Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т.

4 2018

Юр Г.С.. Осуществление процесса пульсационного горения топлива в камере сгорания дизеля…. 129
Палагушкин Б.В., Дёмин Ю.В., Реутов С.Н., Горелов С.В., Лизалек Н.Н., Елшин А.И.
Сравнительный анализ развития технических систем «дизельного двигателя» и «электрического
двигателя» с помощью диаграммы оценки идеальности технических систем…………………………. 133
Лебедев Б.О., Глушков С.П., Кочергин В.И. Особенности использования альтернативных видов
топлива для судовых энергетических установок…………………………………………………………….. 139
Барановский А.М., Викулов С.В., Мироненко И.Г. Метод измерения поверхностной энергии
разрушения…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 144
Ибрагимов Д.И., Камаев Н.А., Кузнецов Д.А. Результаты исследования влияния режимных и
конструктивных факторов на энергетическую эффективность микротурбин…………………………… 147
Ибрагимов Д.И., Камаев Н.А., Кузнецов Д.А. Экспериментальный стенд для исследования
энергетической эффективности и эксплуатационных характеристик осевых микротурбин………….. 152

ФИЗИЧЕСКИЕ ПОЛЯ КОРАБЛЯ, ОКЕАНА, АТМОСФЕРЫ И ИХ ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЕ


Сичкарев В.И., Палагушкин Б.В., Дёмин Ю.В., Горелов С.В. Оценка точности регистрации
волнового поля на экране судового радиолокатора………………………………………………………… 156
Сичкарев В.И., Палагушкин Б.В., Дёмин Ю.В., Горелов С.В. Радиолокационное получение
статистических характеристик волнения для судовождения………………………………………………. 161

УПРАВЛЕНИЕ И ОБРАБОТКА ИНФОРМАЦИИ


Кондратьев С.И., Печников А.Н., Хекерт Е.В. Эргономический подход к оцениванию
деятельности судовых специалистов: суть проблемы и подход к ее решению ………………………… 166
Будниченко М.А., Кунгуров В.Ю. Формирование ИТ-инфраструктуры судостроительного
предприятия в ходе модернизации……………………………………………………………………………… 175
Кузнецов А. Л., Изотов О. А., Семенов А. Д., Смоленцев С. В. Методы мягких вычислений для
генерации неоднородных потоков событий в моделировании транспортных систем………………….. 186
Ветчинкин А.С., Стариченков А.Л. Оптимальное по быстродействию управление курсом судна с
учетом ограничений на величину и скорость изменения управляющего воздействия………………… 191
Дюк В.А., Малыгин И.Г. Сравнение алгоритмов распознавания типов транспортных средств по
параметрам их силуэтов…………………………………………………………………………………………... 197

АВТОМАТИЗАЦИЯ И УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИЧЕСКИМИ ПРОЦЕССАМИ И


ПРОИЗВОДСТВАМИ
Таранцев А.А., Ищенко А.Д., Таранцев А.А., Горохов А.П. О способе подавления пожара на
объектах Северного морского пути, в том числе на энергообъектах……………………………………… 202
Пипченко А.Д., Шевченко В.А Робастный автоматический регулятор курса судна для различных
условий (на английском языке)…………………………………………………………………………………… 208
Будко П. А., Дорошенко В., Бескид П. П. Многоэтапный контроль технического состояния
наземных робототехнических комплексов………………………………………………………………………. 215

МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКОЕ И ПРОГРАММНОЕ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЕ КОМПЛЕКСОВ И КОМПЬЮТЕРНЫХ


СЕТЕЙ
Кузнецов А.Л., Кириченко А.В., Сазонов А.Е., Попов Г.Б. Использование эвристических
алгоритмов в задачах моделирования работы морского транспорта……………………………………… 224
ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСНОВЫ ИНФОРМАТИКИ, МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКОЕ МОДЕЛИРОВАНИЕ
Букарос А.Ю., Онищенко О.А., Козьминых Н.А., Василец Д.И., Букарос В.Н. Структурная модель
судовой холодильной установки………………………………………………………………………………….. 229
Маринюк Б.Т., Руденко М.Ф., Угольникова М.А. Сооружение и защита морских буровых платформ
методами низкотемпературных технологий……………………………………………………………………. 236

ЧИСЛЕННЫЕ МЕТОДЫ И КОМПЛЕКСЫ ПРОГРАММ

Грамузов Е.М., Февральских А.В. Применение метода демпфирования турбулентности для


расчета формы водной поверхности в задаче определения сопротивления судна на воздушной
подушке ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 242
МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т. 4 2018

УДК 629.56.064.5

РОБАСТНЫЙ АВТОМАТИЧЕСКИЙ РЕГУЛЯТОР КУРСА СУДНА ДЛЯ


РАЗЛИЧНЫХ УСЛОВИЙ
Александр Дмитриевич Пипченко
к.т.н., заведующий кафедрой Безопасности судовождения
Национальный университет "Одесская морская академия"
65029, Одесса, ул. Дидрихсона, 8
тел.: (380)487-231-317; e-mail: nav.researches@gmail.com
Валерий Анатольевич Шевченко
к.т.н., доцент кафедры электрооборудования и автоматики судов
Национальный университет "Одесская морская академия"
65029, Одесса, ул. Дидрихсона, 8
тел.: (380)487-332-367; e-mail: vash4891@gmail.com
Аннотация
В работе предложен регулятор курса судна с оригинальным алгоритмом обучения. Регулятор
базируется на применении нейронной сети прямого распространения и является относительно
робастным к моделируемым возмущениям, изменению скорости судна и условиям окружающей
среды. После обучения на линейной модели Номото, регулятор переключается на нелинейную
модель или реальное судно без необходимости дополнительной адаптации, что не снижает
качества его работы в режиме стабилизации или изменения курса судна.
Получена целевая функция максимальной эффективности управления при минимуме
отклонений от курса и перекладок руля на всем диапазоне заданий.
Разработана математическая модель двойного регулятора курса судна. По результатам
моделирования проведено сравнение характеристик настроенного ПД-регулятора и нейронного
регулятора курса.
Результаты моделирования показали в среднем в два раза более высокую эффективность
нейронного контроллера по сравнению ПД-регулятором при выполнении маневров с различной
скоростью судна и ветровыми возмущениями.
Ключевые слова: авторулевой; робастное управление; нелинейное управление; морское
судно; нейронные сети; оптимизация.

ROBUST AUTOMATIC SHIP HEADING CONTROLLER FOR VARIOUS


CONDITIONS
Alexandr D. Pipchenko
Ph.D., Head of Navigation Safety Department
National University "Odessa Maritime Academy"
65029, Odessa, Didrihson, 8
tel. (380)487-231-317; e-mail: nav.researches@gmail.com
Valery A. Shevchenko
Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of Electrical Equipment and Automation of Ships
National University "Odessa Maritime Academy"
65029, Odessa, Didrihson, 8
tel.: (380)487-332-367; e-mail: vash4891@gmail.com
Abstract
The paper presents a ship heading controller with the specific training algorithm. The controller is
based on the use of a feedforward neural network and is relatively robust to simulated disturbances,
changes in ship's speed and environmental conditions. After training on the linear Nomoto model, the
controller switches to a non-linear model or a real vessel without the need for additional adaptation, which
does not reduce the quality of its operation in the mode of stabilization or change in the heading of a
ship.
The objective function of maximum management efficiency with a minimum of deviations from the
heading and rudder deflections throughout the entire range of tasks, was obtained.
A mathematical model of the double-response controller of the ship's heading has been developed.
According to the simulation results, the characteristics of a configured PID controller and a neural
heading controller are compared.
The simulation results showed, on average, two times higher efficiency of the neural controller
compared to the PID controller when performing maneuvers with different ship speeds and wind
disturbances.
Keywords: autopilot; robust control; nonlinear control; ship; neural networks; optimization.

208
МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т. 4 2018

Introduction If J  (0,1), and Z  (0,1) – the objective function,


One of the key components of a ship’s navigation which characterizes the minimum deviation from the
control system is the autopilot. With introduction of goal, then J = 1 – Z.
mandatory ECDIS and its further development not only To reach maximum efficiency for a selected plant the
the heading keeping problem, but also track control and structure and parameters of the controller <Sс,с> have
automatic collision avoidance for large under-actuated to be defined in such way that Z is minimal. If the
[1] vessels became more critical. Later implies the controller’s structure is known, optimal parameters can
automatic execution of turns. Which requires efficiency be found by means of either online adaptation (in real
assessment and adaptation algorithms for ships time control loop with the plant itself) or offline adaptation
autopilots in maneuvering mode. (separately from control loop using the reference model).
Papers [1-4] and others, covers the following. Real-time adaptation is applicable in course keeping
Analyzing available studies one can distinguish two main mode, but cannot be used for a maneuvering mode,
approaches: when plant dynamical state is rapidly changing.
• Traditional approach, which involves PID, LQ and To define controller’s structure and parameters it is
other types of controllers; first necessary to define plant and disturbance
• “Soft computing” approach based on fuzzy logic (environment) model structure and parameters: <Sp,p>
and artificial neural networking methods. and <Sw,w >. It is important to mention that limitations
Advantages of PID based systems are its clear logical and inaccuracies in both affect the quality of whole
background, computational simplicity and reliability. control system. This means that high efficiency reached
Control adaptiveness in such systems can be achieved on the modelling stage is not always on the same level
via computation of optimal PID controller coefficients with on a real vessel.
use of a reference model in known conditions [1]. Therefore, a very important quality of the controller is
Disadvantage is a contradiction between reaction speed its robustness as an ability to tolerate inaccuracies in the
(in a heading maneuver case) and stability (in a course- determination of the parameters of the plant and the
keeping case). Optimal controller coefficients and even environment models, as well as a certain degree of its
structure for course keeping and maneuvering tasks are stochastic nature.
usually different.
Artificial neural network based controllers have been 2. Training algorithm and mathematical model
studied in papers [3,5,6] and many others. In general, At controller’s early development stage
use of neural controller (N-controller) allows to achieve environmental disturbances are usually neglected due to
better course control efficiency due to its robustness and its diversity, stochastic nature and significant change in
ability to capture plant’s non-linear behavior. However, vessel behavior while maneuvering in adverse weather.
system adaptation and stability analysis become more During the subsequent development and adaptation
complicated, which negatively affects system reliability. of the controller, disturbances, such as wind, current and
Paper [7] represents fuzzy logic based course waves, can be considered in following ways [1]:
controller. Simulated results of ship handling with such • by introducing the integral component;
controller lead to the next conclusions: fuzzy controller • by introducing feedforward component;
provides good course keeping accuracy with low to • by adding the low-pass filter to a sensor input signal
moderate disturbances. However, as per [6] for different (i.e. gyro compass);
control modes various combinations of membership • controller parameters adaptation (in course keeping
functions are required. Adaptation of fuzzy controller mode);
requires varying almost same coefficients as for PID, Proportional-differential (PD) law is conventional for
which leads to unnecessary complication of a manoeuvring mode. Mathematical model of a system
computational algorithm. “Vessel – Rudder – PD-law” can be represented in
The goal of this research is to find a feasible way to
following form:
improve conventional optimal heading control problem
applying soft computing techniques. ,
T1T2r  (T1  T2 )r  r  K  KT3  (1)
1. Research methodology
   rdt , (2)
Consider the problem of automated heading control
that is generally represented as <O,S,,U>. Standard   S   , (3)
control problem is determined as a goal О, control laws S  p   d r , (4)
U, and a set of relationships С. Relationships are the
functional dependencies which allow to describe a         
dynamical system behaviour. They define the system    min max  S , lim ,  lim dt , (5)
structure S and parameters .
  T  
A control problem solution means the selection from
U of a control law U, which is able to achieve О satisfying where T1, T2, T3, K – vessel model coefficients; r – vessel
С. Quality of О execution can be assessed with an rate of turn, rad/s; , S – present and set rudder angles,

lim – rudder movement speed limit, rad/s; Т –
efficiency indicator J, in accordance with which one can rad; 
determine the best solution among the many possible.
steering gear time constant; , S – present and set
Efficiency indicator J in this case depends on maneuver
headings, rad; р, d – proportional and differential
time, rudder movement intensity and course keeping
coefficients.
accuracy in steady state.
Therefore, to find PD-controller optimal parameters it
is necessary to find vessel and rudder models

209
МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т. 4 2018

parameters, objective function and reference function model is given on the Fig. 1. However better modelling
forms. accuracy can be obtained using method given in [10].
Provided that the controller can set maximum rudder
angles, the maximum steering efficiency is achieved with
a minimum deviation from the course and minimum
moves of steering gear through the whole range of tasks
that can be represented by the objective function of the
form:

T  
2
T  
2
N
 t
Z    max (1,t )
 
  C   
 
  n 1,t  




n 1t 1  t 1 
 
(6)
Fig. 1. S-175 container carrier rate-of-turn comparison
where t – deviation from the set course at time t; t –
rudder blade position at time t; С - weight coefficient; T
– total maneuvering time period. It can be seen from the Fig. 1 that a steady rate of
Reference function can be given as: turn value for model (1) is a linear function of the rudder
angle, at the same time for S-175 rate of turn non-linearly
  n
S n ,t  
depends on the rudder angle, and its values on various
,
 1n 1 (7) lateral velocities are changing proportionally.
   1,5,10 ,20...90 ; n  0,180 /   ,  Therefore, vessel’s turning dynamics can be
estimated with allowable accuracy only for a certain
range of lateral speeds with rudder angles limited to 5-
where n – variable, changing with a predetermined 10.
increments equal Т. Further sophistication of the vessel model, on the
This function allows to perform a majority of the other hand, complicates the process of finding the
heading maneuvers inherent to a vessel. By minimizing optimal coefficients of the control law and its subsequent
function (6) using modeling data one obtains PD adaptation.
controller coefficients, optimal for the entire set of Basing on those considerations, model (1) was
heading maneuvers with the initial speed and engine chosen to be used for a PD controller coefficients
settings, for which parameters of model optimisation. The model parameters were tuned to fit
Ошибка! Источник ссылки не найден., have been best S-175 container vessel model with a rudder angle of
defined. 20 and vessel speed of 30 knots (Fig. 1).
Comparison of the steady turning rate curves for an PD-controller tuning was performed by algorithm
S-175 container carrier four degrees of freedom non- shown on Fig. 2.
linear model obtained by means of towing tank
experiments [8,9] and corresponding linear Nomoto

Fig. 2. PD controller tuning block diagram


On the Fig. 3 rudder angles and corresponding 1) and tuned (р = 2, d = 47) PD controllers, for a 90
heading curves are shown for a non-linear and a linear turn with 30 knots speed.
(coefficients: Т1 = 45, Т2 = 13, Т3 = 115.6, К = 0.04) S-
175 container vessel models for non-тuned (р = 1, d =

210
МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т. 4 2018

Fig. 3. S-175 container carrier rudder movement and heading change curves
As can be seen from the graphs, although Nomoto and system efficiency strongly depends on the accuracy
linear model doesn’t fully reflect vessel dynamics when of the data used for training [6].
manoeuvring, PD controller tuning in off-line mode by the Neural and fuzzy controller types, in fact, are “black
proposed algorithm provides a reasonably good results. boxes”, poorly amenable to mathematical analysis and
In this case, the simulation of vessel course keeping adaptation. This is mainly caused by the complexity of
was conducted without considering weather conditions the mathematical models and a large number of
and without changing speed. One of the methods of coefficients.
weather disturbances compensation is given in [11,12]. Comparative analysis of three different controllers:
Taking into account the significant nonlinear behaviour of neural, fuzzy, PID, though, shown that while ensuring
a plant, as is evident from Fig. 1, once engine settings robustness and stability conditions most promising type
and environmental conditions changed, readjustment is for a vessel course keeping and manoeuvring tasks is
necessary to improve the quality of a PD controller. the one based on artificial neural networks.
In the process of developing and testing different
3. N-controller
configurations of N-controller on different types of
In studies [3,5,6] it is shown that use of fuzzy logic vessels dynamics nonlinear mathematical models the
and artificial neural networks for control applications can structure shown on Fig. 4 was obtained.
provide comparatively good results. However, these
controllers predominantly have a complicated structure

Fig. 4. N-controller block diagram

The control law is a two-layer feedforward network where a, b – coefficients; NS - dimension of the neuron.
having three inputs: heading error, rate of turn and For training N-controller uses the same algorithm as
position of the rudder. for the tuning of PD controller (Fig. 2). Genetic algorithms
Mathematically, the control law can be written as method is used to find the coefficients values. High
NS
  learning outcome can be achieved even when the
S  max(35,min(35,  aith( b ) dimension of the neuron NS = 3, that is, when the total
i 1 180 i number of coefficients is 18.
(8)
NS
r NS

 air th(  bir )   aith(  bi )))
i 1 60 i 1 35

211
МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т. 4 2018

4. Controllers comparison approach to new heading), stabilization in gusty wind (the


wind from starboard bow), heading stabilization in the
For the purpose of testing the N-controller simulation pulse wind loads (the wind from starboard bow). The
of S-175 container carrier dynamics was carried out with mathematical model developed in the MatLab Simulink ®
speeds of 30, 15 and 5 knots in three different control is shown on Fig. 5. The simulation results are shown in
modes: turn to 90° course in gusty wind (beam wind on Table 1.

Fig. 5. Dual controller mathematical model block diagram


Table 1
Controllers’ comparative analysis

PD-controller Difference,
Efficiency parameters N-controller
[2 47] %

1 2 3 4
Vessel speed 30 knots, Wind 20/30 knots, 90 turn
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  11.6 13.6 15%
Maximum counter-rudder angle,  20 26
Overshoot angle during maneuver,  <0.5 <0.5
Time taken for a heading maneuver, s 60 120 50%
Vessel speed 15 knots, Wind 20/30 knots, 90 turn
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  14.64 14.58 -0.4%
Maximum counter-rudder angle,  4 0
Overshoot angle during maneuver,  <1 -2
Time taken for a heading maneuver, s 130 150 13%
Vessel speed 5 knots, Wind 20/30 knots, 90 turn
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  7 9 22%
Maximum counter-rudder angle,  16 0
Overshoot angle during maneuver,  -2 -7
Continue of Table 1
1 2 3 4
Vessel speed 30 knots, Wind 20/30 knots, heading stabilization
Heading mean square deviation,  0.084 0.167 50%
Rudder movement mean square deviation  0.597 0.526 -13%
Vessel speed 15 knots, Wind 20/30 knots, heading stabilization
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  2.26 2.34 3%

212
МОРСКИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ 4 (42) Т. 4 2018

Heading mean square deviation,  0.26 1.20 78%


Vessel speed 5 knots, Wind 20/30 knots, heading stabilization
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  10.41 6.44 -62%
Heading mean square deviation,  1.51 3.14 52%
Vessel speed 30 knots, Gusting 20 knots / 30 seconds
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  0.851 0.700 -22%
Heading mean square deviation,  0.099 0.1875 47%
Vessel speed 15 knots, Gusting 20 knots / 30 seconds
Rudder movement mean square deviation,  1.583 1.155 -37%
Heading mean square deviation,  0.143 0.403 65%
Vessel speed 5 knots, Gusting 20 knots / 30 seconds
Rudder movement mean sq. deviation (during heading stabilization), 5.0 3.82 -31%
Heading mean square deviation (during heading stabilization),  0.530 1.67 68%

Averaging the results yielded the following data:


• variance in heading stabilization mode for an N- Summary and conclusions
controller by an average 60% less than for the PD
An artificial neural network controller with a
controller;
feedforward structure and its training algorithm were
• variance of the steering gear movement in
proposed as a result of this research.
stabilization mode for an N-controller by an
Comparing to its predecessors this controller has
average of 27% more than in the PD controller;
relatively high robustness. It can be trained on a linear
• variance of the steering gear movement in
model, after transferred to a non-linear one and operate
manoeuvring mode for an N-controller by an
in different environmental states with varying vessel
average of 12% less than that of the PD controller;
speeds almost without loss of its efficiency.
• time to manoeuvre to a new heading for an N-
This is mainly achieved through the proposed form of
controller by an average of 60% less than that of
the objective function and reference function used for
the PD controller;
training.
Thus, with the slightly more intense steering N-
controller can improve manoeuvring and heading
stabilization efficiency more than twice. Moreover, with Comparison of simulation results showed that the
reduced vessel lateral velocity the control efficiency for an proposed controller efficiency is almost two times higher
N-controller becoming more apparent comparing to PD than the efficiency a PD controller tuned for a certain
controller. speed mode.

Литература
1. Fossen T. I. Marine Control Systems. Guidance, Navigation and Control of Ships, Rigs and Underwater Vehicles.
Marine Cybernetics, Trondheim, Norway, 2002 Perez T. Mathematical Ship Modeling for Control Applications.
(Technical Report). T. Perez, M. Blanke: DTU Technical University of Denmark, 2003. 22 p.
2. Вагущенко Л.Л., Цымбал Н.Н. Системы автоматического управления движением судна. 2-е изд., перераб. и
доп.– Одесса: Латстар, 2002 – 310 с.
3. Подпорин С. А. Нейронный управляющий контроллер в задаче автоматического управления судном на
меняющемся курсе// Судовождение: Сб. научн. трудов ОНМА, Вып. 19. – Одесса: ИздатИнформ, 2011. – C.
156-165.
4. Шевченко В. А. Исследование процесса перехода судна на заданный курс при различных законах
управления // Науковий вісник ХДМІ: наук. журнал – Херсон: Видавництво ХДМІ, 2015. – Вип. 1(12) – С. 92 –
97
5. Виткалов Я.Л. Исследование проблем синтеза нейросетевого контроллера в задаче управления курсом
судна: автореферат дис. … к.т.н.: 05.22.19. Владивосток, 2006.—25 с.
6. Подпорин С.А. Развитие методов интеллектуального управления движением судна на курсе. – Диссертация
… к.т.н.: 05.22.13 Одесса: ОНМА, 2009. – 180 с.
7. Velagica J., Vukic Z., Omerdicc E. Adaptive fuzzy ship autopilot for track-keeping. Control Engineering Practice 11,
2003. рр. 433–443.
8. Son og Nomoto (1982). On the Coupled Motion of Steering and Rolling of a High Speed Container Ship, Naval
Architect of Ocean Engineering, 20: 73-83. From J.S.N.A., Japan, Vol. 150, 1981.
9. Perez T. Mathematical Ship Modeling for Control Applications. (Technical Report). T. Perez, M. Blanke– DTU
Technical University of Denmark, 2003. 22 p.
10. Пипченко А. Д. Уточнение математической модели ходкости контейнеровоза класса ULCS по результатам
испытаний / Пипченко А. Д., Копанский С. В., Шевченко В. А. // Судовождение: Сб. научн. трудов./ ОНМА,
Вып. 27. – Одесса: «ИздатИнформ», 2017 - С. 169-176.

213