Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
autonomous inscale fastferry model TF120 using data from a
remote WebWiFi platform for marine vehicles. The physical model
is developed to be autonomous and is controlled remotely from a PC
using WiFi communications. An identification and validation of a
heading model is obtained with turning circle maneuverings on the
coastline of the Bay of Santander. Simulations of standard
maneuvering tests show the behavior of the identified model and the
kinematics. The parametric model identified is used to design
different classical control structures for heading autopilot. A
2dimensional trackkeeping system is developed based on line of
sight guidance scheme using the identified model of the autonomous
inscale fastferry. The results of simulation are presented showing
the good performance of the guidance and control design.
Keywords— Line of sight, parametric identification, heading
identification, heading control, simulation.
I. INTRODUCTION
physical inscale model of the TF120 turboferry (Fig. 2)
has been designed to be autonomous and is controlled
remotely from a Laptop in order to perform sea vessel
trials [13] with research purposes. This is part of a marine
vehicle WebWiFi platform [2], [11], [12] to carry out tests in
open waters that can not be made in a model basin and for at
scale experimentation of coordination between sea vessels.
Autonomous guidance and control technologies are required to
Manuscript received June 3, 2008; Revised received September 21, 2008.
This work has been partially supported by MEC with the project DPI2006
11835.
Francisco Jesús Velasco is with the Dept. Electronic Technology &
Systems Engineering and Automatic Control, Univ. Cantabria, E.T.S. de
Náutica  C/ Gamazo 1  39004 Santander (Cantabria), Spain, (email:
velascof@unican.es).
Elías Revestido is with the Dept. Electronic Technology & Systems
Engineering and Automatic Control, Univ. Cantabria, E.T.S. de Náutica  C/
Gamazo 1  39004 Santander (Cantabria), Spain, (email:
revestidoe@unican.es).
Eloy López is with the Dept. Sciences and Navigation Techniques,
Engines and Naval Architecture, Univ. País Vasco (UPV/EHU), E.T.S. de
Náutica y Máquinas Navales  C/ Ma Diaz de Haro 68  48920 Portugalete
(Vizcaya), SPAIN, (email: eloy.lopez@ehu.es).
Emiliano Moyano is with the Dept. Applied Mathematics and Computing
Sciences, Univ. Cantabria, E.T.S. de Ingenieros Industriales y
Telecomunicaciones  Avda. de los Castros, s/n  39005 Santander
(Cantabria) SPAIN, (email: moyanoe@unican.es).
M. Haro Casado is with the Dept. Systems Engineering and Automatic
Control, Electronic Technology & Electronics, University of Cádiz Faculty of
Nautical Sciences  Polígono Rio San Pedro s/n, Edificio C.A.S.E.M. 
11510. Puerto Real. Cádiz, Spain.
perform these purposes. The present paper examines the
conventional line of sight (LOS) autopilot [14]. This kind of
autopilot directs the physical model along a course made up of
way points.
To be able to use LOS algorithm, it is necessary to develop
suitable heading controllers, meaning that the corresponding
parametric models are required.
In this work is developed a mathematical maneuvering
model, which includes the dynamics and kinematics, by means
of system identification techniques [6] using the data obtained
from turning circle maneuvers with a marine vehicle WebWi
Fi platform for remote experimentation in the coastline of the
Bay of Santander.
Moreover, classical controllers are obtained for the
mathematical ship heading model which have been tested in
simulation. Genetic algorithm techniques have been used to
tune the controllers.
In this article simulations are presented in order to
demonstrate the performance of the guidance and control
design for TF120 turboferry model. In subsequent research, a
trackkeeping controller will be developed to be evaluated on
the coastline of the bay of Santander. Furthermore, the
possibilities of the platform for experimentation of marine
vehicles with research and educational purposes are discussed.
Simulations of an Autonomous Inscale
Fastferry Model
Francisco Jesús Velasco, Elías Revestido, Eloy López, Emiliano Moyano and M. Haro Casado
A
Fig. 1 Elements which make up the platform.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
114
II. PLATFORM ELEMENTS
Fig. 1 shows a schema of the onboard and onland elements
which make up marine vehicle WebWiFi platform.
Onboard Elements:
Components for the propulsion and steering of the vessel
(motors, servos, speed controller, turbojets).
Components of the control circuitry: PWM = Pulse Width
Modulation and receiver station.
Sensors (GPS, electronic gyrocompass, UMI and
accelerometers).
Communication components: industrial PC and access
point.
Onland Communication Elements:
One laptop with an access point.
One radio control station which takes over the steering of
the vessel in case of failure of the WiFi network.
III. IDENTIFICATION
The variables that describe the movement of the physical
model on the horizontal plane (Fig. 2) are:
ψ : Heading.
ν : Sway velocity.
u : Surge velocity.
U : Ship velocity.
δ : Turbojets angle.
The platform measures and stores in a file the heading data
obtained by the electronic gyrocompass which is used for the
identification.
A. Maneuver for Identification
For the identification of the heading, the turning circle
maneuver towards port is used (see Fig. 3). This maneuver
consists of two stages. In the first, the turbojet angle is at zero
and the physical model follows a constant heading. In the
second, the platform rotates the turbojet to +30º in one single
movement; then, the physical model begins to change its
heading towards port until it passes 540º. The platform
maintains a constant speed throughout the whole maneuver
(u
0
= 0,4m/s). The wind speed is less than 0.5 m/s and the
current less than 2.5 m/s.
For the validation of the model, a turning circle maneuver
towards starboard is performed Fig. 4.
B. Identification of Heading Models
With the toolbox of Matlab ident [8], it is possible to
identify a model with different types of structures, including
continuous process models and first and second order Nomoto
models [4]. Nomoto models fit the following equations:
T K ψ ψ δ + = (1)
whose transfer function is:
( )
( )
1
K
s
s Ts
ψ
δ
=
+
(2)
Second order Nomoto:
Fig. 2 Variables that describe the movement of the physical model
TF120 on the horizontal plane.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
600
400
200
0
200
H
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
º
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
10
20
30
Time(s)
T
u
r
b
o
j
e
t
A
n
g
l
e
(
º
)
Fig. 3 Turning circle maneuver towards port.
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
200
400
600
800
H
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
º
)
0 10 20 30 40 50
30
20
10
0
Time(s)
T
u
r
b
o
j
e
t
A
n
g
l
e
(
º
)
Fig.4 Turning circle maneuver towards starboard.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
115
1 2 1 2 3
( ) ( ) TT T T K T ψ ψ ψ δ δ + + + = +
(3)
and whose transfer function is:
3
1 2
(1 )
( )
(1 )(1 )
K T s
s
s T s T s
ψ
δ
+
=
+ +
(4)
Table I shows all the predictionerror model structures used
in the system identification process. There is also a continuous
process model structure.
Table II summarizes the results given by several model
structures. In all the cases, the percentage of output variations
reproduced by the model is calculated. A higher number means
a better model. The precise definition of the fit is:
hat
Fit [1 norm( ) / norm( mean( )]*100 y y y y = − − − (5)
where y is the measured output and y
hat
is the
simulated/predicted model output.
The best model is the continuous model, which has a fit
value of 88.59%. Other structures were tested such as arx and
state space, but are not included in Table II as they have a
small value of fit.
The process of identification provides the following
coefficients for second order Nomoto:
1 2 3
0.94828, 2.3551, 0.5712, 1.3234 K T T T = − = = = − (6)
A 1storder approximation is obtained by letting the
effective time constant be equal to:
1 2 3
0.94828, 4.2497 K T T T T = − = + + = (7)
C. Validation of Heading Models
Fig. 5 shows how well the second order Nomoto model,
equation (4), fits the heading measured in the maneuver to
starboard.
A correlation analysis has been made on the prediction
errors. If there isn’t autocorrelation of residuals for the output
heading, this means that the noise model structure is correct. In
the same way, if Cross correlation doesn’t exist between the
residuals for the output (heading) and the input (turbojet angle)
confirms that the input/output model is correct.
Crosscorrelation between the residuals and the input values
appear adequate based on this validation (see Fig. 6).
TABLE I
MODEL STRUCTURES
Method Structures
Armax A(q)y(t) = B(q)u(t) + C(q)e(t)
Output error y(t) = [B(q)/F(q)]u(t) + e(t)
Box jenkins y(t) = [B(q)/F(q)]u(t) + [C(q)/D(q)]e(t)
Continuous Model Ψ(s) = G(s)δ(s)
TABLE II
RESULTS FROM THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
Type of model Coefficients Fit (%)
Continuous Model
K = 0.94828, T1 = 2.3551, T2 =
0.5712 T3 = 1.3234
88,59
Armax8221 A(q) = 1  0.5803 q^1  1.051 q^2
+ 0.4935 q^3 + 0.001876 q^4
 0.06359 q^5 + 0.008615 q^6
+ 0.1124 q^7 + 0.07884 q^8
B(q) = 0.002071 q^1  0.002289 q^2
C(q) = 1  0.009262 q^1  0.8128 q^2
83,27
Output Error 221 B(q) = 0.005656 q^1  0.00568 q^2
F(q) = 1  1.998 q^1 + 0.9983 q^2
81,93
Box Jenkins 22221 B(q) = 0.005391 q^1  0.005411 q^2
C(q) = 1 + 0.7528 q^1  0.09449 q^2
D(q) = 1  0.05471 q^1  0.9505 q^2
F(q) = 1  1.999 q^1 + 0.9986 q^2
61,66
20 30 40 50 60 70
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Time(s)
Estimated Heading(º)
Measured Heading(º)
Fig.5 Simulation of identified model with measured heading.
20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20
0.05
0
0.05
Autocorrelation of residuals for output Heading
20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20
0.05
0
0.05
Samples
Cross corr for input Turbojet angle and output Heading resids
Fig. 6 Predictionerror correlation analysis.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
116
IV. KINEMATICS OF THE INSCALE MODEL
In order to design a Trackkeeping system, it is necessary to
calculate the actual position of the model TF120. To define
the position of the vehicle, the following definitions are
required:
The vehicle’s flight path relative to the earthfixed
coordinate system is given by a velocity transformation
according to Fig. 2:
1 1 2 1
( ) J v η η = (8)
where,
1 2 1
[ , , ] , [ , , ] , [ , , ]
T T T
x y z v u v w η η φ θ ψ = = = (9)
1 2
( )
c c s c c s s s s c c s
J s c c c s s s c s s s c
s c s c c
ψ θ ψ φ ψ θ φ ψ φ ψ φ θ
η ψ θ ψ φ φ θ ψ ψ φ θ ψ φ
θ θ φ θ φ
− + + (
(
= + − +
(
( −
¸ ¸
(10)
Assuming that in absence of the roll and pitch modes
(θ = φ = 0), the following equations are obtained:
cos sin x u v ψ ψ = +
(11)
sin cos y u v ψ ψ = − (12)
r ψ = (13)
V. HEADING CONTROL
A. Control Problem
An automatic pilot must fulfill two functions: course
keeping and change of course. In the first case, the objective is
to maintain the trajectory of the vessel following the desired
heading (ψ(t) = constant). In the second case, the objective is
to perform the change of heading without excessive
oscillations and in the minimum time possible. In both
situations, the correct functioning of the system must be
independent from the disturbances produced by the wind, the
waves and the currents.
The trajectory followed by a vessel can be specified by
means of a second order reference model:
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
2
n n n r
t t t ψ ζω ψ ω ψ ω ψ + + = (14)
where ω
n
is the natural frequency and ζ ( 0.8 ≤ ζ ≤ 1), the
desired dampening coefficient system in a closed loop.
B. PID Controller Loop
With the first order Nomoto parameters obtained in (7), a
PID controller has been tuned to maintain the constant heading
ψ
d
.
For the correct functioning of the system, a dampening
coefficient in the range 0.8 ≤ ζ ≤ 1 is selected. ω
n
is selected as
the rotation angle of the turbojets ω
δ
(rad./s) and the dynamics
of the physical model as 1/T (rad./s) according to the equation:
2 4 2
1
1 2 4 4 2
n
T
δ
ω ζ ζ ζ ω < − + − + < (15)
Next, a dampening value of ζ = 0.9 is selected and the
following range of values fitted to ω
n
is obtained:
. .
0.1128 4.55
n
rad rad
s s
ω < < (16)
In keeping with equation (16), a value of ω
n
= 0.6 rad./s. can
be selected.
The schema of a conventional PID does not work very well
when the derivate mode amplifies the noise. To avoid this
problem, the following PID control schema is used [10]:
1
( ) 1
1
d
c
i d
T s
s K
E T s T s
δ
α
(
= + +
(
+
¸ ¸
(17)
Equation (17) shows that the derivate action is multiplied by
the term 1/(αT
d
s + 1), which corresponds to a first order
system where αT
d
is the time constant. The manufacturers give
as typical values of α the range of 0.05 to 0.2, so α = 0.1 is
selected.
Developing a procedure proposed in [4], the parameters for
the PID controller are obtained:
1.6133, 16.666, 1.3463
p i d
K T T = = = (18)
Since the results from the tuning, given in the following
sections, indicate that the integral action time is too high, a
first order network (19) has also been used in which the
integral action does not appear.
( )
s z
s K
E s p
δ ( +
=
(
+
¸ ¸
(19)
C. Tuning with Genetic Algorithms
A PID controller has been tuned by means of genetic
algorithms (Gas) [7]. The aim of the design is that the ship
should make a fast course change following, without
oscillations, the course determined by the values ζ = 0.9 and
ω
n
= 0.6 rad/sec in equation (14). The cost function selected
was:
1
)
n
i i
i
J(θ ψ λδ
=
= ∆ + ∑ (20)
Where θ is the vector of the controller parameters, n is the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
117
total number of iterations in the control system simulations,
∆ψ
i
the ith heading angle error between the desired and
obtained heading, λ is a scaling factor (λ = 0.2 in this case)
and δ
i
. the ith rudder angle deflection. The term δ
i
has been
included in order to take into account also the minimization of
the control effort. A simulation time of 60 sec. has been used.
Each individual is represented by a parameter vector
θ = [K
p
T
i
T
d
] of the PID controller and θ = [k z p] for the first
order network. The chromosomes are of the binary type. The
selection of the range of values of the parameters was
performed with a view to avoiding an excessive saturation of
the actuators and to ensuring stable controllers.
The ranges of values of the parameters S selected were:
{0.1 10, 1 5000, 0.1 10}
p i d
S K T T = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ (21)
for the PID controller and
{0.1 100, 0.01 10, 0.1 20} S k z p = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ (22)
for the first order network.
For the optimization, a population of 30 individuals over
500 generations is used with a probability of crossover of 50%
and mutation of 5%. The Ga evaluates the cost function in
each iteration, after running the Simulink model, with the
controller. A roulette wheel was used in the selection, and the
principle of elitism was also used, keeping for the next
generation the best two individuals of the previous population,
and selecting them for the crossover and mutation.
The resulting parameters of the PID controller (17) are:
1, 21172, 4951.352255, 2.300027
p i d
K T T = = = (23)
And the resulting parameters the first order network in (19)
are:
32.603814, 0.42214, 8.696483 k z p = = = (24)
VI. 2DIMENSIONAL LOS GUIDANCE SYSTEM
Systems for guidance are systems consisting of a waypoint
generator with human interface. One solution to design this
system is to store the selected way points in a waypoint
database and use them to generate a trajectory (path) for the
ship Fig. 7. Other systems can be linked to this waypoint
guidance system as the case of weather routing, collision and
obstacle avoidance, mission planning, etc.
LOS schemes have been applied to surface ships by [9] and
[5]. In this methodology it is computed a LOS vector as the
vector from the bodyfixed origin (x, y) to the next waypoint
(x
k
, y
k
). This suggests that the setpoint for the heading
autopilot should be chosen as:
1
( )
( ) tan
( )
k
d
k
y y t
t
x x t
ψ
−
  −
=

−
\ ¹
(25)
Where (x, y) is the vessel position usually measured with a
GPS. In this article, the position of the TF120 model is
calculated with the kinematical equations (11) and (12) for
constant speed, so u = u
0
= 0.4m/s. Equation (25) requires a
sign test to ensure that ψ
d
(t) is in the proper quadrant. The
autopilot follows the heading by guiding the TF120 model
from waypoint to waypoint.
When moving along the path a switching mechanism for
selecting the next way point is needed. The waypoint
(x
k+1
, y
k+1
) can be selected on a basis of whether the ship lies
within a circle of acceptance with radius R
0
around the way
point (x
k
, y
k
). Moreover if the vehicle positions (x(t), y(t)) at
time t satisfy:
2 2 2
0
[ ( )] [ ( )]
k k
x x t y y t R − + − ≤
(26)
A guideline could be to choose R
0
equal to two ship lengths
(L
pp
), in the case of the inscale physical model TF120 model
L
pp
= 4.4m.
VII. COMPUTER SIMULATIONS
In the section below three types of simulations, made in
Simulink [3], are presented: maneuvering simulations, close
loop simulations and trackkeeping simulations. The first ones
show the good performance of the model identified and the
kinematics (see section IV) for two typical maneuvers
performed on fullscale vessels. Close loop simulations point
out that the PID controller tuned in previous sections is
correct. The good result of these two kinds of simulations is
very important in order to obtain a good guidance system as
reflected by the last simulations.
A. Standard Maneuvers
The two figures below show simulations of turning circles
towards starboard for a rudder deflection of 30º. The
evolution of the heading for a first order Nomoto model (2)
with the parameters in (7) is presented in Fig. 8. The trajectory
of the ship in Fig. 9 for a nonlinear kinematical model
Fig. 7 Conventional LOS Guidance system.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
118
calculated in (11) and (12), with the only assumption that
v ≈ 0, describes a circumference which is typical of the turning
circle maneuver. This simulation verifies the suitability of the
model identified and the kinematical equations.
The zigzag maneuver is performed in Fig. 10 as follows:
assuming that the simulation starts from an initial heading of
0º, the simulation makes a change in the turbojet angle of 0º to
10º. Thus, until the heading exceeds 10º, the simulation does
not surpass from 10º to 10º of angle of the turbojet. In the
same way, until the platform exceeds 10º of heading, the
simulation does not change from 10º to 10º of angle of the
turbojet. A minimum of five cycles are required to perform the
full maneuver. Fig. 11 shows the trajectory of the ship for the
zigzag maneuver
This maneuver establishes several important characteristics
of the yaw response. These are: the response time (time to
reach a given heading), the yaw overshoot (amount the vessel
exceeds ±10º when the rudder has turned the other way), and
the total period for the 10º oscillations.
B. Close Loop Simulation
According to the heading control loop in Fig. 12, different
simulations are performed for the controllers tuned in previous
sections. In this block diagram characteristics of the servo as
an actuator are included, which are very important since they
can impose constrains on the control action (see Fig. 14). The
transfer function δ/δ
d
is the simplified model presented by [1]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
400
200
600
800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
30
time(s)
A
n
g
l
e
(
º
)
Turbojet Angle
Heading
Fig. 8 Simulation of the Heading, with the Nomoto model (2) and the
parameters in (7) for a turning circle maneuver.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x(m)
y
(
m
)
Fig. 9 Trajectory of the ship with the model formed by the equations (2)
and nonlinear equations (11) and (12) for a turning circle manoeuver.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
time(s)
A
n
g
l
e
(
º
)
heading(º)
Turbojets Angle(º)
Fig. 10 Simulation of the heading for a 10º ZigZag maneuver.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
x(m)
y
(
m
)
Fig. 11 Simulation of the position for a 10º zigzag maneuver.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
119
and is the most commonly used in marine vehicles. This model
present two kinds of saturations:
Magnitude saturation: the turbojet motion is constrained to
move within a certain maximum angles.  δ
max
< δ < δ
max
,
δ
max
= 30º.
Slew rate saturation: the rate of turbojets is limited by a
maximum valued ω
δmax
as it was defined in equation (16).
A comparative study is made in Fig. 13 with different types
of controllers and tuning methods. PID Controllers are
represented with the parameters obtained in (18) and (23), and
also a first order network controller with the parameters in
(24). The graphical results given by the network controller
tuned with genetic algorithms are significantly much better
than with a PID controller tuned with classical methods (see
section V B).
The PID controller tuned with genetic algorithms gives a
response very close to the response given by the network
controller. This is because the integral action time is too high
in (23).
The control effort and the desired heading are plotted in
Fig. 14 for different control structures and tuning methods.
The control effort signal presents saturation at 30º or 30 due
to the limitations of the turbojet angle.
In Fig. 15 the trajectory of the ship is plotted for a first
order network controller which gives the best results.
C. Trackkeeping Simulation
In this section is presented a conventional LOS guidance
system simulation. It has been used a first order network as a
heading controller with the parameters calculated in previous
sections. Fig. 17 shows the good performance of the LOS
algorithm and the heading controller (see Fig. 16) for a model
identified with the platform of marine vehicles and the
kinematical equations calculated in section IV.
Fig. 12 Heading autopilot block diagram including actuator saturations.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
time(s)
H
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
º
)
1st Order
Network(º)
Pid(º)
Pid Gas(º)
Desired
Heading(º)
Fig. 13 Heading autopilot for different control structures and tuning
methods.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
1
2
3
4
x(m)
y
(
m
)
Fig. 15 Trajectory of the ship for a first order network controller tuned
with genetic algorithms
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
time(s)
E
f
f
o
r
t
(
º
)
Pid Effort(º)
Pid Gas
Effort(º)
1st Order
Network
Effort(º)
Desired
Heading(º)
Fig. 14 Control efforts for different control structures and tuning
methods.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
120
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Identification has been made of the heading model of the in
scale TF120 turboferry. With the tests carried out on the
coastline of the Bay of Santander, several predictionerror
model structures and continuous structures have been
identified with different orders. The best model has been
validated with a simulation on a data set different from the one
used for parameter estimation and with a correlation analysis
on the prediction errors. Simulations of standard maneuvers
show the response of the identified model and the kinematics.
The results from the tuning of the controllers by means of
Gas indicate that the integral action is too high, meaning that it
is advisable to use a first order network for the heading
controller.
The simulation has been carried out to verify the suitability
of the LOS algorithm, the heading controller and also the
identified model. An evaluation of a trackkeeping controller
will be made on the coastline of the bay of Santander in further
research. Moreover, the possibilities of the platform for
experimentation of marine vehicles with research and
educational purposes are presented.
REFERENCES
[1] Van Amerongen J. “Adaptive steering of ships A model reference
approach to improved manoeuvering and economical course Keeping”.
PhD thesis, Delft University and Technology, The Netherlands, 1982.
[2] F. J. Velasco, T. M. Rueda, E. Revestido, E. Moyano, E. López and L.
A. Esquibel, “Platform for remote experimentation of autonomous high
speed craft models with a combined technology for WiFi and internet
communications programmed in LabVIEW”, in Robotics and
Automation in the Maritime Industries, Chapter 12, Aranda, J. González
de Santos, P. and De la Cruz, J.M., Ed. UCM, Madrid, Spain, 2006, pp
275–293.
[3] Dabney, B. J., Harman, L. T., Mastering Simulink, Prentice hall, Upper
Saddler River, 2004.
[4] Fossen, T. I., Marine Control Systems: Guidance, Navigation and
Control of Ships, Rigs and Underwater Vehicles (Marine Cybernetics
AS). Trodheim, Norway, 2002.
[5] Fossen, T. I. Breverik, M., Skjetne, R., “Line of sight path following of
underactuated marine craft”. in: Proc. 6th IFAC Conf. on Maneuvering
and Control of Marine Crafts, Girona, Spain, 2003, pp. 244–249.
[6] Ljung, L., System Identification Theory for the User, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1999.
[7] Man, K.F.,Tang, K.S., Kwong, S., Genetics Algorithms: concepts and
designs. Springler, 1999.
[8] Matlab, System Identification Toolbox for Use with MATLAB, Users’s
Guide, Version 6, 2005.
[9] McGookin, E.W., MurraySmith, D.J., Lin, Y., Fossen, T.I., “Ship
steering control system optimization using genetic algorithms”, Journal
of Control Engineering Practice, Aug. 1998, pp. 429–443
[10] Smith, C. A., Corripio, A. B., Principles and Practice of Automatic
Process Control, John Wiley & Sons, Canadá, 1997.
[11] Velasco, F. J., Rueda, T. M., Revestido, E., Esquibel, L. Á., “Marine
Vehicles WebWiFi Platform for Remote Experimentation Programmed
in LabVIEW”, in 'ACE 06' 7th IFAC Symposium on Advances in
Control Education, Madrid, 2006.
[12] Velasco, F. J., Rueda, T. M., Revestido, E., Esquibel, L. Á., “Platform
of Trials in an Open Environment for the Cooperation of Marine
Vehicles Programmed in Labview with Wireless Connectivity by Means
of Wifi”, in WSEAS/IASME Int. Conf. on Electroscience and
Technology for Naval Engineering and AllElectric Ship, Miami, 2005.
[13] Velasco, F. J., Rueda, T. M., Revestido, E., Esquibel, L. Á., “Turning
Circles of an Autonomus High Speed Craft Model”, in 5th WSEAS Int.
Conf. on System Science and Simulation in Engineering. 1st WSEAS
International Symposium on Advances in Naval Science, Research and
Education. Tenerife, Spain, 2006.
[14] Velasco, F. J., Revestido, E., López E., Moyano E., Haro Casado M.,
“Autopilot and TrackKeeping Simulation of an Autonomous Inscale
Fastferry Model”, in 12th WSEAS International Conference on
SYSTEMS. Heraklion Crete, Greece, 2008.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
time(s)
H
e
a
d
i
n
g
(
º
)
Heading(º)
Desired Heding(º)
Fig. 16 Heading control of the trackkeeping system using equation (26)
as a switching mechanism.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
y(m)
x
(
m
)
Simulated trajectory
Waypoints
Fig. 17 xy plot of the simulated trajectory of the TF120 model and
desired geometrical path made up of waypoints.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS, ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT
Issue 3, Volume 2, 2008
121
200 0 Heading(º) 200 400 600 Turbojet Angle(º) 0 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 Time(s) 25 30 35 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Fig. it is possible to identify a model with different types of structures. Onland Communication Elements: One laptop with an access point.5 m/s and the current less than 2. The platform measures and stores in a file the heading data obtained by the electronic gyrocompass which is used for the identification. For the validation of the model.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. One radio control station which takes over the steering of the vessel in case of failure of the WiFi network. speed controller. the turbojet angle is at zero and the physical model follows a constant heading. Nomoto models fit the following equations: Tψ + ψ = K δ (1) A. 2008 II. 3). Identification of Heading Models With the toolbox of Matlab ident [8]. u : Surge velocity. The wind speed is less than 0. electronic gyrocompass. a turning circle maneuver towards starboard is performed Fig. PLATFORM ELEMENTS Fig. 1 shows a schema of the onboard and onland elements which make up marine vehicle WebWiFi platform. including continuous process models and first and second order Nomoto models [4]. Volume 2. 2) are: ψ : Heading. Communication components: industrial PC and access point. the platform rotates the turbojet to +30º in one single movement. Sensors (GPS. the physical model begins to change its whose transfer function is: K ψ (s) = δ s (1 + Ts ) Second order Nomoto: (2) 115 . The platform maintains a constant speed throughout the whole maneuver (u0 = 0. servos. 3 Turning circle maneuver towards port. 2 Variables that describe the movement of the physical model TF120 on the horizontal plane. 4.4 Turning circle maneuver towards starboard. ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3. In the second. turbojets).4m/s). ν : Sway velocity. then. In the first. heading towards port until it passes 540º.5 m/s. Components of the control circuitry: PWM = Pulse Width Modulation and receiver station. III. 800 Heading(º) 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Turbojet Angle(º) 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 Time(s) 30 40 50 Fig. This maneuver consists of two stages. UMI and accelerometers). Fig. Maneuver for Identification For the identification of the heading. U : Ship velocity. B. the turning circle maneuver towards port is used (see Fig. Onboard Elements: Components for the propulsion and steering of the vessel (motors. IDENTIFICATION The variables that describe the movement of the physical model on the horizontal plane (Fig. δ : Turbojets angle.
0.66 0 0.5803 q^1 . TABLE I MODEL STRUCTURES Method Armax Output error Box jenkins Continuous Model Structures A(q)y(t) = B(q)u(t) + C(q)e(t) y(t) = [B(q)/F(q)]u(t) + e(t) y(t) = [B(q)/F(q)]u(t) + [C(q)/D(q)]e(t) Ψ(s) = G(s)δ(s) C.8128 q^2 B(q) = 0. fits the heading measured in the maneuver to starboard.0.3551. this means that the noise model structure is correct. In the same way.998 q^1 + 0. 2008 T1T2ψ + (T1 + T2 )ψ + ψ = K (δ + T3δ ) and whose transfer function is: (3) A 1storder approximation is obtained by letting the effective time constant be equal to: K = −0.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS.005411 q^2 C(q) = 1 + 0. 6).1. Other structures were tested such as arx and TABLE II RESULTS FROM THE IDENTIFICATION PROCESS Type of model Continuous Model Armax8221 Coefficients K = 0.3234 (6) 116 . A higher number means a better model. The process of identification provides the following coefficients for second order Nomoto: 0 0. In all the cases. Autocorrelation of residuals for output Heading 0.0. T1 = 2.002071 q^1 . T = T1 + T2 + T3 = 4.05471 q^1 .5712.0.59%.93 61.07884 q^8 B(q) = 0.00568 q^2 F(q) = 1 .1.0.05 20 15 10 5 0 Samples 5 10 15 20 Fig. 5 shows how well the second order Nomoto model.9505 q^2 F(q) = 1 . but are not included in Table II as they have a small value of fit.0. which has a fit value of 88.59 83. T2 = 0.06359 q^5 + 0. The precise definition of the fit is: Fit = [1 − norm(y − yhat ) / norm(y − mean(y )]*100 (5) 30 40 Time(s) 50 60 70 Fig. 6 Predictionerror correlation analysis.0.0. T3 = −1.5712 T3 = 1. K = −0. There is also a continuous process model structure.09449 q^2 D(q) = 1 . Validation of Heading Models Fig.05 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 Cross corr for input Turbojet angle and output Heading resids 0. Volume 2.1.008615 q^6 + 0.94828.0.3234 A(q) = 1 .7528 q^1 . T1 = 2.3551.999 q^1 + 0.005391 q^1 .0.9983 q^2 B(q) = 0. T2 = 0. The best model is the continuous model.009262 q^1 .4935 q^3 + 0.2497 (4) (7) ψ δ (s) = K (1 + T3 s) s(1 + T1 s)(1 + T2 s) Table I shows all the predictionerror model structures used in the system identification process.94828.002289 q^2 C(q) = 1 .05 Output Error 221 Box Jenkins 22221 81.05 state space. ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3.051 q^2 + 0.9986 q^2 Fit (%) 88. equation (4).27 A correlation analysis has been made on the prediction errors. if Cross correlation doesn’t exist between the residuals for the output (heading) and the input (turbojet angle) confirms that the input/output model is correct.94828.5 Simulation of identified model with measured heading. If there isn’t autocorrelation of residuals for the output heading. Crosscorrelation between the residuals and the input values appear adequate based on this validation (see Fig. 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 20 Estimated Heading(º) Measured Heading(º) Table II summarizes the results given by several model structures. where y is the measured output and yhat is the simulated/predicted model output.005656 q^1 .001876 q^4 . the percentage of output variations reproduced by the model is calculated.1124 q^7 + 0.
2008 IV. HEADING CONTROL A. the course determined by the values ζ = 0. the objective is to maintain the trajectory of the vessel following the desired heading (ψ(t) = constant). < ωn < 4. the waves and the currents. a PID controller has been tuned to maintain the constant heading ψd. v. To define the position of the vehicle.6133. the objective is to perform the change of heading without excessive oscillations and in the minimum time possible.05 to 0. The cost function selected was: J(θ ) = ∑ ∆ψ i + λδ i i =1 n (20) Where θ is the vector of the controller parameters. the following definitions are required: The vehicle’s flight path relative to the earthfixed coordinate system is given by a velocity transformation according to Fig. δ E s+z ( s) = K s + p (19) (14) where ωn is the natural frequency and ζ ( 0. which corresponds to a first order system where αTd is the time constant. indicate that the integral action time is too high. v1 = [u. In the first case.3463 (18) V. can be selected.ψ ]T . In both situations. the correct functioning of the system must be independent from the disturbances produced by the wind. The trajectory followed by a vessel can be specified by means of a second order reference model: 2 2 ψ ( t ) + 2ζωnψ ( t ) + ωnψ ( t ) = ωnψ r Since the results from the tuning. PID Controller Loop With the first order Nomoto parameters obtained in (7).6 rad. ωn is selected as the rotation angle of the turbojets ωδ (rad.η2 = [φ . a dampening coefficient in the range 0. so α = 0. The manufacturers give as typical values of α the range of 0. w]T cψ cθ −sψ cφ + cψ sθ sφ sψ sφ + cψ cφ sθ J1 (η2 ) = sψ cθ cψ cφ + sφ sθ sψ −cψ sφ + sθ sψ cφ −sθ cθ sφ cθ cφ (10) In keeping with equation (16). without oscillations. a value of ωn = 0. 2: For the correct functioning of the system. the following equations are obtained: x = u cosψ + v sinψ (11) (12) (13) δ E Td s 1 + ( s ) = K c 1 + Ti s α Td s + 1 (17) y = u sinψ − v cosψ ψ =r Equation (17) shows that the derivate action is multiplied by the term 1/(αTd s + 1). Volume 2.1 is selected./s) according to the equation: 1 < ωn 1 − 2ζ 2 + 4ζ 4 − 4ζ 2 + 2 < ωδ T (15) η1 = J1 (η2 )v1 where. y. Control Problem An automatic pilot must fulfill two functions: coursekeeping and change of course.8 ≤ ζ ≤ 1 is selected. The schema of a conventional PID does not work very well when the derivate mode amplifies the noise. In the second case.8 ≤ ζ ≤ 1). Ti =16. n is the 117 . Td =1. (8) Next. the desired dampening coefficient system in a closed loop.θ . a first order network (19) has also been used in which the integral action does not appear. Tuning with Genetic Algorithms A PID controller has been tuned by means of genetic algorithms (Gas) [7]. The aim of the design is that the ship should make a fast course change following./s) and the dynamics of the physical model as 1/T (rad. To avoid this problem. the parameters for the PID controller are obtained: K p =1. the following PID control schema is used [10]: Assuming that in absence of the roll and pitch modes (θ = φ = 0). Developing a procedure proposed in [4].9 and ωn = 0. KINEMATICS OF THE INSCALE MODEL In order to design a Trackkeeping system.6 rad/sec in equation (14).1128 (9) rad . z ]T . rad .2. C.55 s s (16) η1 = [ x. ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3. given in the following sections./s. a dampening value of ζ = 0. B.666. it is necessary to calculate the actual position of the model TF120.9 is selected and the following range of values fitted to ωn is obtained: 0.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS.
Td = 2. A. The selection of the range of values of the parameters was performed with a view to avoiding an excessive saturation of the actuators and to ensuring stable controllers. A simulation time of 60 sec. in the case of the inscale physical model TF120 model Lpp = 4.01 ≤ z ≤ 10. a population of 30 individuals over 500 generations is used with a probability of crossover of 50% and mutation of 5%. For the optimization.4m/s. Moreover if the vehicle positions (x(t). Other systems can be linked to this waypoint guidance system as the case of weather routing. One solution to design this system is to store the selected way points in a waypoint database and use them to generate a trajectory (path) for the ship Fig. Close loop simulations point out that the PID controller tuned in previous sections is correct. The term δi has been included in order to take into account also the minimization of the control effort. ∆ψi the ith heading angle error between the desired and obtained heading. so u = u0 = 0. p = 8.1 ≤ p ≤ 20} for the first order network. close loop simulations and trackkeeping simulations.4m. keeping for the next generation the best two individuals of the previous population.696483 (24) VI. has been used. 2008 total number of iterations in the control system simulations. collision and obstacle avoidance. y(t)) at time t satisfy: [ xk − x(t )]2 + [ yk − y (t )]2 ≤ R02 (26) And the resulting parameters the first order network in (19) are: A guideline could be to choose R0 equal to two ship lengths (Lpp). A roulette wheel was used in the selection.2 in this case) and δi. 0. yk+1) can be selected on a basis of whether the ship lies within a circle of acceptance with radius R0 around the way point (xk. the position of the TF120 model is calculated with the kinematical equations (11) and (12) for constant speed.1 ≤ K p ≤ 10. 7. 0. S = {0. yk). (21) (22) Fig. The chromosomes are of the binary type. with the controller. The good result of these two kinds of simulations is very important in order to obtain a good guidance system as reflected by the last simulations.42214. Standard Maneuvers The two figures below show simulations of turning circles towards starboard for a rudder deflection of 30º. 8. The resulting parameters of the PID controller (17) are: K p =1. 2DIMENSIONAL LOS GUIDANCE SYSTEM Systems for guidance are systems consisting of a waypoint generator with human interface.352255. 21172. and the principle of elitism was also used. The evolution of the heading for a first order Nomoto model (2) with the parameters in (7) is presented in Fig.1 ≤ Td ≤ 10} for the PID controller and S = {0. The autopilot follows the heading by guiding the TF120 model from waypoint to waypoint. ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3. LOS schemes have been applied to surface ships by [9] and [5].INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. λ is a scaling factor (λ = 0. 9 for a nonlinear kinematical model k = 32. y) to the next waypoint (xk. VII.603814. the ith rudder angle deflection. The waypoint (xk+1. mission planning. yk). Each individual is represented by a parameter vector θ = [Kp Ti Td] of the PID controller and θ = [k z p] for the first order network. Volume 2. 7 Conventional LOS Guidance system. made in Simulink [3]. after running the Simulink model. are presented: maneuvering simulations.300027 (23) When moving along the path a switching mechanism for selecting the next way point is needed. etc. In this article. 1 ≤ Ti ≤ 5000. Ti = 4951. This suggests that the setpoint for the heading autopilot should be chosen as: 118 . 0. The Ga evaluates the cost function in each iteration.1 ≤ k ≤ 100. y) is the vessel position usually measured with a GPS. z = 0. COMPUTER SIMULATIONS In the section below three types of simulations. The ranges of values of the parameters S selected were: ψ d (t ) = tan −1 yk − y (t ) xk − x(t ) (25) Where (x. The trajectory of the ship in Fig. and selecting them for the crossover and mutation. Equation (25) requires a sign test to ensure that ψd(t) is in the proper quadrant. The first ones show the good performance of the model identified and the kinematics (see section IV) for two typical maneuvers performed on fullscale vessels. In this methodology it is computed a LOS vector as the vector from the bodyfixed origin (x.
and the total period for the 10º oscillations. the simulation does not surpass from 10º to 10º of angle of the turbojet.5 y(m) 0. different simulations are performed for the controllers tuned in previous sections. the simulation makes a change in the turbojet angle of 0º to 10º. In this block diagram characteristics of the servo as an actuator are included. Fig. with the Nomoto model (2) and the parameters in (7) for a turning circle maneuver. 0. until the heading exceeds 10º. 11 shows the trajectory of the ship for the zigzag maneuver Fig. 10 as follows: assuming that the simulation starts from an initial heading of 0º. B. This simulation verifies the suitability of the model identified and the kinematical equations. until the platform exceeds 10º of heading. 10 Simulation of the heading for a 10º ZigZag maneuver. These are: the response time (time to reach a given heading). the yaw overshoot (amount the vessel exceeds ±10º when the rudder has turned the other way).5 x(m) 2 2. Thus. which are very important since they can impose constrains on the control action (see Fig. 2 0.200 1.5 y(m) 1 0 0. 2008 1. calculated in (11) and (12).2 1.5 This maneuver establishes several important characteristics of the yaw response. 0 5 10 15 20 25 time(s) 30 35 40 45 50 Fig.000 10 Angle(º) 800 5 Angle(º) 600 0 400 5 200 10 30 15 0 10 20 30 time(s) 40 50 60 20 Fig. describes a circumference which is typical of the turning circle maneuver.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 x(m) 12 14 16 18 20 The zigzag maneuver is performed in Fig.400 Turbojet Angle Heading 15 1. Volume 2. In the same way.5 1 1. A minimum of five cycles are required to perform the full maneuver. The transfer function δ/δd is the simplified model presented by [1] 119 . the simulation does not change from 10º to 10º of angle of the turbojet.600 20 heading(º) Turbojets Angle(º) 1. with the only assumption that v ≈ 0. 12. 14). ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3. 9 Trajectory of the ship with the model formed by the equations (2) and nonlinear equations (11) and (12) for a turning circle manoeuver.2 0 0 0. 2. 11 Simulation of the position for a 10º zigzag maneuver.5 3 Fig. 8 Simulation of the Heading.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. Close Loop Simulation According to the heading control loop in Fig.
C. This model present two kinds of saturations: Magnitude saturation: the turbojet motion is constrained to move within a certain maximum angles. and also a first order network controller with the parameters in (24). 14 for different control structures and tuning methods. The control effort signal presents saturation at 30º or 30 due to the limitations of the turbojet angle. 15 the trajectory of the ship is plotted for a first order network controller which gives the best results.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS. 20 and is the most commonly used in marine vehicles. 16) for a model identified with the platform of marine vehicles and the kinematical equations calculated in section IV. PID Controllers are represented with the parameters obtained in (18) and (23). A comparative study is made in Fig. 17 shows the good performance of the LOS algorithm and the heading controller (see Fig. 2008 Fig. This is because the integral action time is too high in (23). Trackkeeping Simulation In this section is presented a conventional LOS guidance system simulation. The PID controller tuned with genetic algorithms gives a 30 10 Pid Effort(º) Pid Gas Effort(º) 1st Order Network Effort(º) Desired Heading(º) Effort(º) 0 10 20 30 0 20 40 60 time(s) 80 100 120 Fig. 14 Control efforts for different control structures and tuning methods. In Fig. 13 Heading autopilot for different control structures and tuning methods. 4 3 y(m) 2 1 0 20 10 1st Order Network(º) Pid(º) Pid Gas(º) Desired Heading(º) 0 5 10 15 20 x(m) 25 30 35 40 Heading(º) 0 Fig. Volume 2. ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3. 12 Heading autopilot block diagram including actuator saturations. Slew rate saturation: the rate of turbojets is limited by a maximum valued ωδmax as it was defined in equation (16). δmax = 30º. 15 Trajectory of the ship for a first order network controller tuned with genetic algorithms 10 20 30 0 20 40 60 time(s) 80 100 120 Fig. 13 with different types of controllers and tuning methods. 30 Fig. The graphical results given by the network controller tuned with genetic algorithms are significantly much better than with a PID controller tuned with classical methods (see section V B).δmax < δ < δmax. The control effort and the desired heading are plotted in 120 . It has been used a first order network as a heading controller with the parameters calculated in previous sections. . Fig. response very close to the response given by the network controller.
Moreover. The results from the tuning of the controllers by means of Gas indicate that the integral action is too high... in 5th WSEAS Int. Spain. on Maneuvering and Control of Marine Crafts. J. CONCLUSIONS Identification has been made of the heading model of the inscale TF120 turboferry. PhD thesis. Spain. Trodheim.. Esquibel.. 429–443 Smith. The simulation has been carried out to verify the suitability of the LOS algorithm. Velasco. 2003. “Ship steering control system optimization using genetic algorithms”.. I. 2008 180 Heading(º) Desired Heding(º) 160 140 120 Heading(º) 100 is advisable to use a first order network for the heading controller. Fossen. E. meaning that it [14] 121 . Á. 2005. T... “Platform of Trials in an Open Environment for the Cooperation of Marine Vehicles Programmed in Labview with Wireless Connectivity by Means of Wifi”. T.F. Rueda. REFERENCES [1] Van Amerongen J. López and L.. B. Genetics Algorithms: concepts and designs. Skjetne.. Ljung. Revestido.. “Adaptive steering of ships. E. The Netherlands. M. “Marine Vehicles WebWiFi Platform for Remote Experimentation Programmed in LabVIEW”... Upper Saddler River.J. Velasco. The best model has been validated with a simulation on a data set different from the one used for parameter estimation and with a correlation analysis on the prediction errors. E.. 80 60 40 20 [2] 0 0 50 100 150 200 time(s) 250 300 350 Fig. McGookin. E. Breverik. With the tests carried out on the coastline of the Bay of Santander. Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Control. [13] VIII. Springler. [3] [4] 20 15 10 5 Simulated trajectory Waypoints [5] [6] [7] 0 x(m) [8] 5 10 15 20 25 30 [9] [10] [11] 0 10 20 30 40 y(m) 50 60 70 80 [12] Fig. 2008. Revestido.S. 244–249.I. D. Greece. Kwong. Fossen. L. Matlab. Velasco.. P.. Rigs and Underwater Vehicles (Marine Cybernetics AS). Aug. Conf.Tang. 1997. F. T. pp 275–293. Rueda. System Identification Theory for the User. T. 2004. “Line of sight path following of underactuated marine craft”... Esquibel.M. Dabney. M. Ed. Chapter 12. New Jersey. on System Science and Simulation in Engineering. Simulations of standard maneuvers show the response of the identified model and the kinematics.. Volume 2. and De la Cruz. M. 16 Heading control of the trackkeeping system using equation (26) as a switching mechanism. J. K. “Turning Circles of an Autonomus High Speed Craft Model”.A model reference approach to improved manoeuvering and economical course Keeping”. J. Aranda. Journal of Control Engineering Practice. Harman. Esquibel. Velasco. J. F. ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT Issue 3. 2005. Rueda. R. Marine Control Systems: Guidance. J. Canadá.. Corripio. B. Girona. on Electroscience and Technology for Naval Engineering and AllElectric Ship.. 2006. Revestido. L. Rueda. E. Moyano.. Y. F. E. 1st WSEAS International Symposium on Advances in Naval Science. the heading controller and also the identified model. in 'ACE 06' 7th IFAC Symposium on Advances in Control Education. Tenerife. González de Santos. Norway. Prentice hall. Á. A. 1982.. T. MurraySmith. Users’s Guide. L. 1999. Á.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS.. Delft University and Technology. 2006. 1998..... 2002. pp.. Mastering Simulink. An evaluation of a trackkeeping controller will be made on the coastline of the bay of Santander in further research. Lin. several predictionerror model structures and continuous structures have been identified with different orders. López E. Heraklion. pp. L. C. A. “Platform for remote experimentation of autonomous high speed craft models with a combined technology for WiFi and internet communications programmed in LabVIEW”. in: Proc. Spain.. Haro Casado M.. S. L. J. Man. Moyano E. Esquibel.Crete. T. Research and Education. “Autopilot and TrackKeeping Simulation of an Autonomous Inscale Fastferry Model”. Revestido. Prentice Hall. UCM. Version 6. 6th IFAC Conf. J. E. K. Velasco. the possibilities of the platform for experimentation of marine vehicles with research and educational purposes are presented. A. John Wiley & Sons. in Robotics and Automation in the Maritime Industries.W. Navigation and Control of Ships. System Identification Toolbox for Use with MATLAB. E. Fossen. M. I. F. in WSEAS/IASME Int. Madrid. 2006. in 12th WSEAS International Conference on SYSTEMS. Miami. Revestido. T. F. J. Madrid.. M. T.. Conf. 1999. 17 xy plot of the simulated trajectory of the TF120 model and desired geometrical path made up of waypoints..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.