
controller αdem +
For the ship under consideration the so-called virtual shaft - alfa
n
- + set
estimator
speed nvirt is given by: α
n n
θ
θ − θ0
controller controller
T
n virt = ⋅n fset θset
θ nom − θ 0 actuator actuator

f θ
where θ0 is the zero thrust pitch-angle and θnom is the
nominal pitch angle, while ' n' represents the actual shaft Propulsion Plant
speed. Onboard, the actual realised virtual rpm is n
constantly calculated and presented via measurement of θ
pitch and shaft speed via above formula". T

But that means that the pitch actions to optimise angle of
attack must be compensated such that virtual shaft speed
will be maintained. The result will be that the rigid choice
of the combinator curve (i.e. combinations of shaft speed
and pitch) will effectively be replaced by an adaptive
control.
The principle of the control system as it was tested on
board an M-frigate is shown in Fig 7. On the right hand
side the measured thrust T, shaft speed n and propeller
pitch θ are fed into the alfa estimator incorporating
calculation of KT, reading of J, calculation of vA and
subsequently α. During the tests the data base was simply
the estimated middle of the cavitation bucket, but given
more knowledge this could be expanded to a sophisticated
database that could be dependent on more inputs. The
controller for the setpoint of propeller pitch was a simple
proportional controller with gain Kp, calculating a
correction of the propeller pitch to be added to the actual
pitch.
Fig 7 Propulsion control according to Vrijdag [22]
The results of the control system are presented in Vrijdag
[21], [22] and [23]. In general it can be concluded that:
- Cavitation during linear acceleration and deceleration
is almost completely avoided in the relevant ship speed
domain.
- Cavitation in seaway slightly improved but since the
bandwidth of the hydraulic servo system was not yet
increased more improvement is to be expected.
- By proper tuning of KP and Ki the trajectory through
the engine characteristic was such that the diesel engine
was not overloaded
- The α-control of the pitch also prevented windmill
during deceleration
- In case of resistance increase through seaway or sailing
in a turn, pitch is reduced automatically and shaft speed
is automatically increased..

In Fig 7 on the left hand side the actual shaft speed 'n' and
propeller pitch θ serve to calculate the actual virtual shaft
speed which is compared to the demanded value and fed
into a controller to generate a shaft speed setpoint for the
governor. During the test this was a simple integrating
controller with gain Ki to calculate a shaft speed
increment. For the initial value of this integrator still the
"old" combinator curve was used (not shown in Fig 7).
Tuning of KP and Ki determines torque and speed of the
engine and therefore the trajectory through the driver
characteristic.
When one compares Fig 7 with the classic control in Fig 6,
apart form the active control of propeller pitch by the α-
estimator, the combinator curve effectively has
disappeared and is replaced by the virtual shaft speed error
feeding a controller.
Where in the classical control system a host of fuzzy
function blocks were required to fulfill all these tasks, in
the new control system the two controllers carry out all
jobs at once.
6. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The driver of the propeller shaft (diesel engine, gas turbine
or electric motor) "feels" the propeller law or stated in
terms of non-dimensional propeller quantities, is sensitive
to the instantaneous value of torque coefficient:
Q
KQ =
ρ ⋅ n 2 ⋅ D5
It could be considered to calculate KQ from a measurement
of torque and speed and somehow adapt KP and Ki. In
general the two controllers need to be optimized and
proper stability checks need to be carried out. Also the
database for the demanded value of α must be filled and be
expanded with hydrodynamic knowledge.
NOMENCLATURE
When sailing at high virtual shaft speed the α-estimator D Diameter propeller
could reduce pitch such that shaft speed needs to be higher f fuel rack
than maximum speed: then the situation is too "heavy" to J Advance coefficient
maintain demanded virtual shaft speed. When sailing at Ki Gain integrator action
low virtual shaft speed and the α-estimator still requiring Kp Gain proportional action
relatively high pitch, the required shaft speed needs to be KQ Torque coefficient
lower than minimum speed. Then either the demanded KT Thrust coefficient
virtual shaft speed cannot be achieved or the ideal angle of n rotational (shaft) speed
attack must be given up. P Propeller pitch
Q Torque
Somewhat more radical: in the present control of the diesel
R Outer radius propeller
engine there is still a governor. Wouldn't it be possible to
r radius
get away with the governor and rely on fuel (rack)
T Thrust
schedules as used in aero derived gas turbines? This could
v velocity
be beneficial for fuel saving but also for emissions and
vA Advance velocity
probably also for engine wear.
va axial velocity
The control scheme for sailing on main gas turbines still vt tangential velocity
has to be developed where it must be decided to maintain
the primarily fuel scheduled control as shown in the right α Angle of attack
hand side of Fig 6 or rely on closed loop shaft speed β Flow angle
control as for the diesel engine (the latter as said having θ Pitch angle
disadvantages for fuel consumption and emissions) ρ Seawater density
Furthermore a gas turbine can withstand much larger
torque deviations (or deviations of non-dimensional KQ), dem demand
but of course the excess thrust (or deviations of non- eff effective
dimensional KT) could well be the determining factor. nom nominal
set setpoint
On the hardware side there need to be some major virt virtual
developments before the system can be supplied 0 zero
commercially:
ABBREVIATIONS
- Improvement of bandwidth of CPP hydraulics
APCS Automatic Propulsion Control System
- Further development of thrust sensor
CODOG Combined Diesel or Gas Turbine
CODAG Combined Diesel and Gas Turbine
7. CONCLUSIONS COGOG Combined Gas turbine or Gas Turbine
In general the authors believe that no design of control CPP Controllable Pitch Propeller
systems is possible without going back to first principles, ICMS Integrated Control & monitoring System
in this case propeller hydrodynamics. DYLOPROPS Dynamic Load on Propellers
LCU Local Control Unit
Controlling the effective angle of attack of the propeller is MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
an effective way to simultaneously decrease propeller NLDA Netherlands Defence Academy
cavitation, prevent engine overloading and to improve PCS Propulsion Control System
manoeuvring behaviour. This can be realised without the PCS4HiCIS PCS for high Cavitation Inception Speed
original complexity of a lot of fuzzy function blocks. RNLN Royal Netherlands Navy
TUDelft Delft University of Technology
The proof-of-concept of this system was tested full scale, WPNL Wärtsilä Propulsion Netherlands
the way to commercial production lies ahead.
REFERENCES [16] Wesselink, A.F., Stapersma, D., Bosch, D. van den
Teerhuis, P.C., Non-linear aspects of propeller pitch
[1] Sanden, J. van, Propulsion Control and automation on
control WMTC - INEC 2006, IMarEst, London, May
board GM frigates of the RNN, Proceedings of the 3rd
2006.
Ship Control Systems Symposium. 1973, Bath, UK.
[17] Godjevac, M., Grimmelius, H.T, Stapersma, D., Beek,
[2] Toorn, C. van der, Control arrangements of the main
T. van, Wear mechanisms of blade foot bearing on
propulsion machinery on board GM frigates of the
controllable pitch propeller, WMTC - INEC 2006,
RNN, Proceedings of the 3rd Ship Control Systems
IMarEst, London, May 2006.
Symposium. 1973, Bath, UK.
[18] Grimmelius, H.T., Mesbahi, E., Schulten, P.J.M.,
[3] Sanden, J. van, Automatisering van voortstuwings-
Stapersma, D., The use of Diesel engine simulation
systemen (in Dutch), unpublished (?), 1972 (?).
models in ship propulsion plant design and operation,
[4] Berg, F.J van den, Brink, J, Toorn, C. van der,
CIMAC Conference, Vienna, May 2007.
Development of a modern remote control system for
[19] [Dallinga, R.P, Walree, F van, Grin, R.A., Koning, J.,
the RNN GM frigates, Proceedings of the 4th Ship
Sea keeping issues in the design of containerships,
Control Systems Symposium. 1976, The Hague, The
RINA Conference Design & Operation of
Netherlands.
containerships, 2008, London.
[5] Mulder., E. de, Nies, J. de, Experience with an
[20] Vrijdag, A., Stapersma, D., Terwisga, T. van,
exploratory noise optimization control and an
Tradeoffs in ship propulsion control: engine
electrical pitch measurement system. Proceedings of
overloading and cavitation inception in operational
the 8th Ship Control Systems Symposium. 1987, The
conditions. Proceedings of the 9th International Naval
Hague, the Netherlands.
Engineering Conference (INEC 2008). pp 82-93.
[6] Stapersma, D., Interaction between propulsor and
[21] Vrijdag, A., Stapersma, D., Terwisga, T. van, Control
engine, 34th Wegemt School on developments in the
of propeller Cavitation in Operational Conditions.
design of propulsors and propulsion systems, June
Proceedings of the World Maritime Technology
2000, Delft, The Netherlands
Conference 2009, Mumbai, India.
[7] Grimmelius, H.T., Stapersma, D., Control
[22] Vrijdag, A. Control of Propeller Cavitation in
optimisation and load prediction for marine diesel
Operational Conditions. PhD-thesis, Technical
engines using a mean value simulation model,
University Delft, The Netherlands. 2009. ISBN 978-
Environment & Sustainability, ENSUS 2000,
90-6562-202-0.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, September 2000
[23] Vrijdag, A., Stapersma, D., Grimmelius, H.T., Control
[8] Grimmelius, H.T., Stapersma, D., The impact of
of propeller Cavitation during a decelaration. 14th Ship
propulsion plant control on diesel engine thermal
Systems Control Symposium 2009, Ottawa, Canada.
loading, CIMAC Conference, Hamburg, May 2001
[24] Godjevac, M., Beek, T. van, Grimmelius, H.T, Tinga,
[9] P.J. van Spronsen, R.L Tousain, A Control Solution to
T., Stapersma, D., Prediction of Fretting Motion in a
Marine Diesel Engine Overloading aboard Karel
Controllable Pitch Propeller During Service, To be
Doorman Class Frigates, Proc. of CAMS, Glasgow,
published in Journal of Marine Engineering &
UK, 2001.
Technology (JMET), IMarEST.
[10] Schulten, P.J.M., Stapersma, D., Vermeulen, A.F.,
The classification and identification of a ship mobility
model, 13th Ship Control Systems Symposium,
Orlando, Florida, April 2003
[11] Grimmelius, H.T., Stapersma, D., Analysis of the
impact of control strategy on internal component
loading for a ship propulsion plant, 13th Ship Control
Systems Symposium, Orlando, Florida, April 2003
[12] Stapersma, D., Schulten, P.J.M., Grimmelius, H.T., A
fresh view on propulsion control, INEC2004;
Amsterdam, 2004.
[13] Schulten, P.J.M., Toxopeus, S.L., Stapersma, D.,
Propeller -diesel engine interaction in a turn, 7th INEC
Conference, Amsterdam, March 2004.
[14] Schulten, P.J.M., The interaction between diesel
engines, ship and propeller during manoeuvring, PhD
thesis TUDelft, 23 May 2005, ISBN 90-407-2579-9
[15] Vrijdag, A., Stapersma, D., Terwisga, T. van,
Cavitation Inception in operational conditions,
COMPIT 2005 proceedings, Hamburg, Germany.
BIOGRAPHY AND CONTACT
INFORMATION Presented at the Fourteenth International Ship Control
Systems Symposium (SCSS) in Ottawa, Canada, on 21-
Douwe Stapersma graduated in 23 September 2009.
1973 at Delft University of
Technology in the field of gas
turbines, joined NEVESBU - a
design bureau for naval ships - and
was involved in the design and
engineering of the machinery
installation of the Standard frigate.
After that he co-ordinated the
integration of the automatic propulsion control system for
a class of export corvettes. From 1980 onward he was
responsible for the design and engineering of the
machinery installation of the Walrus class submarines and
in particular the machinery automation. After that he was
in charge of the design of the Moray class submarines in a
joint project organisation with RDM. Nowadays he is
professor of Marine Engineering at the Netherlands
Defence Academy and of Marine Diesel Engines at Delft
University of Technology. Douwe Stapersma can be
reached at D.Stapersma@nlda.nl

Hugo T. Grimmelius obtained a

bachelor’s degree in Marine
Engineering in 1986, and sailed on
merchant ships as engineer for a
short period. In 1992, he graduated
from Delft University of
Technology in Marine Engineering,
on a thesis on condition monitoring
and obtained his PhD on the same
subject. In 1996, he became
assistant professor Marine Engineering at the Delft
University. He published over 40 papers on various Marine
Engineering topics. Hugo can be reached at
h.t.grimmelius@tudelft.nl

Arthur Vrijdag graduated from the

Royal Netherlands Naval College
in 2004 and in the same year he
obtained his masters degree in
ship hydromechanics at Delft
University of Technology. He has
recently finished his PhD thesis
titled ‘Control of Propeller
Cavitation in Operational
Conditions2.’ The associated
research project was sponsored by the Netherlands
Defence Academy and Delft University of Technology and
carried out in close cooperation with the Royal
Netherlands Navy, Defence Research and Development
Canada, the Royal Australian Navy, Wärtsilä Propulsion
Netherlands, IMTECH and MARIN. Arthur currently
works at Rolls-Royce Naval, Bristol, UK and can be
contacted via arthur.vrijdag@rolls-royce.com