See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335978147

Rudder roll damping and ship heading control using a model predictive
control algorithm

Conference Paper · October 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 264

2 authors:

Hossein Nejatbakhsh Esfahani Rafal Szlapczynski

Clemson University Gdansk University of Technology
33 PUBLICATIONS 234 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 1,542 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hossein Nejatbakhsh Esfahani on 22 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rudder roll damping and ship heading control using a model predictive
control algorithm
H. N. Esfahani & R. Szlapczynski
Faculty of Ocean Engineering and Ship Technology, Gdansk University of Technology, Gdansk, Poland

ABSTRACT: Rudder Roll Stabilization (RRS) of ships is a difficult problem because of its non-linear
dynamics, coupling effects and complex control requirements. This work proposes a Discrete-Time Model
Predictive Control (DTMPC) algorithm to deal with the roll damping and input constraints. The aim of the
proposed DTMPC-RSS is controlling ship heading and reducing roll motion simultaneously using one control
input signal by changing the rudder angle. The proposed algorithm is compared with a conventional PID-RRS
and the advantages of DTMPC are presented. Based on simulation results for the proposed control approach,
it is demonstrated that the input constraints are totally fulfilled while the stability of the ship can be
guaranteed under this condition. Also, depicted results show an accurate trajectory tracking of the yaw angle
for the proposed rudder roll damping and heading control in comparison with the PID-RRS.

1 INTRODUCTION (FGS)-PID has more ability to adapt to the

As a ship motion in ocean environment is taken
into account as a resonant system, it deals with a
large roll magnitude. The roll motion is regarded as
an undesired degree of freedom in a ship. Indeed this
induced movement creates an uncomfortable
situation for the passengers as well as can lead to
damages in a container ship or even to a loss of
stability. In order to reduce the roll motion, ships are
often equipped with stabilizer systems such as anti-
rolling tanks, fin stabilizers and rudder roll
stabilizers. The rudder based control system in ship,
which is regarded as an underactuated platform, is
commonly used to keep a desired course. Regarding
a safe navigation system for ships, plenty researches
have been conducted over the past years. Most of
them proposed some algorithms in terms of collision
avoidance and decision support systems (Perera et
al. 2015) and (Perera et al. 2012). However, the role
of control algorithms should be also taken into
account in designing a safe navigation system. A
Rudder Roll Stabilization (RSS) is adopted as a
control algorithm to control ship heading and reduce
the roll motion simultaneously using one actuator
which is called rudder. As for past research on this
subject, in (Nicolau et al. 2004), a Fuzzy Rudder-
Roll Damping (FRRD) system was designed, which
modified the autopilot commands, so that roll
damping effects to be obtained, with small rudder
angle and rudder rate values. It was shown in
(Santoso et al. 2017) that Fuzzy Gain Scheduling
environmental changes compared to the
conventional PID controller. In (Carletti et al. 2010),
a variable structure control algorithm was adopted.
A multivariable nonlinear model which regarded the
hydrodynamic couplings among sway, roll and yaw
due to both the wave effect and the control devices
was considered. An optimal path following autopilot
with Rudder Roll Reduction (RRR) control was
presented in (Wang et al. 2018).
In this research a concise robust course and RRR
control laws based on Backstepping was proposed
for underactuated ships. Furthermore, a Pareto
multi-objective optimization algorithm was adopted
to achieve optimal performances. In (Ekinci et al.
2010), a neural network (NN) controller was used as
a RRS for the container ship. A factorized Nonlinear
Generalized Minimum Variance (NGMV) control
law was developed in (Liu et al. 2014) for a
combined roll and yaw motion compensation using
rudders and fins. As a constrained control system, a
Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) approach was
presented in (Ghassemi et al. 2016) to optimally
satisfy the operational constraints of the roll motion
including the mechanical fin angle and the
saturations in order to achieve the desired
performance. A research on fin stabilizers was
conducted in (Liang et al. 2017) in which, an
adaptive sliding mode fin stabilizer based on fuzzy
input design was presented, in order to reduce the
roll motion of surface vessel. In (Li et al. 2017) a
sliding mode controller based on the input-output
feedback linearization was designed and applied to
rudder/fin joint roll stabilization control system.
Research on LQR stabilizers also includes an
optimal linear quadratic regulator adopted in
(Shameem et al. 2018), in which the control loop
contains the signal for the autopilot action to trigger
the heading angle correction as well as the signal for
rudder based roll motion control. In (Aliunar et al.
2019), a NN based controller for RRS applied to a
simulated container ship was proposed. In this
design, a single artificial neural network controller
was developed to behave both as a heading and a
roll reduction system. Finally, an exhaustive
overview of roll motion stabilizers was presented in
(Kula et al. 2019).
In the current paper a new solution of the RRS
problem is proposed, which makes use of the MPC Figure 1. Frames for ship motion description (Perez et al. 2002)
algorithm. The MPC algorithm has been known as
an effective approach for the implementation In the conventional surface ships we can generally
simplicity and its optimization capability in presence neglect the pitch and heave motions, then the ship
of constraints. Therefore, a discrete-time MPC modeling can be adopted with only 4-DOF including
algorithm as a RRS in ships is adopted here to surge, sway, yaw and roll motions. Therefore, we
control yaw motion of ships while minimizing roll can describe this model as follows
motion. The rest of this paper is organized as
follows. A mathematical ship modeling is described ∅̇ = p (2)
in the next section. The third section is dedicated to 𝜓̇ = 𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑠(∅) (3)
explain the discrete-time MPC control approach. In
section 4, the computer simulation results are shown 𝑚 0 0 0 𝑢̇ 𝑋
to confirm performance of proposed control and 0 𝑚 −𝑚zG 𝑚xG 𝑣̇ 𝑌
[ ][ ] = [ ]+
finally, the conclusion of this research is provided in 0 −𝑚zG Ixx 0 𝑝̇ 𝐾
5. 0 𝑚xG 0 Izz 𝑟̇ 𝑁
𝑚(𝑣𝑟 + xG 𝑟 2 − zG 𝑝𝑟)
−𝑚𝑢𝑟
2 SHIP MODELING [ ] (4)
𝑚zG 𝑢𝑟
−𝑚xG 𝑢𝑟
The coordinate frames for motion of ship are
depicted in Fig. 1. Let’s define the motion and where, m is the mass of the ship, zG andxG are
velocity vectors 𝜂 = [𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝜙 𝜃 𝜓]𝑇 and positions of the center of gravity in the body-fixed
𝜈 = [𝑢 𝜐 𝜔 𝑝 𝑞 𝑟]𝑇 . Using the Newtonian frame, 𝑢 is the surge velocity, 𝑣 is the sway
approach, the equations of motion of ship in the velocity,𝑝 is the angular velocity of roll, r is the
body-fixed frame are expressed as follows angular velocity of yaw, Izz and Ixx are the inertias
about the z and x axis, ∅ is the roll angle, Y is the
sway force along y axis, N and K are moments about
𝑀𝑅𝐵 𝜈̇ = 𝜏(𝜈̇ , 𝜈, 𝜂) − 𝐶𝑅𝐵 (𝜈)𝜈 z and x axis, respectively.
𝜂̇ = 𝐽(𝜂)𝜈 (1) In order to generate a linear model of ship’s
motion, we assume that the ship’s speed along the
surge motion is constant.
where, 𝑀𝑅𝐵 is inertia matrix due to rigid body, the Therefore, the surge motion can be neglected and
𝐶𝑅𝐵 (𝜈) stems from the Coriolis and centripetal sway, roll, and yaw motions are only taken into
forces. Also, 𝐽(𝜂) is a rotation matrix that depends account in the design of the MPC-based RRS. The
on the Euler angles (𝜙, 𝜃, 𝜓). The forces and non-linear state space model of ship has a general
moments vector 𝜏 = [𝑋 𝑌 𝑍 𝐾 𝑀 𝑁]𝑇 form as follows
consists of hydrodynamics forces and moments
(𝜏ℎ𝑦𝑑 ), control forces and moments (𝜏𝑐 ), forces and 𝑥̇ = 𝐻 −1 𝑓(𝑥, 𝛿) (5)
moments came from the propulsion system (𝜏𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝 ),
where, 𝑥 = [𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑟, 𝑝, ∅, 𝜓]𝑇 . Taking into account
and induced external disturbances (𝜏𝑒𝑥𝑡 ). the equation (4) and given time derivatives of the
roll and yaw motions in (2) and (3), the matrix 𝐻 is
calculated as
𝐻=
𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇ 0 0 0 0 0 Let’s define Δ𝑧(𝑘) = 𝑧(𝑘) − 𝑧(𝑘 − 1) and Δ𝛿(𝑘) =
0 𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ −𝑚𝑧𝐺 − 𝑌𝑝̇ 𝑚𝑥𝐺 − 𝑌𝑟̇ 0 0 𝛿(𝑘) − 𝛿(𝑘 − 1). Using the equation (7) we can
0 −𝑚𝑧𝐺 − 𝐾𝑣̇ 𝐼𝑥𝑥 − 𝐾𝑝̇ −𝐾𝑟̇ 0 0 express as
0 𝑚𝑥𝐺 − 𝑁𝑣̇ −𝑁𝑝̇ 𝐼𝑧𝑧 − 𝑁𝑟̇ 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
[ 0 0 0 0 0 1] Δ𝑧(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴𝑑 Δ𝑧(𝑘) + 𝐵𝑑 Δ𝛿(𝑘)
{𝑦(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐶𝑑 𝑧(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑑 Δ𝑧(𝑘) + (10)
In accordance with the presented procedure in (Perez 𝑦(𝑘) + 𝐶𝑑 𝐵𝑑 Δ𝛿(𝑘)
et al. 2002), the nonlinear equation (5) can be
changed to the linear ship model as We consider new states 𝑧(𝑘) = [Δ𝑧(𝑘), 𝑦(𝑘)]𝑇 and
the incremental state space is expressed using the
𝑧̇ = 𝐻 −1 𝑀𝑧 + 𝐻 −1 𝐿𝛿 = 𝐴𝑧 + 𝐵𝛿 following matrices
{ (6)
𝑦 = 𝐶𝑧
𝐴𝑑 0𝑛𝑧,𝑛𝑦
𝐴𝑖 = [ ]
In equation (6), we regard a given service speed 𝑢̅ 𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑦
and reduced state vector 𝑧 = [𝑣, 𝑟, 𝑝, ∅, 𝜓]𝑇 . The 𝐵𝑑
matrix 𝐻 is chosen in (6) without the first row and 𝐵𝑖 = [ ]
𝐶𝑑 𝐵𝑑
first column. 𝜓 is the yaw angle and 𝛿 is the control
input generated by the rudder angle. The matrices, 𝐶𝑖 = [0𝑛𝑧,𝑛𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑦 ]
𝑀, and 𝐿 are obtained using the Jacobians at
𝑧̅ = [0 0 0 0 0]𝑇 and 𝛿 ̅ = 0 as follows (Perez where, 𝑛𝑧 and 𝑛𝑦 are number of states and number
et al. 2002). of outputs, respectively.
In order to implement a MPC algorithm for the
𝜕𝑓(𝑧,𝑢,𝛿) 𝜕𝑓(𝑧,𝑢,𝛿) incremental model in equation (9), the following
𝑀= |𝑧̅ ,𝑢,
̅𝛿 ̅ and 𝐿 = |𝑧̅ ,𝑢,
̅𝛿 ̅.
𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝛿 cost function must be minimized using the control
sequences subject to restriction on the input, here it
is rudder angle.
3 DISCRETE-TIME MPC
𝐽𝑘 =
In order to design a Discrete-Time Model Predictive
∑𝑝𝑗=1(𝑦(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘) − 𝑦𝑑 )𝑇 𝑄(𝑦(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘) − 𝑦𝑑 ) +
Control (DTMPC) as a RSS, firstly we need to 𝑇
generate a discrete-time model. For a sampling time ∑𝑚−1
𝑗=0 (Δ𝛿(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘)) 𝑅(Δ𝛿(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘)) (11)
𝑇𝑠 , the discrete-time state space is written as follows Δ𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑛 < Δ𝛿(𝑗) < Δ𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑧(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴𝑑 𝑧(𝑘) + 𝐵𝑑 𝛿(𝑘) where 𝑝 is the prediction horizon, 𝑚 is the control

{ (7) horizon, 𝑦𝑑 is the desired output, 𝑄 and 𝑅 are the
𝑦(𝑘) = 𝐶𝑑 𝑧(𝑘)
semi-positive definite output and positive definite
control input matrices, respectively. Using the state
where, matrices 𝐴𝑑 , 𝐵𝑑 are calculated as update procedure in equation (9), an output equation
is expressed as follows
𝐴𝑑 = 𝑒 𝐴𝑇𝑠
𝑇 ̅ ∆𝛿(𝑘)
𝑦̅(𝑘) = Υ𝑧(𝑘) + Ω (12)
{𝐵𝑑 = ∫ 𝑠 𝑒 𝐴𝑠 𝑑𝑠𝐵 (8)
0
𝐶𝑑 = 𝐶 ̅ are calculated as
where, the matrices 𝑦̅, Υ and Ω
follows
The adopted MPC algorithm in this research based
on the state space model in equation (7) has a steady 𝑦(𝑘 + 1|𝑘) 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖
state error. In order to address this problem, an 𝑦(𝑘 + 2|𝑘) 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 2
incremental approach with an embedded integrator ⋮ ⋮
is proposed (Wang et al. 2009). 𝑦̅ = 𝑦(𝑘 + 𝑚|𝑘) , Υ = 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝑚 ,
𝑦(𝑘 + 𝑚 + 1|𝑘) 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝑚+1
𝑧(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐴𝑖 𝑧(𝑘) + 𝐵𝑖 Δ𝛿(𝑘) ⋮ ⋮
{ (9)
𝑦(𝑘) = 𝐶𝑖 𝑧(𝑘) [ 𝑦(𝑘 + 𝑝|𝑘) ] [ 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝑝 ]
 𝐶𝑖 𝐵𝑖 0 ⋯ 0 Let consider 𝐽𝑘 in quadratic cost function form as
𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 𝐶𝑖 𝐵𝑖 ⋯ 0 follows
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮
𝑚−1
̅ 𝐶
Ω= 𝑖 𝑖𝐴 𝐵𝑖 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝑚−2 𝐵𝑖 ⋯ 𝐶𝑖 𝐵𝑖 1
𝑚
𝐽(𝑧) = 2 𝑧 𝑇 𝐸𝑧 + 𝑐𝑓𝑇 𝑧
𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝑚−1 𝐵𝑖 ⋯ 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 { (20)
𝐴𝑖 𝑧 ≤ 𝑏
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮
𝑝−1 𝑝−2 𝑝−𝑚
[ 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 ⋯ 𝐶𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝐵𝑖 ]
Taking into account the equation (20), its dual
problem can be written as
Let’s define the desired output vector as
1
𝑦̅𝑑 = [𝑦𝑑 ⋯ 𝑦𝑑 ]𝑇 (13) max𝜆≥0 min𝑧 {2 𝑧 𝑇 𝐸𝑧 + 𝑐𝑓𝑇 𝑧 + 𝜆𝑇 (𝐴𝑖 𝑧 − 𝑏)} (21)

And weighting matrices as where, 𝜆 is called Lagrange multiplier. The

minimization over the 𝑧 is unconstrained and is
obtained as
𝑄̅ = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔[𝑄 ⋯ 𝑄]𝑇
{ (14)
𝑅̅ = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔[𝑅 ⋯ 𝑅 ]𝑇
𝑧 = −𝐸 −1 (𝑐𝑓 + 𝐴𝑇𝑖 𝜆) (22)

Now, we can rewrite the cost function in equation

(11) as follows Substituting (22) into (21) we get

1 1
𝐽𝑘 = Δ𝛿(𝑘)𝑇 ΕΔ𝛿(𝑘) + 2𝑐𝑓𝑇 Δ𝛿(𝑘) + 𝑐̅ (15) max𝜆≥0 {− 2 𝜆𝑇 𝐹𝜆 − 𝐺 𝑇 𝜆 − 2 𝑐𝑓 𝐸 −1 𝑐𝑓𝑇 } (23)

where, where the matrix 𝐹 and vector 𝐺 are given as

follows
̅ 𝑇 𝑄̅ Ω
𝐸=Ω ̅ + 𝑅̅ (16)
𝑐𝑓𝑇 = (Υ𝑧(𝑘) − 𝑦̅𝑑 )𝑇 𝑄̅ Ω
̅ (17) 𝐹 = 𝐴𝑖 𝐸 −1 𝐴𝑇𝑖 (24)

𝑐̅ = (Υ𝑧(𝑘) − 𝑦̅𝑑 )𝑇 𝑄̅(Υ𝑧(𝑘) − 𝑦̅𝑑 ) (18) 𝐺 = 𝑏 + 𝐴𝑖 𝐸 −1 𝑐𝑓 (25)

The control law of the incremental discrete-time With above mentioned matrices, the equation (23) is
finite horizon MPC can be calculated using the equivalent to:
standard form of Quadratic Programming (QP)
described as follows 1 1
min𝜆≥0 {2 𝜆𝑇 𝐹𝜆 + 𝐺 𝑇 𝜆 + 2 𝑏 𝑇 𝐸 −1 𝑏} (26)

minΔ𝛿(𝑘) {Δ𝛿(𝑘)𝑇 ΕΔ𝛿(𝑘) + 2𝑐𝑓𝑇 Δ𝛿(𝑘)}

Subject to 𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝛿(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘) ≤ 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
𝑗 = 0,1, … , 𝑚 − 1
−∆𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ ∆𝛿(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘) ≤ ∆𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
𝑗 = 0,1, … , 𝑚 − 1
𝑦𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑦(𝑘 + 𝑗|𝑘) ≤ 𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑝
In this work, we use a primal dual interior-point
algorithm as a QP solver. This algorithm is proper
for a real-time implementation with a fast sampling
time.
A simple algorithm, called Hildreth’s quadratic
programming procedure was proposed for solving
this dual problem (Wang et al. 2009).
Again, the Hildreth’s quadratic programming
(19) procedure is used to solve this dual problem. In this
algorithm, the direction vectors are selected to be
equal to the basis vectors of the Lagrange
multipliers. The 𝜆 vector can be varied one
component at a time. We adjust 𝜆𝑖 to minimize the
cost function. If that requires 𝜆𝑖 < 0 , we set 𝜆𝑖 = 0.
In either case, the cost function is decreased. Then,
we consider the next component 𝜆𝑖+1 . Taking into
account one complete iteration 𝑚 through the
components, the following expressions can take the
vector 𝜆𝑚 to 𝜆𝑚+1 .
𝜆𝑚+1
𝑖 = max(0, 𝑤𝑖𝑚+1 ) (27)
1
𝑤𝑖𝑚+1 = − 𝑓 [𝑔𝑖 +
𝑖𝑖
∑𝑖−1 𝑚+1
𝑗=1 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝜆𝑗 + ∑𝑛𝑗=𝑖+1 𝑓𝑖𝑗 𝜆𝑗𝑚 ] (28)
where the scalar 𝑓𝑖𝑖 is the 𝑖𝑗𝑡ℎ element in the matrix
F, and 𝑔𝑖 is the 𝑖𝑡ℎ element in the vector G.
Let’s consider 𝜆∗ as a converged vector containing
either zero or positive values of the Lagrange
multipliers. Using the equation (22), the optimal
constrained states are calculated as follows
observed in Fig. 2 (c). The rates of yaw angle and
sway motion are illustrated in Figs. 2 (d), (e),
respectively.
In order to reduce the roll magnitude in a PID-
RRS, we must set the PID gains with smaller values.
For having a minimum roll close to DTMPC result,
we choose the gains as 𝑘𝑝 = 0.25 𝑘𝑑 = 0, 𝑘𝑖 = 0.2.

𝑧 = −𝐸 −1 (𝑐𝑓 + 𝐴𝑇𝑖 𝜆∗ ) (29)

4 COMPUTER SIMULATION RESULTS

In this section, in order to evaluate the performance

of the discrete-time MPC rudder roll stabilization for
a ship, some simulation results are depicted. For a
comparative study, we consider two kinds of rudder
roll stabilizers including a conventional PID-RRS
and the proposed DTMPC-RRS. In order to present
an accurate comparison between the proposed RRS
and PID-RRS, firstly we simulate the DTMPC-RRS
and then based on the acquired norm of steady-state
tracking error; the gains of the PID-RRS are tuned.
Indeed, the PID gains are tuned so that the
performance of trajectory tracking in steady-state
parts of response, (180sec. to 300sec.) and (350sec. a. Trajectory tracking of yaw motion
to 600sec.), using the PID-RRS is dramatically close
to the performance of trajectory tracking in the
proposed DTMPC-RRS. It means:
𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚(𝑒𝐷𝑇𝑀𝑃𝐶 ) ≅ 𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚(𝑒𝑃𝐼𝐷 )
180 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 300 , 350 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 600
After several trials, the proper PID gains, which
satisfy above mentioned condition of norms, are
calculated and fixed with values of 𝑘𝑝 = 0.7, 𝑘𝑑 =
0, 𝑘𝑖 = 0.6. Regarding the DTMPC regulation, the
prediction horizon and control horizon are set
𝑝 = 80 and 𝑚 = 3, respectively. Fig. 2 (a) shows a
trajectory tracking for the yaw motion. The control
commands under rudder actuator are illustrated in
Fig. 2 (b) and resulted roll motions under these two
rudder roll stabilizers are depicted in Fig. 2 (c).
The constraints on rudder command and
states 𝑧(𝑘) , which must be satisfied in the DT-MPC
algorithm, are as follows

−10 ≤ 𝛿(𝑘) ≤ 10, −10 ≤ 𝑧(𝑘) ≤ 10

b. Control input
As it is shown in Fig. 2 (b) and Fig. 2 (e), the
regarded constraints on rudder angle and sway speed
are greatly satisfied by the DTMPC approach while
this satisfaction cannot be fulfilled using the PID
algorithm upon the sway speed. Furthermore, a
remarkable roll reduction using the MPC-based RRS
during a change of the ship’s heading can be
 e. Rate of sway motion

Figure 2. Results with a tuned PID-RRS close to DTMPC-RRS

in terms of steady-state tracking errors

c. Induced roll motion

a. Trajectory tracking of yaw motion

b. Induced roll motion

Figure 3. Results with a tuned PID-RRS close to DTMPC –

RRS in terms of roll magnitude

The Fig. 3 shows the results of implemented

controllers with new tuned PID-RRS. As it is
observed, PID-RRS is approximately close to
response of DTMPC-RRS in terms of roll magnitude
shown in Fig. 3 (b). Although the new tuned PID-
d. Rate of yaw angle
RRS reduces the magnitude of roll as well as the
DTMPC-RRS but its tracking response shown in
Fig. 3 (a) has undesirable transient and steady-state
responses in comparison with the DTMPC-RRS.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a Discrete-Time Model Predictive

Control (DT-MPC) algorithm is adopted as a Rudder
Roll Stabilization (RRS) in order to reduce the roll
motion of ships particularly for the heading control
purposes. Because of restriction on the rudder
actuator as a control command in ships in terms of
its saturation in angle, a MPC algorithm was
presented in this research to satisfy all the regarded
constraints upon the rudder actuator. Taking into
account a trajectory tracking scenario for the yaw
motion, the computer simulation was conducted to
depict the performance of the proposed RRS in
comparison with a PID-based RRS strategy. It
showed the superiority of DTMPC-RRS in terms of
capability in roll reduction, optimal control effort,
transient response and constraint handling. Indeed,
we can point out the advantages of DTMPC-RRS in
comparison with the PID-RRS as follows:
 Handling of restrictions and constraints
 Fulfilling the accurate tracking with fast
response, no overshoot and roll reduction,
simultaneously
 Don’t need to be tuned by trial and errors
Future research on the proposed algorithm is
planned. It will include an extended disturbance
observer to handle the robustness attribute for the
mentioned DTMPC algorithm in presence of
external disturbances as well as comparisons with
some selected advanced RRS solutions.
Intelligent Guidance. IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC
ENGINEERING 40(2): 374-387.
Perera, L.P., Rodrigues, J.M., Pascoal, R. & Guedes Soares, C.
2012. Development of an onboard decision support system
for ship navigation under rough weather conditions.
Sustainable Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of
Sea Resources, Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN
978-0-415-62081-9: 837-844.
Perez, T. & Blanke, M. 2002. Mathematical Ship Modeling for
Control Applications. Technical Report, Ørsted-DTU,
Automation.
Santoso, M.Y., Munadhif, I., Wahidin, A., Ruddiato, F. &
Soelistijono, R.T. 2017. Rudder-roll stabilization using fgs-
pid controller for sigma-e warhip. International Conference
on Mathematics: Education, Theory and Application, Conf.
Series 855.
Shameem, B.M. & Vincent, V. 2018. State space modelling
approach for rudder roll stabilization. Journal of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering, 15(2):135-151.
Wang, L. 2009. Model predictive control system design and
implementation using MATLAB. In: Advances in Industrial
Control. Springer, London.
Wang, S., Wang, L., Qiao, Z. & Li, F. 2018. Optimal Robust
Control of Path Following and Rudder Roll Reduction for a
Container Ship in Heavy Waves. Appl. Sci., 8(9), 1631.

REFERENCES

Aliunar, M., Jmurray-Smith, D., Zardari, S.& W.Mcgookin, E.

2019. Simulation Studies Relating to Rudder Roll
Stabilization of a Container Ship Using Neural Networks.
Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering &
Technology, 38(2):259-268.
Carletti, C., Gasparri, A., Ippoliti, G., Longhi, S., Orlando, G.&
Raspa, P. 2010. Roll damping and heading control of a
marine vessel by fins-rudder VSC. IFAC, 43(20): 34-39.
Ekinci, S. & Unsalan, D. 2010. Neural Networks Based
Analysis of Ship Roll Stabilization. 3rd Int.Conf. on
MARITIME and NAVAL SCIENCE and ENGINEERING,
Romania, 1792-4707: 217-220.
Ghassemi, H., Malekizade, H.& Ashrafi, A. 2016. Control of
roll motion of fishing vessel by fin-stabilizer using PID
controller. International Journal of Physics, 4(6): 181-186.
Kula, K.S. 2015. An Overview of Roll Stabilizers and Systems
for Their Control. International Journal on Marine
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 9(3):405-414.
Li, H., Pan, X. & Guo, C. 2017. SMC for Rudder/Fin Joint Roll
Stabilization Based on Input-output Feedback
Linearization. 2017 36th Chinese Control Conference
(CCC), Dalian, China, 850-855.
Liang, L., Sun, M. & Luan, T. 2017. Design Fuzzy Input-Based
Adaptive Sliding Mode Control for Vessel Lift-Feedback
Fin Stabilizers with Shock and Vibration of Waves. Shock
and Vibration, Article ID 9095287.
Liu, Z., Jin, H., Grimle, M.J. & Katebi, R. 2014. Roll
Reduction and Course Keeping for the Ship Moving in
Waves with Factorized NGMV Control. 53rd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, USA, 0191-2216:
5692-5697.
Nicolau, V. & Ceanga, E. 2004. Fuzzy rudder-roll damping
system based on analysis of the autopilot commands. IFAC,
37(10): 285-290.
Perera, L.P., Ferrari, V., P. Santos, F., A. Hinostroza, M. &
Guedes Soares, C. 2015. Experimental Evaluations on Ship
Autonomous Navigation and Collision Avoidance by

View publication stats