Proceedings

The of the
International 20th World
Federation of Congress
Automatic Control
Proceedings of the 20th World Congress
The International
Proceedings
Toulouse, Federation
of the
France, 20th9-14,
July Worldof Congress
Automatic Control
2017
The International Federation of Automatic Control
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Toulouse,
The France,Federation
International July 9-14, 2017
of Automatic Control
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017

ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 1127–1132
A Dynamic Allocation Strategy for
A
A Dynamic
Dynamic Allocation
Allocation Strategy
Strategy
 for
for
A Voith Schneider
Dynamic Allocation Propeller
Strategy
 for
Voith
Voith Schneider
Schneider Propeller
Propeller 
Voith Schneider Propeller
Philipp Koschorrek ∗,∗∗ Michael Palm ∗∗ Torsten Jeinsch ∗∗
∗,∗∗ ∗∗
Philipp
Philipp Koschorrek
Koschorrek ∗,∗∗ Michael
Michael Palm Palm ∗∗ Torsten
Torsten Jeinsch Jeinsch ∗
Philipp
∗ Koschorrek ∗,∗∗ Michael Palm ∗∗ Torsten Jeinsch ∗
∗
Institute of Automation, University of Rostock, 18119 Rostock,
∗ Institute
Germanyof Automation,
(email: University of Rostock,
philipp.koschorrek@uni-rostock.de) 18119 Rostock,
∗ Institute of Automation, University of Rostock, 18119 Rostock,
∗∗Institute
Germanyof Automation,
(email: University of Rostock,
philipp.koschorrek@uni-rostock.de) 18119 Rostock,
∗∗
Voith Turbo
Germany GmbH
(email: & Co. KG, 89522 Heidenheim,
philipp.koschorrek@uni-rostock.de) Germany
∗∗ Voith Germany
Turbo (email:&philipp.koschorrek@uni-rostock.de)
GmbH Co. KG, 89522 Heidenheim, Germany
∗∗ Voith Turbo GmbH & Co. KG, 89522 Heidenheim, Germany
Voith Turbo GmbH & Co. KG, 89522 Heidenheim, Germany
Abstract: To ensure a ship’s capability of Dynamic Positioning, the propulsion system of the
Abstract:
vessel
Abstract: To
To ensure
is usually designed
ensure a
a ship’s capability
over-actuated,
ship’s capabilitymeaning of
of Dynamic
Dynamic Positioning,
the ship has morethe
Positioning, the propulsion
control inputssystem
propulsion than degrees
system of
of the
the
Abstract:
vessel is To ensure a ship’s of capability of Dynamic Positioning, the propulsion ontosystem of the
of
vessel is usually
freedom. The
usually designed
designed over-actuated,
distribution thrust demands
over-actuated, meaning
meaning of the
some
the ship has
has more
higher-level
ship control
control inputs
more controller inputs than degrees
the available
than degrees
vessel
of is usually designed over-actuated, meaning the shipandhasdue more control inputs thanavailable
degrees
of freedom.
thrusters,
freedom.the The
The distribution
thrust allocation,
distribution of
of thrust
is an demands
thrust essential
demands of some
some higher-level
problem
of higher-level tocontroller onto
onto the
the over-actuated
controller problem
the available
of
not freedom.
thrusters,
trivial.theThe
the distribution
thrust
Furthermore, allocation,of thrust
the thrust is an demands
essential of some
problem higher-level
and due to controller
the onto
over-actuated the available
problem
thrusters, thrust allocation, is an should
essentialbeproblem
delivered andfastdueand to theprecisely to achieve
over-actuated good
problem
thrusters,
not the thrust allocation, aisVoith
an should
essential problem andfastdueand to the over-actuated problem
not trivial.
positioning Furthermore,
trivial. results. The
Furthermore, usagethe
the ofthrust
thrust be
be delivered
Schneider
should Propeller
delivered allows
fast precisely
andthrust to
to achieve
generation
precisely with
achieve good
these
good
not trivial. results.
positioning Furthermore,
spansThe usagethe ofthrust should be delivered fast andthrust
precisely to achieve good
properties
positioningbut results. Thea new
usage of a
problem a Voith
Voithdue Schneider
to complex
Schneider Propeller
modeling
Propeller allows
and
allows increased
thrust generation
number
generation with these
of control
with these
positioning
properties
variables. results.
but spans Thea usage
new of
problem a Voithdue Schneider
to complex Propeller
modeling allows
and thrust
increased generation
number with
of these
control
properties The but paper
spans on a newhand presents
problem duea thrust allocation
to complex algorithm
modeling which utilizes
and increased number theofdynamic
control
properties
variables. but spans on a new problem due to complex modeling aand increased number of control
variables. The
advantages The paper
of Voith on hand
paper Schneiderhand presents
Propeller.
presents aa thrust
The
thrust allocation
algorithm
allocationuses algorithm
algorithm two-stepwhich
which utilizes
approach the
the dynamic
utilizes consisting dynamic of
variables.
advantages The
of paper on hand presents a thrust allocation algorithm which utilizes consisting
theof dynamic
Quadratic of Voith
advantagesProgramming Voith Schneider
Schneider Propeller.
optimization
Propeller. and The algorithm
external
The tracking
algorithm uses aa two-step
usesalgorithms
two-stepfor approach
calculation
approach consistingpower- of
of
advantages
Quadratic of Voith control.
Programming Schneider Propeller.
optimization and The algorithm usesalgorithms
a two-step approachmulti-criteria
consisting of
optimal
Quadratic propulsion
Programming The
optimization proposed and external
strategy
external tracking
is compared
tracking algorithms for
for calculation
calculation of
to a non-linear, of power-
power-
Quadratic
optimal
optimization Programming
propulsion
which is control.optimization
based on The proposed and external
strategy tracking
is comparedalgorithmsto a for calculation
non-linear, of power-
multi-criteria
optimal propulsion control. Thehigh qualitystrategy
proposed open-water characteristics.
is compared The resultsmulti-criteria
to a non-linear, show strong
optimal
optimization propulsion
which control.
is The proposed strategy is compared to a non-linear, of multi-criteria
similarities
optimization though
whichthe is based
based on
on high
computational high qualitytime can
quality open-water characteristics.
be significantly
open-water reduced
characteristics. The
by
The results
usage
results show
the
show strong
proposed
strong
optimization
similarities
allocation. whichthe
though is based on high quality
computational time open-water
can be characteristics.
significantly reduced The
by results
usage of show
the strong
proposed
similarities though the computational time can be significantly reduced by usage of the proposed
similarities
allocation. though the computational time can be significantly reduced by usage of the proposed
allocation.
© 2017, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
allocation.
Keywords: Marine Systems, Dynamic Positioning, Dynamic Allocation, Optimization,
Keywords:
Quadratic Marine Systems,
Keywords: Programming
Marine Systems, Dynamic
Dynamic Positioning,
Positioning, Dynamic
Dynamic Allocation,
Allocation, Optimization,
Optimization,
Keywords:
Quadratic Marine Systems, Dynamic Positioning, Dynamic Allocation, Optimization,
Programming
Quadratic Programming
Quadratic Programming
1. INTRODUCTION ject of investigations in the work of Fossen and Johansen
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION ject
ject of
(2006);of investigations
Ruth (2008), in
investigations anthe
in work
work of
overview
the ofof Fossen
controland
Fossen Johansen
allocation
and Johansen in
1. INTRODUCTION ject
(2006);of investigations
Ruth (2008), in
an the work
overview ofof Fossen
control and Johansen
allocation in
The control objective of a Dynamic Positioning (DP) common (2006); Ruth is given(2008),by an Johansen
overview and of Fossen
control (2013).
allocation Mostin
The
system control
is objective
maintaining of
thea Dynamic
position Positioning
and heading (DP)
of a (2006);
common
allocation Ruth
is (2008),
given
algorithms by an overview
Johansen
assume and
commonof Fossen
control allocation
(2013).
propulsion Mostin
sys-
The control objective of a Dynamic Positioning (DP) common common
is given by Johansen and Fossen (2013). Most
is given by Johansen and Fossen (2013). Most
The
system control
ship under is objective
maintaining
the effects of of
thea Dynamic
position Positioning
and heading (DP)
of a
currentof bya tems allocation
such as algorithms assume
azimuth thrusters, common
rudder-propeller propulsion sys-
systems,
system is maintaining thewaves,
position wind andand heading allocation algorithms assume common propulsion sys-
system isusage
maintaining thewaves,
position andand heading of bya allocation algorithms assume common propulsion sys-
ship under
ship under
exclusive the ofeffects
the effects of
its propulsion
of waves,system.wind
wind Usually,
and current
current model- by temstems such
thrusters,
tems such
as
as azimuth
such etc.,
as
as in Dethrusters,
azimuth
azimuth
Wit (2009),
thrusters,
thrusters,
rudder-propeller
Johansen
rudder-propeller
rudder-propeller
systems,
et al. (2008)
systems,
systems,
ship under
exclusive
based control the
usage effects
of
design its of waves,
propulsion wind
system. and
Usually, current model- by
for or thrusters, etc.,
Fossen etc.,
and as as in
JohansenDe Wit (2009),
(2006), Johansen
which et al.
are characterized (2008)
exclusive usage of itson an abstract
propulsion level is
system. conducted
Usually, model- thrusters, in De Wit (2009), Johansen et al. (2008)
exclusive
based control
generic
based
usage
control
application of its
design
design
propulsion
on
onon an abstract
abstract
different
an
system.
ships level
level
Usually,
is
is conducted
by choosing
conducted
model-
systemfor thrusters,
for or
by control etc.,
or Fossen
Fossen and as
variables
and
in De
Johansen
Johansen with Wittwo(2009),
(2006),
(2006), degrees Johansen
which
which of are
freedom,
are
et al.or(2008)
characterized
work
characterized
based control design on an abstract level is conducted for or
by Fossen
control and Johansen
variables with (2006),
two which
degrees of are characterized
freedom, or
generic application
inputs toapplication
generic on
be the generalized different
on differentforces ships
acting
ships by
by on choosing
the ship.
choosing system
This with
system general
by control formulations
variables with two on force
degrees level ofand outsource
freedom, or work
the
work
generic
inputs to
approach
inputs toapplication
be
be the to
leads
the
onunavoidable
different
generalized
an
generalized forces
forces
ships
actingby on
necessity
acting
choosing
the
on the ship.
of aship. This by
system
separate
This with control
with general
problem of variables
general formulations
choosing
formulations
with
thrustertwo
on degrees
on force
settings.
force level of freedom,
level andand outsource
or work
outsource the the
inputs
approach towhich
be thelinks
leads generalized
to anthrust forces acting
unavoidable necessity on the ship.
ofhigher-level This with problem general
of formulations
choosing thruster on force
settings.level and outsource the
module
approach leads to an demands
unavoidable of some
necessity of aa separate
separate problem of choosing
A special,of versatile thruster
choosingpropulsion
settings.
with 3 degrees of freedom
approach
module which
controller
module
leads
which to anthrust
links
and links
control unavoidable
demands
actions
thrust of the
demands
necessity
of someofhigher-level
ofpropulsion
some system. problem
a separate
higher-level
A special, versatile
thruster settings.
propulsion with 33 degrees of
module
controller
This modulewhich
and links
control thrust demands
actions of the of some
propulsion higher-level
system. is
A the Voith
special, Schneider
versatile Propeller
propulsion with(VSP). degrees of freedom
The mechanical
freedom
controller andis control
called thrust
actions allocation (Fossen (2011)).
of the propulsion system. A is special,
the Voith
construction versatile
Schneider
makes propulsion
the Propeller
thrust with(VSP).
generation 3 degrees
The
fast of freedom
mechanical
and precise
controller
This module andis control
called actions
thrust of the propulsion
allocation (Fossen system. is the Voith Schneider Propeller (VSP). The mechanical
(2011)).
This
The module is called
propulsion system thrust
of allocation (Fossen
DP-capable ships is (2011)).
designed is the Voith
construction
which makes Schneider
makes
the VSP the Propeller
thrust
perfectly (VSP). for
generation
suitable The
fast mechanical
and
DP. precise
Jürgens
This module is called thrust allocation (Fossen (2011)). construction makes the thrust generation fast and precise
The propulsion system of DP-capable ships is designed
can be et construction
which makes
al. (2012) makes
the VSP the thrust
perfectly generation
suitable fast
for and
DP. precise
Jürgens
over-actuated,
The propulsioni.e. certain
system forces and moments
of DP-capable ships is designed which makes have the VSP shown the benefits
perfectly suitable of using
for DP. VSP com-
Jürgens
The propulsion system of DP-capable ships is designed which
et al. makes
(2012) the
have VSP
shown perfectly
the suitable
benefits of for
using DP. VSPJürgens
over-actuated,
generated by different
over-actuated, i.e. certain
thruster
i.e. certain forces and
settings.
forces and Due moments
moments can
to constraints be
can be pared to azimuth
et al. (2012) have shownthrusters. Nevertheless,
the benefits of using VSP com-
modern allo-
com-
over-actuated,
generated
given i.e. certain
by different
by power different thruster
consumption, forces andlimitations,
settings.
actuator moments
Due canthis
to constraints
constraints
etc. be et al. (2012)
pared
pared to
cation algorithms
to
have shown
azimuth
azimuth do not the
thrusters.
thrusters. use benefits
the full ofdynamic
Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,
using VSP
modern
modern
com-
allo-
potential
allo-
generated by thruster settings. Due to pared to azimuth thrusters. Nevertheless, modern allo-
generated
given
problem by by different
power
often leads to thruster
consumption,constrained settings.
actuator Due to constraints
limitations,
optimization etc.
problems this cation
of VSP.
cation algorithms
They
algorithms do
rather
do not use
approximate
not use the
the full
the
full dynamic
VSPs
dynamic potential
dynamical
potential
given by power consumption, actuator limitations, etc. this cation algorithms do not use the full dynamic potential
given
problem by
(Fossen and power
often consumption,
leads to actuator
constrained limitations,
optimization etc.
problems this of VSP.
the un- characteristic They
of VSP. They by rather
normal approximate the
propeller dynamics. VSPs dynamical
In Brand-
problem oftenJohansen (2006)). The
leads to constrained solution ofproblems
optimization rather approximate the VSPs dynamical
problem
(Fossen and
constrained
(Fossen
often
and leads tohas
Johansen
problem
Johansen
constrained
(2006)).
been shown
(2006)). The
The
optimization
solution
in Sørdalen
solution ofproblems
of the
the un- of
(1997)
un- ner VSP.
characteristic
(2014)
characteristic
Theya by rather
normal
dynamic
by
approximate
propeller
normalallocation
the VSPs dynamical
dynamics.
propeller algorithm
dynamics.for In Brand-
In VSP
Brand- is
(Fossen and Johansen (2006)). The solution of the un- characteristic
ner (2014) by normal propeller dynamics. In Brand-
constrained problem
and Fossen problem
constrained (2011). has has been
Different shown
methods
been shown in Sørdalen
for constrained
in Sørdalen (1997)
(1997) ner (2014) a dynamic allocation algorithm for VSP is
described. a
It dynamic
uses allocation
non-linear, algorithm
constrained, for VSP
multi-criteria is
constrained
Fossen problem
and Fossen
optimization (2011). has been shown
Different
using (sequential) methods
Quadraticin Sørdalen
forProgramming (1997) ner
constrained (2014) a based
described.
described. It
optimization dynamic
It uses
uses non-linear,
allocation
on interior-point
non-linear,
algorithm
constrained,
constrained,methods for
for VSP
multi-criteria
energy-
multi-criteria
is
and (2011). Different methods for constrained described. It uses non-linear, constrained, multi-criteria
and Fossen
optimization (2011).
using
have been investigated Different
(sequential) methods
by Johansen Quadratic for constrained
Programming
(2004) and optimal
et al.Programming optimization
optimization thrust based on
generation.
based interior-point
This algorithm
on interior-point methods
methods for
presents energy-
good
for energy-
optimization using (sequential) Quadratic
optimization
haveWit
De
have been
(2009).
been
using
investigated (sequential)
Allocation
investigated byasJohansen
by
Quadratic
Johansen
a linearly et al.Programming
constrained
et al. (2004)multi-
(2004) and optimization
and optimal
results,
optimal but thrust
thrust isbased
complexon interior-point
generation.
generation. andThisrequires
This
methods
algorithm
algorithm somepresents for energy-
computation
presents good
good
have
De Witbeen
parametric investigated
(2009). Allocation
quadratic byas
program Johansen
a linearly
is treated et al.
constrained (2004)
by (Johansen and
multi- optimal
results,
time, thrust
but
making isit generation.
complex
less and
suitable This
for algorithm
requires
real-time some presents
computation
applications. good
De Wit (2009). Allocation as a linearly constrained multi- results,
results,
but is complex and requires some computation
but is complex and requires some computation
De Wit
parametric (2009). Allocation
quadratic
et al. (2005);quadratic as
program
Leavitt (2009)). a linearly
is
A detailed constrained
treated by
overview multi-
(Johansen time, making it less suitable for
of thrust time, making it less suitable for real-time applications. real-time applications.
parametric program is treated by (Johansen The focus of this paper is the development
for real-time of a constrained
parametric
et al.
al. (2005);
(2005);
allocation
et
quadratic
Leavittin
methods
Leavitt
program
(2009)).
marineA
(2009)).
is treated
Aapplications
detailed
detailed
by (Johansen
overview
has
overview sub- time,
of thrust
been
of thrust
The
making it less suitable applications.
et al. (2005);
allocation Leavittin
methods (2009)).
marine Aapplications
detailed overview has of thrust
been sub- The focus
focus of
allocation this
this paper
strategy
of paperusingis
is the
the development
Quadratic
development of
of aa constrained
Programming which
constrained
allocation
 The authors methods in marine
want to express applications
their gratitude to thehasGerman sub- The
beenFederal fully focus
allocation of
exploits this
strategy
the paperusingis the
dynamical development
Quadratic
properties of aa constrained
Programming
of VSP which
while
allocation methods in marine applications has
 The authors want to express their gratitude to the German Federal been sub- allocation strategy using Quadratic Programming which
 The authors
Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) which has supported allocation
fully
being exploitsstrategy
the
computationally using
dynamical Quadratic
light, suchproperties Programming
of a
that implementation VSP which
whilein
 want to express their gratitude to the German Federal fully exploits the dynamical properties of a VSP while
Ministry
The
this work
Ministry
ofunder
Economics
authors want
grants
of Economics
to and Technology
express
DPMotion
and
their(No.
Technology
(BMWi)
gratitude towhich
03SX351D)
(BMWi) which
hasDP-II
the German
and supported
Federal
has supported (No. fully
being exploits
real-time systems the
computationally dynamical
is light,
feasible. properties
such
The that
paper of a VSP
implementation
is organized whilein
as
this workofunder
Ministry grantsand
Economics DPMotion
Technology (No.(BMWi)
03SX351D) which and
hasDP-II
supported(No. being computationally light, such that implementation in
03SX428C)
this work under grants DPMotion (No. 03SX351D) and DP-II (No. being
real-timecomputationally
systems is light, such
feasible. The that
paper implementation
is organized in
as
03SX428C)
this work under grants DPMotion (No. 03SX351D) and DP-II (No. real-time systems is feasible. The paper is organized as
03SX428C) real-time systems is feasible. The paper is organized as
03SX428C)
Copyright © 2017 IFAC 1150
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2017, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
2017 IFAC 1150Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017
Peer review©under IFAC 1150Control.
Copyright 2017 responsibility
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
1150
10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.395
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
1128
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Philipp Koschorrek et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 1127–1132
follows: Chapter 2 begins with a common introduction to
thrust allocation and the application of QP. Additionally,
an approach of modeling VSP is presented. Chapter 3 con-
tains the main contribution, the integration of VSP thrust
models into existing QP-allocation concepts. Simulations
and the discussion of results in chapter 4 is followed by
conclusion and outlook.
2. PRELIMINARIES
2.1 Voith Schneider Propeller
A Voith Schneider Propeller is a vertical propulsor consist-
ing of a rotating disk and attached blades which protrude
from the hull. The spin direction of the disk is perpendicu-
lar to the vector of thrust generation such that the blades
move in a circle. The variable pitch angle of the blades
fulfills an overlaid motion during one complete revolution.
A mechanical construction influences this motion in such
a way that thrust is generated in the desired direction.
Magnitude of thrust can be set by rotational speed of the
disk and pitch value. The pitch can be set nearly step-
less within a short time, enabling the VSP to generate
thrust quickly and making the maneuvering flexible and
accurate. This feature emphasizes the suitability for DP
applications but also for actuator-based roll-damping. In
contrast to azimuth thrusters, input control of a VSP has
more degrees of freedom. Whereas the thrust of an azimuth
can be determined by rotational speed and orientation,
a VSP has three controllable inputs: longitudinal pitch,
lateral pitch and rotational speed. Since different pairs of
(absolute) pitch and rotational speed result in the same
thrust, the VSP itself is overactuated.
2.2 Thrust Allocation
Thrust allocation deals with the problem of how much
thrust each of the n actuators has to provide to generate
desired forces and moments which are given by higher-level
modules (Sørdalen (1997)). For DP-related algorithms, the
demanded forces and moments of planar motion given
within the generalized force vector τ = [X, Y, N ]T ∈ R3 is
usually taken into account. X, Y and N denote the forces
in surge and sway and the moment in yaw, respectively.
The generalized force vector and the control input uc , e.g.
propeller speed or pitch, of the propulsion system is in
general related through
τ = Bf
(1)
f = h(uc ),
where f = [..., fxi , fyi , ...]T is the vector of forces produced
by each individual thruster and h(·) maps the control
input to the forces in propeller-fixed coordinates by usage
of propeller characteristics (Johansen et al. (2004)). B
denotes the configuration matrix which links propeller-
fixed and ship-fixed forces via the position of each thruster
li = [lxi , lyi ]T .
 
1 0
B = ··· 0 1 ···
−lyi lxi
For over-actuated ships the calculation of τ based on given
values for uc is unique, but the distribution of a given τ
to all available thrusters is ambiguous and non-trivial. The
formulation as a static, unconstrained problem
fopt = argmin(J = f T Wf )
f (3)
s.t. τ −Bf = 0
is the simplest algorithm to solve the thrust allocation.
W is a positive definite, often diagonal weighting matrix
which models the needed power as a function of thrust.
The power consumption can be modeled as
P (f ) = P∆ |f |η + Pmin , (4)
where η is usually between 1.3 < η < 1.7 and P∆
is a scaling factor. Approximation is possible with the
quadratic function
P (f ) = w|f |2 + c, (5)
which can be rewritten in the context of Eq. (3) to form
W, see De Wit (2009).
An explicit solution of Eq. (3) can be achieved by usage of
Lagrange Multipliers:
fopt = T† τ
(6)
T† = W−1 BT (BW−1 BT )−1
T† is the generalized inverse of (3) (De Wit (2009); Fossen
(2011)). If additional limitations, such as maximum thrust
or power, rate saturations, etc., shall be considered, the
thrust allocation has to be formulated as a constrained
optimization problem (Fossen and Johansen (2006)).
2.3 QP-based Allocation
The formulation of the thrust allocation problem as a
Quadratic Programming (QP) problem, i.e. a quadratic
cost function and linear constraints, is a common way
due to matching model structures (Fossen (2011)). The
optimization problem can be written in the general for-
mulation given in Eq. (7) (Nocedal and Wright (2006)).
1 T
xopt = argmin x Hx + gT x
x 2
s.t. Ax = b (7)
Lx ≤ k
l≤x≤u
Here, x is the vector of variables. The cost function is
constructed by the Hessian H and the coefficient vector g
of the linear part. Constraints to the solution are given
by inequalities and equalities set by L, k and A, b,
respectively, and by lower and upper bounds (l and u)
on x. The advantages of using this formulation are the
fast computation due to the structured problem and the
guarantee that a solution exists or not (Nocedal and
Wright (2006)).
The basic problem, depicted in Eq. (3), can now be ex-
tended to consider dynamic and static constraints and
to work power-optimal, such that it fits the general QP-
framework, Eq. (7). Furthermore, slack variables and
(2) penalty terms are introduced to relax the model in case the
desired force cannot be generated within the considered
time step and to prefer the solutions with minimal thrust
force (De Wit (2009); Johansen et al. (2005)):
1151
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Philipp Koschorrek et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 1127–1132 1129

argmin f T Wf + sT Qs + β f̄ 3. VSP ALLOCATION STRATEGY

f ,s,f̄
s.t. Bf = τ + s
Lx ≤ k
−∞ ≤ s ≤ ∞
−∞ ≤ f̄ ≤ ∞
where f is the vector of propeller-fixed forces, s the vector
of slack variables and f̄ the penalty term for minimizing
the maximum force. Q, W and β are usually chosen as
Q >> W > 0 and β ≥ 0, with f̄ = maxi |fi |.
The inequalities Lx ≤ k contain thrust region constraints
which can be divided into static (max. forces, max.
power consumption) and dynamic limitations, i.e. maximal
changes per time step. These restrictions are approximated
by and expressed as a set of linear functions, see Leavitt
(2009). Size and shape of the allowed areas are functions
of the corresponding thruster and its possible motions
3.1 Thrust and power relations of VSP
(8)
The complex nature of the modeling approach depicted in
section 2.4 leads to necessary simplifications for integration
in QP-based allocation. Considering that DP operations
take place in stand or low speed and that the inflow to
the VSP is not accessible, i.e. v=0, the model of Eq. (9)
and (11) is only dependent on the control input. For a
given rotational speed the length c = c2 of the thrust
coefficient vector c = [cx , cy ]T , therefore the thrust as
well, is a pure function of p, see left ordinate in Fig. 1.
The direction of the thrust vector is slightly shifted in
the rotation direction of the VSP. This trail angle αt is
the same for all pitch directions but depends on the pitch
value, see right ordinate in Fig. 1.
1 10
0.8 8

,t [deg] (solid)
c [ ] (dashed)
(De Wit (2009)). 0.6 6

0.4 4

0.2 2

2.4 Thruster modeling of VSP 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
100
p [%]

A decent but complex way of modeling the static behavior Fig. 1. Thrust coefficient c and trail angle αt as a function
of a VSP in a horizontal plane, i.e. calculation of the of VSP pitch p
generated longitudinal and lateral forces fx and fy and
the needed power PD , is given by Singer and Palm (2015).
Given values for the controllable inputs of a VSP, the The power demands depend on the pitch and rotational
longitudinal/driving pitch px , the lateral/rudder pitch py speed. Fig. 2 a) shows a set of graphs which relate thrust
and the rotational speed n, as well as the planar inflow v, f = f 2 and demanded power of a VSP. Each graph
allow the calculation of thrust and power coefficients cx , represents the thrust at a certain rotational speed n for
cy and cP , respectively, under open-water conditions. all possible pitch values 0%≤p≤100%. The higher the
rotational speed the more thrust can be generated at
M 
 N  maximal pitch. Fig. 2 b) shows a zoom on the graphs of
cq = pm β n aq,m,n,0 + lower rotational speeds, which result in lower thrust. As
m=0 n=0
(9) 250
n=4.5rps
K 
(aq,m,n,k sin(kθ) + bq,m,n,k cos(kθ)) c)
200 a)
k=1
n=4rps
Here, q denotes the parameter set for cx , cy or cP . The 150
P D [W]

pitch p = p2 is the absolute value of the pitch vector

p = [px , py ]T and θ is the angular component of p relative 100
n=3.5rps

to inflow v. The circumferential speed of the VSP blades b)

n=3rps

U = Dπn (10) 50
n=2.5rps
n=2rps
and the absolute inflow v = v2 are used to calculate the 0
advance coefficient λ = v/U , and hence the hydrodynamic 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
f [N]
advance angle β = arctan(λ). D is the diameter of the
VSP disc. Fig. 2. Power consumption of VSP for different rotational
The achieved thrust and power requirements can be de- speeds (exemplary on a model-scale VSP)
termined by scaling the coefficients cq by the geometrical
Fig. 2 shows, the relation of thrust and power roughly
parameters of the VSP, i.e. the VSP diameter D and
coincide for all rotational speeds. Hence, this relation can
the blade length L, the circumferential speed U and the
be described independently of pitch and rotational speed.
density of the fluid ρ.
A model of the form
1 P̂D = k2 f 2 + k0 (12)
fx/y = ρDL(v 2 + U 2 )cx/y
2 (11) has been chosen to meet the context of QP. The black,
1
PD = ρDLU (v 2 + U 2 )cP thick line in Fig. 2 c) shows a least-square fit of this model
2 to the data of Fig. 2 a). At this point, the parameter
Actuator dynamics are implemented as adjustment rates k0 is relevant for comparison, but can be omitted for
for the three control inputs. optimization.

1152
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
1130
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Philipp Koschorrek et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 1127–1132
Although the relation of f and PD , and therefore c and cD
as well, is convex, a VSP has an power-optimal pitch value.
Considering the generation of a particular force, one can
generate it with different pairs of pitch (0%≤p≤100%) and
rotational speed (nmin ≤n≤nmax ). Power consumption is
PD . Fig. 3 illustrates such a case for a desired thrust
of f = 40N using a model-scale VSP. For pitch values
less then ∼ 48% the force cannot be generated since the
rotational speed is at its upper limit. Above this value, one
rotational speed that fulfills the demands can be found
for every pitch. However, the least power requires the
combination at pitch popt ≈ 75%. For all required forces
this pitch is the power-optimal, static solution.
50
40
P D [W] (dashed)
30
20
10
f=40N
0 2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
p [%]
Fig. 3. VSP thrust generation for different pairs of pitch p
and rotational speed n (gray area: thrust achieved)
3.2 Integration of VSP model into allocation
Due to the fact that the thrust vector fi of a single
VSP is a function of the VSP pitch and the rotational
speed, decoupling is necessary to perform the integration
of VSP into the QP allocation framework of Section
2.3. Since the pitch vector p determines not only thrust
magnitude but also thrust direction, it is essential for
optimization. Contrary to this, the rotational speed acts
only as a scaling factor on thrust and power consumption.
Therefore, the thrust forces are used as decision variables
for optimization. The actual operating point is set by the
rotational speed, but determination of the operating point
has to be treated independently.
This approach divides the allocation into two separated
problems which will be handled in two consecutive steps:
(1) VSP Speed tracking: determination of rotational
speed of VSPs n
(2) QP-Optimization: calculation of optimal control vec-
tor uc for given and fixed n.
The procedure is depicted in Fig. 4. The control vector
uc contains all actuator inputs except for the rotational
speeds of the VSPs. The operator z −1 symbolizes the
unit delay and different methods for setting the rotational
speed of VSP are illustrated by dashed lines and will be
discussed in Sec. 3.3.
In the first step the VSP model shall be integrated into the
framework of Eq. (8). The cost function relates thrust and
5
Fig. 4. Conceptual workflow of allocation
4.5
power consumption. The dependencies of thrust and power
coefficients of a VSP can be approximated by a quadratic
4 n [1/s] (solid) function as shown in Fig. 2 c). Hence, the elements of
power weighting matrix W corresponding to VSP can be
set to wV SP i = k2 . The general handling of slack variables
3.5
and reduction terms for maximum thrust does not change.
Analogous to Leavitt (2009), the inequality constraints
3
can be used to express the thruster limitations. Different
convex shapes of feasible areas can be represented by a
polygonal approximation based on linear functions.
70 80 90 100 Afterwards, static and dynamic limitations are considered.
Static constraints express maximal thrust forces due to
limits in rotational speed or power. Dynamic constraints
are used to limit the maximum change per time step due
to limited actor rates. The maximum thrust and its cor-
responding coefficient for each rotational speed is limited
by the maximal pitch pmax = 100%, see Fig. 5, left side,
black circle.
Regarding dynamic constraints, an azimuth thruster usu-
ally shows an allowed area which is shaped like a ring
segment. This is due to possible changes in the rotational
speed or pitch of the screw and the direction of the pro-
peller itself. However, the dynamic constraints of a VSP
are more square-like. Due to mechanical construction, the
pitches px and py can be moved independently. Hence,
each pitch can be set within a certain distance, allowing
to span a square. For optimization, the inner circle of the
constraint square was chosen, since it covers majority of
the square area and avoids too large pitch motions, see
Fig. 5, left side, gray circle.
Through the relation shown in Fig. 1 the pitch values
of discrete points can be element-wise converted to cor-
responding coefficients and thrust vectors. This leads to
the feasible areas of the decision variables within one time
step, shown in Fig. 5, right side. Black markers represent
the points of interest used for constructing the constraints.
The connecting, linear functions are used as inequality
constraints in Lx ≤ k.
Integration of other propulsion systems such as propeller-
based thrusters into the optimization can be handled as
proposed in literature, e.g. see Fossen and Johansen (2006)
or Johansen et al. (2005). Simple propeller models, as for
example the open-water characteristics of Smogeli (2006),
f = ρD4 Kf n|n|
(13)
P = 2πρD5 KP n2 |n|,
1153
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Philipp Koschorrek et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 1127–1132
VSP pitches
100
80
60
40
20
py [%]
cy [ ]
0 0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-100 -50 0 50 100
px [%]
Fig. 5. Static (black) & dynamic (gray) constraints for
pitch and thrust coefficient (actual value: black dot)
can be used to relate the control variable and the achieved
thrust f . Control variable is the rotational speed of the
propeller n, which is connected to the generated thrust via
propeller diameter D, fluid density ρ and scaling terms Kf
and KP for thrust and power, respectively.
3.3 Tracking of rotational speed of VSP
Due to the necessary decoupling of pitch and rotational
speed of VSP, optimization provides optimal pitch val-
ues solely for the given operating point which is set by
rotational speed and geometrical parameter of the VSP.
The rotational speed appears as a scaling factor and is
assumed constant in optimization. However, rotational
speed is essential for power-optimal operation of VSP as
one can see in Eq. (11) and Fig. 3. Adaption methods for
the rotational speed nV SP should therefore be considered.
Several strategies are possible:
(1) constant rotational speed nV SP = const.
(2) optimal pitch tracking nV SP = f (p)
(3) estimation of propeller-fixed forces nV SP = f (fVSP )
In Fig. 4 these methods are depicted with dashed lines.
Method (2) uses the optimization results for rotational
speed calculation, whereas method (3) does not depend
on the results of optimization, rather uses the input.
Method (1) appears to be the easiest one. A constant
rotational speed leads to realization of thrust generation
by pure pitch usage. In consequence of the fast pitch
dynamic, this method yields fast thrust generation, but
leads to high power consumption when choosing high or
too low rotational rates.
However, if the actual pitch vector is fed back to some
decision logic, changes in nV SP can be made, such that
p gets close to its optimal value popt (method (2)). The
mean length of the pitch vector p̄ over some time can
be evaluated, to incrementally increase or decrease the
rotational speed by some value ∆V SP such that in static
case the mean pitch converges towards its optimal value.
If the pitch signal is not static and oscillates around some
mean due to changing thrust demands, the power value
will at least oscillate around the power minimum, see Fig.
3. This logic can be described by
ni+1 i
V SP = nV SP + ∆V SP · sign(p̄ − popt )
(14)
with 0 ≤ ∆V SP ≤ ∆max V SP .
The construction as feedback system corresponds to some
kind of control loop. The tracking system can therefore be
interpreted as a controller. However, since the plant of this
1131
1
Thrust coefficients ”control loop”, the QP-optimization, would be strongly
0.8 nonlinear, methods of linear control theory shall not be
0.6
considered here.
0.4
0.2 On the other hand, the rotational speed of the VSP can
be determined by the input of the system: the desired,
-0.2
-0.4
generalized force vector τ . The solution of the uncon-
-0.6
strained allocation problem is the basis of method (3).
-0.8 The construction of allocation as QP-algorithm is based
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
on the general optimization depicted in Eq. (3) under the
cx [ ]
assumptions of additional constraints. Hence, the algo-
rithms should give similar - if not same - results, if the
demands are satisfiable. With this background, the explicit
solution of the unconstrained problem Eq. (6) can be used
to determine the absolute force fV SP 2 each VSP has
to provide. This value can be compared to the thrust each
possible rotational speed generates at optimal pitch popt ,
respectively copt if using thrust coefficients. Using (11) and
(10) the calculation of n can be expressed by
 0.5
2 fV SP 2
n= . (15)
ρD3 Lπ 2 copt
Minding rate limitations, the actual rotational speed may
approach the solution incrementally. For static demands
this solution directly adjusts the right rotational speed,
whereas filtering may be necessary to ensure smooth
results if, alike method (2), τ oscillates.
4. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Simulations have been carried out on the thruster configu-
ration of a model-scale version of the offshore supply vessel
Edda Fram. The propulsor configuration, two VSP in stern
and a bow thruster, is given in Fig. 6.
2.08 m
{p}
VSP fxi 0.25m
fyi N {b} bow
thruster fyj
X
VSP
Y
Fig. 6. Thruster configuration
The proposed allocation is compared to the allocation of
Brandner (2014). To ensure comparability, the results of
QP-based allocation were additionally propagated through
the same open-water characteristics used in Brandner
(2014). Fig. 7 shows the results of the allocation: the
components of the demanded and achieved forces and the
power consumption on the left side and the control inputs
of the thrusters on the right side.
It can be seen that both allocation algorithms generate
the demanded forces and moments. The reference alloca-
tion behaves in general slightly faster. The sequences of
control variables show similar behavior as well but differ
in situations where severe thrust changes are applied. At
the time of 40s and 50s, forces in sway and moments in
yaw are demanded simultaneously, which are generated by
VSP pitches until the rotational speeds are set. Especially,
when the sway force is redeemed the reference allocation
increases the rotational speed to keep the thrust error
1154
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
1132
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Philipp Koschorrek et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 1127–1132

60
100
50

40 50
s

px [%]
30
X [N]

1 0
20 2 stb 1
10 -50 ps 1
stb 2
0 ps 2
-100
-10
100 100

80
50
60 s

py [%]
Y [N]

1 0
40 2 stb 1
-50 ps 1
20 stb 2
ps 2
0 -100
5
0
4

n VSP [rps]
-50
s
N [Nm]

1 2
2 stb 1
-100
1 ps 1
stb 2
0
-150 ps 2

-1
450 20

10

n THR [rps]
P [W]

1 1
225 0
2 2

-10

0 -20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time t [s] Time t [s]

Fig. 7. Comparison of results (s-demanded forces, 1-proposed method, 2-method of Brandner (2014))

small, leading to a spike in power consumption. Due to
the external tracking, the proposed strategy decreases the
rotational speed, such that the thrust generation is done
by pitches. The additional error is minimal higher than
with the reference method and does not produce equally
high power spikes.
5. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
The results of the proposed allocation strategy show
promising results. The integration of the high VSP dynam-
ics into a QP-based allocation algorithm allows fast and
precise thrust generation without underrating possibilities
of the thruster. The structured problem makes the alloca-
tion also usable in real-time applications. In future work
the allocation shall be tested and evaluated in dynamic
cases in open-loop and closed-loop trials. Further inves-
tigations shall be undertaken to include effects of inflow.
Aside from this, it shall be determined if other propellers
with more than 2 degrees of freedom, for example control-
lable pitch propellers, can be integrated in this allocation.
REFERENCES
Brandner, A. (2014). Optimale Allokation für Voith-
Schneider-Propeller im Rahmen des dynamischen Po-
sitionierens. Ph.D. thesis.
De Wit, C. (2009). Optimal thrust allocation methods
for dynamic positioning of ships. Master’s thesis, Delft
University of Technology.
Fossen, T.I. (2011). Handbook of marine craft hydrody-
namics and motion control. John Wiley & Sons.
Fossen, T.I. and Johansen, T.A. (2006). A survey of
control allocation methods for ships and underwater
vehicles. In 2006 14th Mediterranean Conference on
Control and Automation, 1–6. IEEE.
Johansen, T.A. and Fossen, T.I. (2013). Control alloca-
tiona survey. Automatica, 49(5), 1087–1103.
Johansen, T.A., Fossen, T.I., and Tøndel, P. (2005). Ef-
ficient optimal constrained control allocation via multi-
parametric programming. Journal of guidance, control,
and dynamics, 28(3), 506–515.
Johansen, T.A., Fuglseth, T.P., Tøndel, P., and Fossen,
T.I. (2008). Optimal constrained control allocation in
marine surface vessels with rudders. Control Engineer-
ing Practice, 16(4), 457–464.
Johansen, T.A., Fossen, T.I., and Berge, S.P. (2004).
Constrained nonlinear control allocation with singu-
larity avoidance using sequential quadratic program-
ming. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technol-
ogy, 12(1), 211–216.
Jürgens, D., Palm, M., and Brandner, A. (2012). Compar-
ative investigation on influence of the positioning time
of azimuth thrusters on the accuracy of dp. In Dynamic
Positioning Conference, Houston.
Leavitt, J.A. (2009). Optimal thrust allocation in a
dynamic positioning system. Transactions-Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 116, 153–165.
Nocedal, J. and Wright, S. (2006). Numerical optimization.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Ruth, E. (2008). Propulsion control and thrust allocation
on marine vessels. PhDthesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Singer, S. and Palm, M. (2015). Voith schneider propeller
open water coefficients. Technical report, Voith Turbo
Schneider Propulsion GmbH & Co KG.
Smogeli, Ø.N. (2006). Control of marine propellers: From
normal to extreme conditions. Ph.D. thesis.
Sørdalen, O. (1997). Optimal thrust allocation for marine
vessels. Control Engineering Practice, 5(9), 1223–1231.

1155