Composite anti-disturbance control for ship dynamic positioning systems with thruster faults

Abstract

Anti-disturbance control problem is studied for ship dynamic positioning systems with model uncertainties and ocean disturbances under thruster faults. For the ocean disturbance, a stochastic disturbance observer (SDO) is established to give the online estimation. For thruster faults, an adaptive law is used to evaluate, which is obtain from Lyapunov function. For model uncertainties, a robust control term with adaptive technology is used to attenuate it. Then, a composite anti-disturbance control (CADC) strategy is raised by combining disturbance observer-based control (DOBC), adaptive technology, and robust control term, which makes the position and yaw angle of ship reach the desired values. Finally, the simulation example proves the validity of the controller.

Keywords

Anti-disturbance control dynamic positioning DOBC thruster fault stochastic disturbance observer

Introduction

The dynamic positioning (DP) can keep the ship in a predetermined trajectory in the presence of external environmental disturbance.^1–3. For unknown constant disturbance, a nonlinear set-point-regulation controller was proposed using a port-Hamiltonian framework.⁴ Considering the second-order wave forces, a proportion-integration-differentiation controller was given based on fuzzy rules.⁵ An observer is designed to estimate the ocean disturbances influencing in systems DP ships.⁶ As we all known that, in many results only the influence of external disturbance are considered on DP ships.

In fact, there are various disturbances at sea level, thus it is necessary to study the anti-disturabnce control for DP systems with multiple disturbances.^7,8 Yet conventional anti-disturbance control is conservative in the attenuation of multiple disturbances, in this cases, the composite hierarchical anti-disturbance control (CHADC) strategy was presented, which has advantages of high control precision and strong robustness.^9–12 Considering modeling uncertainty and marine environmental disturbance, a composite control method is raised by combining DOBC and $H_{\infty}$ control.¹³ In Du et al.,¹⁴ a robust adaptive controller was given for systems with multiple disturbance. Furthermore, the DOBC and stochastic control theory are combined to deal with environmental disturbances such as wind, second-order wave force, and current.¹⁵

Thruster faults will appear inevitably when ships sailing on the sea for a long time, which will degrade system performance, reduce the DP accuracy, and even make the DP system unstable, thus, it is essential to study the fault diagnosis of ships to improve the reliability of the DP systems.^16–18 Under the condition of the fault type and upper bound are known, the dynamic positioning was realized for ships with disturbances.¹⁹ In Su et al.,²⁰ the asymptotic stability of DP ships with actuator constraints was addressed, whereas the external environmental disturbances is not considered. Considering the dynamic positioning ship with thruster faults, a dynamic surface control method based on fault state observer is proposed, which lacks the ability to deal with disturbances.²¹

In this paper, the problem of anti-disturbance control for DP ship systems with model uncertainties and ocean disturbances under thruster faults is researched. A composite anti-disturbance control strategy is proposed to make all states of DP ships asymptotically bounded in mean square, such that the desired position and heading can be achieved. The main contributions are as follows:

The DP system of ships with ocean disturbances, model uncertainties, and thruster faults are considered concurrently, the model uncertainties and thruster faults are unknown and norm bounded. In addition, the ocean disturbance is generated by an external system with stochastic term.

A stochastic disturbance observer is established to compensate the ocean disturbance, an adaptive algorithm-based robust control term is designed to suppress the model uncertainties, as well as the thruster faults are estimated by using adaptive technology. On these basis, a composite anti-disturbance controller is constructed to ensure that the states of system are asymptotically bounded in mean square.

Mathematical modeling of ships

Two coordinate frames are defined to describe the ship motion, as represented in the Figure 1. The dynamic positioning of ship’s mathematical model is given as follow²²

\overset{\cdot}{η} (t) = J (ψ) v (t),

(1)

M \overset{\cdot}{v} (t) = - D v (t) + τ (t) + b (t),

(2)

where $η = [x, y, ψ]^{T}$ is the vector consisting of the north-east-down position $(x, y)$ and heading angle $ψ$ , $v = [u, v, r]^{T}$ is the vector consisting of the ship-fixed surge velocity $u$ , sway velocity $v$ , and yaw rate $r$ , and

J (ψ) = [\begin{matrix} \cos (ψ) & - \sin (ψ) & 0 \\ \sin (ψ) & \cos (ψ) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{matrix}],

(3)

which satisfies $J^{- 1} (ψ) = J^{T} (ψ)$ . $M \in ℜ^{3 \times 3}$ is a inertia matrix, $D \in ℜ^{3 \times 3}$ is a damping matrix. $b = [b_{1}, b_{2}, b_{3}]^{T}$ is slowly-varying environmental disturbances. $τ = [τ_{1}, τ_{2}, τ_{3}]^{T}$ is a three-dimensional column vector, which is formed from forces and moments that generated by the propulsion device with thruster faults, where $τ_{1}$ is the surge force, $τ_{2}$ is the sway force, and $τ_{3}$ is the yaw moment. The thruster faults can be describe as

τ_{i} = Γ_{i} τ_{ci}, i = 1, 2, 3,

(4)

where $τ_{ci}$ is actual control input, $Γ_{i}$ indicates a loss-of-effectiveness (LOE) fault.

Figure 1.

North-east-down and ship-fixed coordinate frames.²²

Based on Fossen and Strand,²³ $b (t)$ is described as

\overset{\cdot}{b} (t) = - T^{- 1} b (t) + Ψ ξ (t),

(5)

where $T \in ℜ^{3 \times 3}$ is the known positive definite diagonal matrices, $Ψ \in ℜ^{3 \times 3}$ is the bounded positive definite diagonal matrices, $ξ (t) \in ℜ^{3}$ is the zero-mean Gauss white noise, and $∥ ξ (t) ∥^{2} \leq c^{*}$ , $c^{*}$ is a positive constant.

The ship has uncertainty in dynamic modeling, which is shown as follows

M = M_{0} + Δ M, D = D_{0} + Δ D,

(6)

where $M_{0}, D_{0}$ are known, and $Δ M, Δ D$ represent modeling uncertainty.

Let

δ = - Δ M \overset{\cdot}{v} - Δ D v .

(7)

Based on Wang and Han,²⁴ the yaw angle $ψ$ satisfies

J (ψ) \approx I .

(8)

The DP system is expressed as

\begin{matrix} \overset{\cdot}{x} (t) = Gx (t) + H (Γ^{T} τ_{c} (t) + b (t) + δ (t)), \\ x = [\begin{matrix} η \\ v \end{matrix}], G = [\begin{matrix} O_{3 \times 3} & I \\ O_{3 \times 3} & - M_{0}^{- 1} D_{0} \end{matrix}], H = [\begin{matrix} O_{3 \times 3} \\ M_{0}^{- 1} \end{matrix}], \end{matrix}

(9)

where $x (t) \in ℜ^{6}$ , $G \in ℜ^{6 \times 6}$ , $H \in ℜ^{6 \times 3}$ , and $τ_{c} (t) = [τ_{c 1}, τ_{c 2}, τ_{c 3}]^{T} \in ℜ^{3}$ is the state vector, the coefficient matrix and the control input vector. $b (t)$ is slowly-varying environmental disturbances. $δ (t)$ is the modeling uncertainty. $Γ = diag {Γ_{1}, Γ_{2}, Γ_{3}}$ represents the LOE fault caused by the thruster system.

Assumption 1: The LOE fault satisfies $Γ^{*} < Γ_{i} \leq 1, i = 1, 2, 3$ , where $Γ^{*}$ is an unknown positive constant.

Assumption 2: The modeling uncertainty term is bounded, which satisfies $∥ δ ∥ < ρ$ and $ρ$ is unknown positive constant.

Assumption 3: The pair $(T^{- 1}, H)$ is observable and the pair $(G, H)$ is controllable.

Lemma 1²⁵: For

dx (t) = f (x (t), t) dt + g (x (t), t) d ω (t), t \geq t_{0} \geq 0 .

(10)

If $\exists V \in C^{2.1} (ℜ^{n} \times ℜ_{+})$ , $κ \in K_{ν} \subset K_{\infty}$ , and $ψ, s, θ > 0$ , satisfy

κ (| x |^{ψ}) \leq V (x, t),

(11)

L V (x, t) \leq - sV (x, t) + θ,

(12)

for $\forall (x, t) \in ℜ^{n} \times ℜ_{+}$ , that is

lim_{t \to \infty} sup E | x (t; t_{0}, x_{0}) |^{ψ} \leq κ^{- 1} (\frac{θ}{s})

(13)

for $\forall (x, t) \in ℜ^{n} \times ℜ_{+}$ , the system (10) is asymptotically bounded in $p$ th moment.

According to Øksendal,²⁶ by replacing $ξ (t)$ with $\frac{d ω (t)}{dt}$ , the DP systems can be depicted by:

dx (t) = Gx (t) dt + H (Γ^{T} τ_{c} (t) + b (t) + δ (t)) dt,

(14)

db (t) = - T^{- 1} b (t) dt + Ψ d ω (t),

(15)

based on Hu,²⁷ Hu et al.,²⁸ $ω (t)$ is an independent standard Wiener process.

Lemma 2²⁹: If the characteristic value of the matrix $X$ belong to the LMI region $D (α, β)$ , the following conditions are satisfied when and only when there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $P$

X P + P X^{T} + 2 α P < 0

(16)

[\begin{matrix} - β P & X P \\ * & - β P \end{matrix}] < 0

(17)

Design of observers and controller

Supposing $x (t)$ is available. The stochastic disturbance observer (SDO) is devised to estimate $b (t)$ . After that, the CADC strategy is proposed.

Stochastic disturbance observer (SDO)

The SDO is given as

{\begin{matrix} \hat{b} (t) = q (t) + Lx (t), \\ dq (t) = (- T^{- 1} - LH) (q (t) + Lx (t)) dt - LGx (t) dt \end{matrix} - LH {\hat{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) dt,

(18)

where $\hat{b} (t)$ is the evaluation of $b (t)$ , $q (t)$ is the auxiliary variable of SDO (18), and $L$ is the observer gain matrix. $\hat{Γ}$ is the evaluation of $Γ$ , which will be determined later.

Define the disturbance estimation error as $\tilde{b} (t)$ and the fault estimation error as $\tilde{Γ}$ , and make it satisfy $\tilde{b} (t) = b (t) - \hat{b} (t)$ and $\tilde{Γ} = Γ - \hat{Γ}$ . The disturbance estimation error systems is

\begin{matrix} d \tilde{b} (t) = (- T^{- 1} - LH) \tilde{b} (t) dt - LH {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) dt \\ - LH δ (t) dt + Ψ d ω (t) . \end{matrix}

(19)

Composite anti-disturbance control (CADC)

The CADC strategy is put forward in order that the system (14) is asymptotically mean-square bounded.

To repress the modeling uncertainty (7), the adaptive law-based robust control term $h_{r} (t)$ is given as follows:

h_{r} (t) = \frac{{\hat{ρ}}^{2} H^{T} P_{1} x (t)}{\hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + σ},

(20)

d \hat{ρ} = 2 γ_{1} (∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ - γ_{2} \hat{ρ}) dt .

(21)

Here, $\hat{ρ}$ is the modeling uncertainty bound estimation of $ρ$ , $γ_{1}$ , and $γ_{2}$ are positive design constants, $σ$ is a small positive design constant, and $P_{1}$ is the matrix to be designed, which will be determined later.

Considering the SDO (18) and robust control term (20), the composite controller is devised as follows

τ_{c} (t) = {\hat{Γ}}^{- 1} (Kx (t) - \hat{b} (t) - h_{r} (t)),

(22)

where $K$ is coefficient matrix, which can be derived using the LMI.

On the basis of (22), one has

\begin{matrix} dx (t) = (G + HK) x (t) dt + H \tilde{b} (t) dt + H {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) dt \\ + H (δ (t) - h_{r} (t)) dt . \end{matrix}

(23)

Combining (19) and (23), then

\begin{matrix} d \bar{x} (t) = \bar{G} \bar{x} (t) dt + {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) dt + {\bar{H}}_{1} δ (t) dt \\ - {\bar{H}}_{2} h_{r} (t) dt + \underline{Ψ} d ω (t), \end{matrix}

(24)

where

\begin{matrix} \bar{G} = [\begin{matrix} G + HK & H \\ O_{3 \times 6} & - T^{- 1} - LH \end{matrix}], {\bar{H}}_{1} = [\begin{matrix} H \\ - LH \end{matrix}], \\ {\bar{H}}_{2} = [\begin{matrix} H \\ O_{3 \times 3} \end{matrix}], \underline{Ψ} = [\begin{matrix} O_{6 \times 3} \\ Ψ \end{matrix}], \bar{x} (t) = [\begin{matrix} x (t) \\ \tilde{b} (t) \end{matrix}] . \end{matrix}

The following results can be obtained through the stability analysis for the system (24).

Theorem 1: Under Assumption 1–3, consider system (14) with disturbances and thruster faults, for given constants $λ > 0$ , $α > 0$ , $β > 0$ , if $\exists Q_{1} > 0$ , $P_{2} > 0$ , constant $γ_{3} > 0$ , and matrix $R_{1}$ and $R_{2}$ , satisfying

Ξ = [\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} Π_{1} & H & O & O \\ * & Π_{2} & O & - R_{2} H \\ * & * & - γ_{3}^{2} I & O \\ * & * & * & - γ_{3}^{2} I \end{matrix} \end{matrix}] < 0,

(25)

Σ + Σ^{T} + 2 α P_{2} < 0

(26)

[\begin{matrix} - β P_{2} & Σ \\ * & - β P_{2} \end{matrix}] < 0

(27)

where

\begin{matrix} Π_{1} = G Q_{1} + Q_{1} G^{T} + H R_{1} + R_{1}^{T} H^{T}, \\ Π_{2} = Σ + Σ^{T}, \\ Σ = - P_{2} T^{- 1} - R_{2} H, \end{matrix}

and the adaptive law satisfies

\overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}} = 2 λ τ_{c} {\bar{x}}^{T} P H_{1},

(28)

then all states of system (24) are asymptotically mean-square bounded by adjusting the gain $L$ of SDO (18) with $L = P_{2}^{- 1} R_{2}$ and solving the gain $K$ of the controller (20) with $K = R_{1} Q_{1}^{- 1}$ , where the characteristic values of $- T^{- 1} - LH$ belong to the LMI region $D (α, β)$ .

Proof: Select the following Lyapunov function

V (\bar{x} (t), t) = {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P \bar{x} (t) + Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \tilde{Γ}}{2 λ}) + \frac{1}{2 γ_{1}} {\tilde{ρ}}^{2},

(29)

and

P = [\begin{matrix} P_{1} & O \\ O & P_{2} \end{matrix}] = [\begin{matrix} Q_{1}^{- 1} & O \\ O & P_{2} \end{matrix}] > 0 .

(30)

the derivative of (29) is

\begin{matrix} L V (\bar{x} (t), t) = \frac{\partial V}{\partial \bar{x}} (\bar{G} \bar{x} (t) + {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) + {\bar{H}}_{1} δ (t) \\ - {\bar{H}}_{2} h_{r} (t)) + Tr ({\underline{Ψ}}^{T} P \underline{Ψ}) \\ - Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}}}{λ}) - \frac{1}{γ_{1}} \tilde{ρ} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{ρ}} \\ = {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) (P \bar{G} + {\bar{G}}^{T} P) \bar{x} (t) + 2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1} δ (t) \\ - 2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{2} h_{r} (t) + Tr (2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t)) \\ - Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}}}{λ}) - \frac{1}{γ_{1}} \tilde{ρ} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{ρ}} + Tr ({\underline{Ψ}}^{T} P \underline{Ψ}) \\ = {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) (P \bar{G} + {\bar{G}}^{T} P) \bar{x} (t) + 2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P ({\bar{H}}_{1} - {\bar{H}}_{2}) δ (t) \\ + 2 x^{T} (t) P_{1} H δ (t) + Tr ({\underline{Ψ}}^{T} P \underline{Ψ}) \\ - 2 x^{T} (t) P_{1} H \frac{{\hat{ρ}}^{2} H^{T} P_{1} x (t)}{\hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + σ} \\ - \frac{1}{γ_{1}} \tilde{ρ} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{ρ}} + Tr (2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t)) - Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}}}{λ}) \end{matrix}

(31)

It can be obtained from Young’s inequality

\begin{matrix} L V (\bar{x} (t), t) \leq {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) \\ (P \bar{G} + {\bar{G}}^{T} P + \frac{1}{γ_{3}^{2}} P ({\bar{H}}_{1} - {\bar{H}}_{2}) ({\bar{H}}_{1} - {\bar{H}}_{2})^{T} P) \bar{x} (t) \\ + γ_{3}^{2} ∥ δ (t) ∥^{2} + Tr ({\underline{Ψ}}^{T} P \underline{Ψ}) \\ + 2 x^{T} (t) P_{1} H δ (t) - 2 x^{T} (t) P_{1} H \frac{{\hat{ρ}}^{2} H^{T} P_{1} x (t)}{\hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + σ} \\ - \frac{1}{γ_{1}} \tilde{ρ} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{ρ}} + Tr (2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t)) - Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}}}{λ}) \end{matrix}

(32)

According to $\tilde{ρ} = ρ - \hat{ρ}$ , and the square inequality, we have

\begin{matrix} 2 x^{T} (t) P_{1} H δ (t) - 2 x^{T} (t) P_{1} H \frac{{\hat{ρ}}^{2} H^{T} P_{1} x (t)}{\hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + σ} - \frac{1}{γ_{1}} \tilde{ρ} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{ρ}} \\ \leq 2 ρ ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ - \frac{2 {\hat{ρ}}^{2} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥^{2}}{\hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + σ} - \frac{1}{γ_{1}} \tilde{ρ} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{ρ}} \\ = 2 \tilde{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + \frac{2 σ \hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥}{\hat{ρ} ∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ + σ} \\ - 2 \tilde{ρ} (∥ H^{T} P_{1} x (t) ∥ - γ_{2} \hat{ρ}) \leq 2 σ + 2 γ_{2} \tilde{ρ} \hat{ρ} \\ = 2 σ + γ_{2} (ρ^{2} - {\tilde{ρ}}^{2} - {\hat{ρ}}^{2}) \leq - γ_{2} {\tilde{ρ}}^{2} + 2 σ + γ_{2} ρ^{2} \end{matrix}

(33)

According to (28), we get

\begin{matrix} 2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) - Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}}}{λ}) \\ = Tr (2 {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1} {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t)) - Tr (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \overset{\cdot}{\hat{Γ}}}{λ}) \\ = Tr (2 {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1}) - Tr (2 {\tilde{Γ}}^{T} τ_{c} (t) {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P {\bar{H}}_{1}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(34)

From (32)-(34), it is obvious that

L V \leq {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) Ξ_{1} \bar{x} (t) - γ_{2} {\tilde{ρ}}^{2} + C

(35)

where

\begin{matrix} Ξ_{1} = P \bar{G} + {\bar{G}}^{T} P + \frac{1}{γ_{3}^{2}} P ({\bar{H}}_{1} - {\bar{H}}_{2}) ({\bar{H}}_{1} - {\bar{H}}_{2})^{T} P, \\ C = γ_{3}^{2} ∥ δ (t) ∥^{2} + Tr ({\underline{Ψ}}^{T} P \underline{Ψ}) + 2 σ + γ_{2} ρ^{2} . \end{matrix}

Our main results are as follows:

(1): $Ξ_{1} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{2} < 0$ . Considering (24), (35), and Schur complement lemma, $Ξ_{1} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{2} < 0$ , where

Ξ_{2} = [\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} Λ_{1} & P_{1} H & O & O \\ * & Λ_{2} & O & - P_{2} LH \\ * & * & - γ_{3}^{2} I & O \\ * & * & * & - γ_{3}^{2} I \end{matrix} \end{matrix}],

(36)

with

\begin{matrix} Λ_{1} = P_{1} G + G^{T} P_{1} + P_{1} HK + K^{T} H^{T} P_{1}, \\ Λ_{2} = - P_{2} T^{- 1} - T^{- 1} P_{2} - P_{2} LH - H^{T} L^{T} P_{2}, \end{matrix}

(2): $Ξ_{2} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{3} < 0$ . Multiplied by $diag {Q_{1}, I, I, I}$ on both sides of the matrix $Ξ_{2}$ , yields

Ξ_{3} = [\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} Π_{1} & H & O & O \\ * & Π_{2} & O & - P_{2} LH \\ * & * & - γ_{3}^{2} I & O \\ * & * & * & - γ_{3}^{2} I \end{matrix} \end{matrix}] < 0,

(37)

here

Π_{1} = G Q_{1} + Q_{1} G^{T} + HK Q_{1} + Q_{1} K^{T} H^{T},

Π_{2} = - P_{2} T^{- 1} - T^{- 1} P_{2} - P_{2} LH - H^{T} L^{T} P_{2},

(3): $Ξ_{3} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ < 0$ . For $Ξ_{3} < 0$ , choosing $K = R_{1} Q_{1}^{- 1}$ and $L = P_{2}^{- 1} R_{2}$ , we have $Ξ < 0$ .

So, one has $Ξ < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{3} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{2} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{1} < 0$ .

When $Ξ < 0$ , $\exists θ > 0$ , one has

Ξ < 0 \Leftrightarrow Ξ_{1} < 0 \Rightarrow Ξ_{1} + θ I < 0 .

(38)

Based on (29), (35), and (38), choosing $κ = λ_{\min} (P) | \bar{x} |^{p}$ , $ϑ = min {\frac{θ}{λ_{\max} (P)}, γ_{2}}$ , and $p = 2$ , the following inequalities hold

κ (| \bar{x} |^{p}) = λ_{m i n} (P) | \bar{x} |^{2} \leq {\bar{x}}^{T} (t) P \bar{x} (t) + T r (\frac{{\tilde{Γ}}^{T} \tilde{Γ}}{2 λ}) + \frac{1}{2 γ_{1}} {\tilde{ρ}}^{2} = V (\bar{x} (t), t),

(39)

L V (\bar{x} (t), t) \leq - ϑ V (\bar{x} (t)) + C .

(40)

That is

EV (\bar{x} (t), t) \leq V (\bar{x} (0)) e^{- ϑ t} + \frac{C}{ϑ}

(41)

and

lim_{t \to \infty} sup E | \bar{x} (t; t_{0}, {\bar{x}}_{0}) |^{p} \leq \frac{C}{ϑ} .

(42)

In the light of Lemma 1, system (24) is asymptotically mean-square bounded.

The next step is considered the problem of regional pole constraints.

On account of Lemma 2, by selecting the symmetric positive definite matrix $P$ as $P_{2}^{- 1}$ , matrix $X$ as $- T^{- 1} - LH$ , the characteristic values of $- T^{- 1} - LH$ belong to the region $D (α, β)$ , when

\bar{Σ} + {\bar{Σ}}^{T} + 2 α P_{2}^{- 1} < 0

(43)

[\begin{matrix} - β P_{2}^{- 1} & \bar{Σ} \\ * & - β P_{2}^{- 1} \end{matrix}] < 0

(44)

where $\bar{Σ} = (- T^{- 1} - LH) P_{2}^{- 1}$ .

Pre-multiplying and post-multiplying by $P_{2}$ in (43), by $diag {P_{2}, P_{2}}$ in (44), yields

Σ + Σ^{T} + 2 α P_{2} < 0

(45)

[\begin{matrix} - β P_{2} & Σ \\ * & - β P_{2} \end{matrix}] < 0

(46)

where $Σ = - P_{2} T^{- 1} - R_{2} H$ .

That is, if (26) and (27) hold, the characteristic values of $- T^{- 1} - LH$ belong to the region $D (α, β)$ .

That is to say, the proof is done.

Simulation examples

Taking Northern Clipper with mass of $4.591 \times 10^{6}$ kg and length of $76.2$ m as an example to simulate different situations.²² Based on Fossen,²² the coefficient matrices in (6) are taken as follows:

M_{0} = [\begin{matrix} 5.3122 \times 10^{6} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 8.2831 \times 10^{6} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 3.7454 \times 10^{6} \end{matrix}],

D_{0} = [\begin{matrix} 5.0242 \times 10^{6} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 2.7229 \times 10^{5} & - 4.3933 \times 10^{6} \\ 0 & - 4.3933 \times 10^{6} & 4.1894 \times 10^{8} \end{matrix}] .

Case 1:

$disturbance : T = diag {1000, 1000, 1000} and Ψ = diag {130, 100, 80}$

LOE fault : Γ_{i} = {\begin{matrix} 1, 0 \leq t < 50 \\ 0.8, t \geq 50 \end{matrix}, i = 1, 2, 3

u n c e r t a i n t e r m : Δ M = 0 % M_{0} a n d Δ D = 0 % D_{0}

Selecting $η_{0} = [20 m, 20 m, 10 rad]^{T}$ and $v_{0} = [0 m / s, 0 m / s, 0 rad / s]^{T}$ , then $X (0) = [1, 1, π / 4, 0, 0, 0]^{T}$ . Selecting the designed parameters as $α = 10$ , $β = 20$ , $γ_{1} = 2 \times 10^{4}$ , $γ_{2} = 1 \times 10^{- 9}$ , and $σ = 1 \times 10^{3}$ .

Based on Theorem 1, one has

Q_{1} = [\begin{matrix} 0.6272 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & - 0.2091 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.6272 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & - 0.2091 & 0.0001 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.6386 & 0.0000 & - 0.0002 & - 0.1854 \\ - 0.2091 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.6272 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & - 0.2091 & - 0.0002 & 0.0000 & 0.6272 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0001 & - 0.1854 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.2338 \end{matrix}],

P_{2} = [\begin{matrix} 0.0217 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0217 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0116 \end{matrix}],

R_{1} = {[\begin{matrix} - 3.3423 \times 10^{6} & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & - 5.2525 \times 10^{6} & 4.5118 \times 10^{5} \\ 0.0000 & 8.1464 \times 10^{5} & - 3.5183 \times 10^{8} \\ - 1.4459 \times 10^{6} & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & - 2.1327 \times 10^{6} & - 5.9087 \times 10^{3} \\ 0.0000 & - 1.0331 \times 10^{6} & - 4.5593 \times 10^{8} \end{matrix}]}^{T},

R_{2} = {[\begin{matrix} 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 1.6279 \times 10^{6} & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 2.5382 \times 10^{6} & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 6.2247 \times 10^{8} \end{matrix}]}^{T},

P = [\begin{matrix} 1.7936 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.5979 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 1.7936 & - 0.0002 & 0.0000 & 0.5979 & - 0.0011 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & - 0.0002 & 2.0340 & 0.0000 & 0.0007 & 1.6127 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.5979 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.7937 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.5979 & 0.0007 & 0.0000 & 1.7938 & 0.0007 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & - 0.0011 & 1.6127 & 0.0000 & 0.0007 & 5.5563 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0217 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0217 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0116 \end{matrix}],

K = {[\begin{matrix} - 6.8592 \times 10^{6} & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0 & - 1.0695 \times 10^{7} & 1.3776 \times 10^{6} \\ 0 & - 9.5523 \times 10^{3} & - 1.4509 \times 10^{9} \\ - 4.5919 \times 10^{6} & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0 & - 6.9662 \times 10^{6} & - 3.0627 \times 10^{5} \\ 0 & - 4.4222 \times 10^{6} & - 3.1007 \times 10^{9} \end{matrix}]}^{T},

L = {[\begin{matrix} 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 7.5017 \times 10^{7} & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 & 1.1697 \times 10^{8} & 0.0000 \\ 0.0000 a & 0.0000 & 5.3661 \times 10^{10} \end{matrix}]}^{T},

Case 2:

\begin{matrix} disturbance : T = diag {1000, 1000, 1000} and Ψ \\ = 10^{6} \times diag {130, 100, 80} \end{matrix}

LOE fault : Γ_{i} = {\begin{matrix} 1, 0 \leq t < 50 \\ 0.3, t \geq 50 \end{matrix}, i = 1, 2, 3

u n c e r t a i n t e r m : Δ M = 10 % M_{0} a n d Δ D = 10 % D_{0}

Case 3:

\begin{matrix} disturbance : T = diag {1000, 1000, 1000} and Ψ \\ = 10^{6} \times diag {150, 130, 4000} \end{matrix}

LOE fault : Γ_{i} = {\begin{matrix} 1, 0 \leq t < 50 \\ 0.25, t \geq 50 \end{matrix}, i = 1, 2, 3

u n c e r t a i n t e r m : Δ M = 15 % M_{0} a n d Δ D = 15 % D_{0}

The initial values and design control parameters are the same as case 1. In Figures 2 to 4, Figures 2 to 4(a) is the ship’s trajectory from initial position $(20 m, 20 m)$ . The curves of ship position are illustrated in Figures 2 to 4(b). Figures 2 to 4(c) represents the responses of ship velocity. The control input can be seen in Figures 2 to 4(d). Figures 2 to 4(e) and (f) show the curves of estimation for the disturbances and faults. Furthermore, Table 1 indicates the performance of the controlled ship at $100 s$ .

Figure 2.

Simulation results under CADC and CHADC for case 1: (a) trajectory of the ship in plan- $xy$ , (b) responses of ship position, (c) responses of ship velocity, (d) curves of the control input, (e) curves of the disturbance estimation, and (f) curves of the fault estimation.

Figure 3.

Simulation results under CADC and CHADC for case 2: (a) trajectory of the ship in plan- $xy$ , (b) responses of ship position, (c) responses of ship velocity, (d) curves of the control input, (e) curves of the disturbance estimation, and (f) curves of the fault estimation.

Figure 4.

Simulation results under CADC and CHADC for case 3: (a) trajectory of the ship in plan- $xy$ , (b) responses of ship position, (c) responses of ship velocity, (d) curves of the control input, (e) curves of the disturbance estimation, and (f) curves of the fault estimation.

Table 1.

Performance indices under $τ_{CADC}$ and $τ_{CHADC}$ .

Case	Case 1		Case 2		Case 3
Controller	$τ_{CADC}$	$τ_{CHADC}$	$τ_{CADC}$	$τ_{CHADC}$	$τ_{CADC}$	$τ_{CHADC}$
Settling time $t (s)$	36.2	36.1	36.3	46.6	36.5	47.2
$\int_{0}^{100} \| x (s) \| ds$	34.1531	35.0623	38.3493	68.5296	40.5499	81.5761
$\int_{0}^{100} \| y (s) \| ds$	34.1539	35.0657	36.3498	51.5139	37.4709	60.8935
$\int_{0}^{100} \| ψ (s) \| ds$	28.9219	33.5340	28.9369	33.5930	29.3148	36.8310

In Figures 2(a) and 3(a), it is shown that the CADC can make the ship stay in desired position $(0 m, 0 m)$ and maintain a fixed attitude steadily. In of Figures 2 to 4(b) and (c), we know that the CADC scheme presented in this paper can make the states of DP ship asymptotically mean-square bounded. As can be seen from Figures 2(e) to (f), 3(e) to (f), and 4(e) to (f), the estimations of disturbances and faults in this paper are satisfactory. It can be concluded from Figures 2(a) to (f), 3(a) to (f), and 4(a) to (f) that the proposed method can effectively compensate the disturbances and faults at the same time. Therefore, under the condition of thruster faults and environmental disturbances at the same time, the DP ship can still complete the marine task excellently by using the proposed composite controller.

Conclusions

For the dynamic positioning ship systems with ocean disturbances and modeling uncertainties under thruster faults, an adaptive law-based SDO is raised to evaluate the disturbances and faults simultaneously. Based on the estimation, the CADC strategy is put forward by using disturbance observer-based control, robust control term and adaptive technology to make the closed-loop system asymptotically mean-square bounded at the same time. The controlled ship can stay in desired position and maintain a fixed attitude. The next work in the future is the anti-disturbance control for the dynamic positioning ship systems with multiple disturbances and thruster faults under input saturation.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China 61973149 and 62273172, the Key Project of Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province ZR2020KF029, the Outstanding Youth Innovation Team Project of Shandong Higher Education Institution 2021KJ042.

ORCID iD

Xinjiang Wei

References

Sørensen

. A survey of dynamic positioning control systems. Ann Rev Control 2011; 35(1): 123–136.

Fossen

. Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1994.

You

Lim

Kim

, et al. Robust control synthesis for dynamic vessel positioning. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 2017; 231(1): 98–108.

Donaire

Perez

. Dynamic positioning of marine craft using a port-Hamiltonian framework. Automatica 2012; 48(5): 851–856.

Wang

Yang

, et al. A fuzzy rule based PID controller for dynamic positioning of vessels in variable environmental disturbances. J Mar Sci Technol 2019; 25(3): 914–924.

Tomera

Podgorski

. Control of dynamic positioning system with disturbance observer for autonomous marine surface vessels. Sensors 2021; 21(20): 6723.

Dantas

JLD

Da Cruz

De Barros

. Study of autonomous underwater vehicle wave disturbance rejection in the diving plane. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment 2014; 228(2): 122–135.

Katebi

Yamamoto

Matsuura

, et al. Robust dynamic ship positioning control system design and applications. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 2001; 11(13): 1257–1284.

Wei

Chen

Deng

, et al. Composite stratified anti-disturbance control for a class of MIMO discretełtime systems with nonlinearity. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 2012; 22(4): 453–472.

10.

Zhang

Wei

Zhang

, et al. Disturbance rejection for nonlinear systems with mismatched disturbances based on disturbance observer. J Frankl Inst Eng Appl Math 2017; 354(11): 4404–4424.

11.

Zhang

Wei

Karimi

, et al. Anti-disturbance control based on disturbance observer for nonlinear systems with bounded disturbances. J Frankl Inst Eng Appl Math 2018; 355(12): 4916–4930.

12.

Wei

Dong

Zhang

, et al. Composite anti-disturbance control for stochastic systems with multiple heterogeneous disturbances and input saturation. ISA Tran 2020; 100: 436–445.

13.

Wei

Zhang

, et al. Composite anti-disturbance dynamic positioning of vessels with modelling uncertainties and disturbances. Appl Ocean Res 2020; 105: 102404.

14.

Krstić

, et al. Dynamic positioning of ships with unknown parameters and disturbances. Control Eng Pract 2018; 76: 22–30.

15.

Zhang

Wei

, et al. Anti-disturbance control for dynamic positioning system of ships with disturbances. Appl Math Comput 2021; 396: 125929.

16.

Han

, et al. Fault-tolerant control for dynamic positioning vessel with thruster faults based on the neural modified extended state observer. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Syst 2021; 51(9): 5905–5917.

17.

Stoumpos

Bolbot

Theotokatos

, et al. Safety performance assessment of a marine dual fuel engine by integrating failure mode, effects and criticality analysis with simulation tools. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 2022; 236(2): 376–393.

18.

Xie

Guo

, et al. Fault tolerant robust control with transients for over-actuated nonlinear systems. Nonlinear Dyn 2021; 104(3): 2433–2450.

19.

Hao

Zhang

Yue

, et al. Fault-tolerant compensation control based on sliding mode technique of unmanned marine vehicles subject to unknown persistent ocean disturbances. Int J Control Autom Syst 2019; 18(3):739–752.

20.

Zheng

Mercorelli

. Nonlinear PD fault-tolerant control for dynamic positioning of ships with actuator constraints. IEEE-ASME Trans Mechatron 2017; 22(3): 1132–1142.

21.

Lin

Zhu

, et al. Thruster fault-tolerant control for dynamic positioning of vessels. Appl Ocean Res 2018; 80: 118–124.

22.

Fossen

. Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011.

23.

Fossen

Strand

. Passive nonlinear observer design for ships using Lyapunov methods: full-scale experiments with a supply vessel. Automatica 1999; 35: 3–16.

24.

Wang

Han

. Network-based modelling and dynamic output feedback control for unmanned marine vehicles in network environments. Automatica 2018; 91: 43–53.

25.

Mao

Yuan

. Stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching. London: Imperial College Press, 2006.

26.

Øksendal

. Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2003.

27.

. The modulus of continuity theorem for G-brownian motion. Commun Stat Theory Methods 2017; 46(7): 3586–3598.

28.

Chen

Zhang

. How big are the increments of G-brownian motion. Sci China-Math 2014; 57(8): 1687–1700.

29.

Chilali

Gahinet

H_{\infty}

design with pole placement constraints: an LMI approach. IEEE Trans Automat Control 1996; 41(2): 358–367.