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

net/publication/318658447

Fuzzy Self-tuning PID Controller for a Ship Autopilot

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.1201/9781315099132-15

CITATION READS

1 1,732

1 author:

Miroslaw Tomera
Gdynia Maritime University
19 PUBLICATIONS   241 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Miroslaw Tomera on 13 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, TransNav 2017
21-23 June 2017, Gdynia, Poland

Fuzzy Self-tuning PID Controller for a Ship Autopilot

M. Tomera
Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland

ABSTRACT: The paper examines the application of a fuzzy self-tuning controller for ship course steering.
The controller is composed of fuzzy and linear PID controllers. Following the control system heading error
and its change combined with fuzzy control rules, the fuzzy controller can adjust parameters of PID controller.
The initial values of PID gains were calculated with the use of the classical linear control theory and the
placement method. The PID controller was synthesized using the Nomoto model of ship dynamics identified
on the basis of standard Kempf’s zigzag manoeuvre and the Ant Colony Optimization algorithm (ACO). The
ACO algorithm is a bio-inspired optimization method that has proven its success through various
combinatorial optimization problems. The research of the designed control system was carried out on the
training ship Blue Lady in the Ship Handling Research and Training Centre on the lake Silm in
Ilawa/Kamionka. The results of full-scale trials have revealed that the proposed scheme has smaller overshoot
and shorter settling time.

1 INTRODUCTION characteristics of the ship change in the navigation

The automatic steering device commonly known as
the ship steering autopilot controls the motion of the
vessel in accordance with passed course changes, or
a set track. The development of ship steering
autopilots is the field where control theories were
applied very early and good results were achieved. In
the early 1920s Minorsky (1922) published the
theoretical analysis of automatic steering and the
specification of the three-term or proportional-
integral-derivative (PID) controller for course-
keeping control. Whilst Minorsky developed the PID
controller for automatic ship steering, PID
controllers have largely remained an industrial
standard in automatic control systems (Roberts
2008). Today, conventional PID controllers are
extensively used for dynamic process control due to
their simplicity of operation, ease of design, low
cost, and effectiveness in the majority of linear
systems. However it has been known that
conventional PID controllers generally do not work
well in nonlinear systems, higher order and time-
delayed linear systems, and vague systems that have
no precise mathematical model.
Ship autopilots designed based on proportional-
integral-differential (PID) controllers are simple,
reliable and easy to construct. However, dynamic
process, following changes of ship’s speed, load, sea
conditions, and other factors. Consequently, their
performance in various conditions is not as good as
desired (Le et al. 2004). To overcome these
difficulties, various modified types of conventional
PID controllers, such as auto tuning and adaptive
controllers, have been developed recently (Astrom et
al. 1992). Moreover, some sophisticated autopilots
are proposed which are based on advanced control
engineering concepts, where the gain settings for
proportional, derivative and integral terms of
heading are adjusted automatically to suit the
dynamics of the ship and environmental conditions.
The list of such autopilots includes model reference
adaptive control (Amerongen 1982), self-tuning
(Mort & Linkens 1980), optimal (Zuidweg 1981),
H theory (Fairbairn & Grimble 1990), model
reference adaptive robust fuzzy control (Yang et al.
2003).
Nowadays, a tendency which gains much interest
is the combination of various methodologies taking
advantage of each one. One of most effective
solutions here is a combination of the linear control
theory and fuzzy logic control (FLC). He et al.
(1993) applied the fuzzy self-tuning method to tune
the gains of PID controller. The fuzzy self-tuning
controller combining the fuzzy system with the

93
traditional adaptive control has the same linear performed on a training ship Blue Lady sailing on
structure as the conventional PID controller but has the lake Silm in the Ship Handling Research and
self-tuned proportional, integral and derivative gains, Training Centre in Ilawa/Kamionka (Foundation
which are nonlinear functions of the inputs signals. 2012).
Fuzzy control has appeared to be one of the most
active and important applications of fuzzy sets
theory since the first realization of the fuzzy 2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF SHIP
controller using fuzzy logic by Mamdani (Mamdani DYNAMICS
1974).
The essential part of the fuzzy logic controller is a The equations describing the horizontal motion of
set of linguistic control rules. The resultant control the ship (u, v, r) are well established. These
law has an analytical PID controller form and a equations can be derived from Newton’s laws
linguistic form. Different applications of the fuzzy expressing conservation of linear and angular
self-tuning PID controller can be found in the momentum, in the form given by Clarke (2003)
literature. This controller was examined in
m(u  vr  xG r 2 )  X (1)
simulation tests oriented on controlling dynamic
processes (Chen et al. 2009, Yang & Bian 2012),
aircraft pitch control (Nurbaiti & Nurhaffizah 2012), m(v  ur  xGr)  Y (2)
and ship steering control (Shen & Guo 2008, Liu et
al. 2010, Zhao et al. 2011). I z r  mxG (v  ru)  N (3)
Recently, several nonlinear controllers have also
been proposed in the literature to deal with nonlinear Here xG is the distance from the centre of gravity
steering conditions. However, attempts to use this to the midship point, m is the constant mass of the
method in real marine applications of ship steering ship, Iz is the moment of inertia about the z-axis and
have revealed numerous problems which needed u, v and r denote surge, sway and yaw angular
solving. In order to obtain optimal quality of control velocity, respectively X and Y are the components of
for the designed nonlinear course controller, its the hydrodynamic forces on the x- and y-axes, and N
parameters need tuning. Well known design methods is the yaw moment about the z-axis. Abkowitz
presented in the literature make use of the (1964) suggested the following functional form for
backstepping method (Fossen & Strand 1998, X, Y and N
Witkowska et al. 2007, Witkowska & Śmierzchalski X  f (u, v, r, , u, v, r) (4)
2012) and the sliding mode control (Tomera 2010,
Yoazhen et al. 2010, Perera & Soares 2012). Y  f (u, v, r, , u, v, r) (5)
The article presents results of examination and
development of a course changing control system N  f (u, v, r, , u, v, r) (6)
which controls the heading angle of a ship with the
aid of a fuzzy self-tuning PID controller. The fuzzy He approximated the functions (4-6) with Taylor
self-tuning PID controller is combination of series expansions about the steady state condition
conventional PID and fuzzy logic control scheme. u = u0, v = r =  = u = v = r =0, where  is the rudder
The performance of PID control strategy and fuzzy angle.
self-tuning with respect to the heading angle of ship
yaw dynamics was examined. The tests were
y
q Earth-fixed
frame
f
Yaw
x r, N
y
Roll
z Sway
p, K
v, Y

Surge Pitch
u, X q, M
Heave
Body-fixed
w, Z
frame
Figure 1. The coordinate systems for ship steering.

94
 Yaw angle y
50 y
c
(deg)

-50
0 100 200 300
500 400 600 700 800 900 1000
t (s)
Figure 2. Time responses of zigzag manoeuvre (y – ship heading, c – command rudder angle).

2.1 Linear ship models r ( s) K ( sT3  1)

 (13)
For surface vessel moving at constant (or at least  ( s) ( sT1  1)( sT2  1)
slowly varying) forward velocity
where K is the static yaw rate gain, and T1, T2 and T3
U  u v u
2 2
(7) are time constants. The sea trial data-based
identification indicates that the values of parameters
the ship control problem is usually solved by T2 and T3 in (13) are not very different (Saari &
applying the classical method which takes into Djemai 2012). This suggest that further
account only two coupled movements, which are simplification of (13) is possible, after which the
yaw and sway. Linearising the equations of motion first Nomoto model takes the form:
(1-3) about v = r =0 and u = u0 gives the Davidson
and Schiff (1946) model r ( s) K
 (14)
 (s) sT  1
Mν  N(u0 ) ν  B (8)
where T = T1+T2T3 is the effective yaw rate time
where  =[v r]T. The equation (8) bases on the constant. Since the yaw rate is actually the time
assumption that the cruise speed derivative of the ship heading angle y  r , the
u  u0  constant (9) model can be written in time domain as
Ty y  K (15)
and that v and r are small. The matrices M, N(u0)
and B in equation (8) are defined as The first Nomoto model defined by (9) is widely
 m  Yv mxG  Yr 
used in the ship steering autopilot design. The yaw
M (10) dynamic is described by parameters K and T which
 mxG  N v I z  N r 
can be easily identified from standard ship
manoeuvring tests. In practice, ship steering
 Y mu0  Yr 
N(u0 )   v (11) autopilots are designed for heading angle control.
 Nv mxG u0  N r 
Hence it is the transfer function relating the heading
angle y and the rudder angle  which is needed in
Y 
B   (12) autopilot design
 N 
y (s) K
 (16)
where Yv -force against sway, Yr - sway force due to  ( s ) s ( sT  1)
yaw velocity, N v - yaw moment due to sway, Y , N -
hydrodynamic coefficients due to rudder, N r -
moment against yaw, moment due to rudder, Yv - 2.2 Identifying the Nomoto model for Blue Lady
added mass due to sway acceleration, Yr -sway force from zigzag manoeuvre
due to yaw acceleration, N v - yaw moment due to
sway acceleration, N r -added mass due to yaw A few ship manoeuvres have been proposed for
(SNAME 1950). testing the manoeuvre ability and identification of
The second-order Nomoto model (Nomoto et al. manoeuvring characteristics (Kempf 1932; Nomoto
1957) can be derived by eliminating the sway et al. 1957; Nomoto 1960). To determine the
velocity v from the earlier model derived by Nomoto model for the training ship Blue Lady the
Davidson and Schiff (1946) and described by zigzag manoeuvre, which is most often used in such
equation (4). This way we get the second order cases, has been applied. The zigzag time response is
model: obtained by moving the rudder angle by 20o from an
initially straight course. The rudder angle is held
constant until the heading is changed to 20 degrees,

95
then the rudder is reversed. This process continues account, so in this case the rudder angle is equal to
until a total of five rudder step responses have been the command rudder angle ( = c).
completed. Common values for the rudder angle are For each parameter of Nomoto model (K1 = K,
20/20 and 10/10, although other combinations can be K = T, K3 = r) was created a set of possible
2
i
applied as well. For larger ships the rudder angle of solutions between the minimum K min and the
i
10 degrees is recommended to reduce the time and maximum K max values. To simplify, the proposed
waterspace required. The zigzag manoeuvre was first values are equally distributed between these bounds
proposed by Kempf (1932). Hence, the name (Bououden et al. 2011).
Kempf’s zigzag manoeuvre also is used in the i
K max  K min
i
literature. Ki1  K min
i
, Ki 2  Ki1  , ... , KiJ  K max
i
, (18)
J 1
A widely used technique determines the
parameters in the Nomoto model from the zigzag where J is the number of possible values of
manoeuvre using an index estimator published in identified parameter Ki.
(Nomoto 1960). Further work in the field of Therefore, for each parameter Ki obtains the
parameters identification from zigzag trials was following set of potential values of the optimal
accomplished by Norrbin (1963). Journee (1970) solution
developed a method to deal with overshoot and
transient effects caused by rudder delay and K i Ki1, Ki 2 ,...., KiJ , (19)
limitations. Using Nomoto’s first order model, a i
Limits K min i
and K max for each searched
large number of zigzag manoeuvres have been parameters are contained in Table 1.
calculated within a practical range of K and T values. This method allows to assign the distribution of each
These data were analyzed and the relation between parameter of the vector K= [K1, K2, K3]T, J possible
the zigzag manoeuvring characteristics and the values. Graphical representation of the optimized
Nomoto parameters were presented in graphs. Based problem is shown in Figure 3, where searched
on the results of towing tank tests and sea-trials data, parameters are distributed in three vectors. Each of
Azarsina & Williams (2013) used computer the possible values is represented by one node. The
simulations to predict the Nomoto indices for problem is to find the best parameter combination
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle during constant- that minimizes the cost function (20).
depth zigzag manoeuvres. The Nomoto's first-order
model for the rate of turn of the vehicle during K1 K2 KN
horizontal zigzag manoeuvres in response to a
square-wave input for the rudder deflection angle K11 K21 KN1
was solved analytically. 21 N1
The well-known methods for determining the 11 K12 K22 KN2
12 22 N2
parameters of the Nomoto model (15) from the K13 K23 KN3
NEST FOOD
zigzag manoeuvre are quite complex and, therefore, 13 23 N3
in order to facilitate the process of finding the
1J 2J NJ
parameters K and T, in the present study ant colony
optimization were used (Dorigo et al. 1996). K1J K2J KNJ

Figure 3. Graphical representation of the optimization problem

2.3 Ant colony optimization algorithm (ACO) by ACO.

A colony of artificial ants cooperates to find good Table 1. Bounded values of parameters in estimated Nomoto
solutions, which are an emergent property of the model.
_________________________________________________
ant’s co-operative interaction. Based on their Parameter Min Max
_________________________________________________
similarities with ant colonies in nature, ant K1 = K 0.0 1.0
algorithms are adaptive and robust and can be K2 = T 0.0 1000.0
applied to different optimization problems. K3
= r 2.0 0.0
_________________________________________________
The ant colony optimization algorithm (Fig. 4)
was applied to estimate the manoeuvring indices K The cost function used as the identification
and T of the Nomoto’s first order model from full- criterion is a discrete version of the integral of the
scale zigzag trial data, described as follows absolute error (IAE)
Ty  y  K (   r ) (17) N

 y
1
Jc  i (20)
where T is the time constant (s), K is the N
i 1
proportionality constant (1/s),  is the level of the
rudder angle (deg) and r is the rudder angle at where N is the total number of iterations in the
which the ship sails at a straight course (deg). The zigzag test simulations, yi is the i-th heading angle
rudder servomechanism has not to be taken into error between the measured heading and that

96
obtained in the simulation making use of the
Nomoto model. The ant optimization algorithm tend
to minimise the value of function (20) so yi will be
minimised too.
For each set of parameters, the node visited by the
ant is selected as the value of parameter. Selection of
a parameter value is based on pheromone trails
between parameter vectors. The size of global
pheromone matrix ij is 3xJ, i =1, 2, 3 and j = 1, 2,
..., J.
START
Initialize – number of ants, tuning
parameters, global pheromone matrix
Initialize temporal pheromone matrix
Calculate the probability of choosing nodes,
Draw nodes in columns
Run the process model
Evaluate the fitness function
Update pheromone in temporal matrix
No
Last ant ?
Yes
Upadate pheromone in global matrix
Last No
iteration ?
Yes
STOP
Figure 4. Graphical representation of the optimization problem
by ACO.
The general steps of ACO (Fig. 4) are the
following:
Step 1. Place a number of ants M in the nest. Set a
maximum number of iterations. Initialize a global
pheromone concentration ij to each link (i, j)
1 by manipulating the rudder deflection angle . The
 ij 
J c0
where J0c is random obtained the expected value of
the performance index.
Step 2. Initialize a temporal pheromone
concentration  ijk
 ijk  0
Matrix  ijk has the same size as the global
pheromone matrix (21) and are stored the
pheromone updates for the whole population of ants
M.
Step 3. For every ant, iteratively is built a path to
the food source using the following equation
 ij (t )
pijk (t )  (23)

N
 ij (t )
j 1
Equation (23) represents the probability for an ant
k located on a node i selects the next node denoted
by j. N is the set of feasible nodes connected to node
i with respect to ant k, ij is the total pheromone
concentration of link (i, j), and  is a positive
constant used as a gain for the pheromone influence.
After determining the transition probabilities for
each node j, takes the draw method of the roulette
wheel, the next node in the next vector. The greater
the value of the probability of connection pijk for the
ant k, gives the greater chance of selection of a
particular node.
Step 4. Run the simulation zigzag manoeuvre
with Nomoto model (17) contained the values of
parameters selected by the ant k.
Step 5. For the obtained results, compute the cost
function J ck (20) and check if it is better then the
best solution J c* obtained so far.
Step 6. Each ant after passing its path saves in the
temporal matrix your pheromone trail to the formula
1
 ijk (t )   ijk 1(t )  , k  1, 2,..., M (24)
J ck
Step 7. Update of the pheromone concentration
using the following formula
 ij (t  1)  (1   ) ij (t )   ijk (t )     ij (t ) (25)
1
where  ij (t )  .
J c*
3 FUZZY SELF-TUNING CONTROLLER
The fuzzy self-tuning controller used for course
changing concerns the change of ship heading as a
response to a step command passed from the
autopilot (Fig. 5). These commands are usually step
changes in the heading reference which are then used
by the controller to change the heading of the ship y
(21)
value of the heading angle change is determined by
the amplitude of the step command yref (McGookin
et al. 2000).
(22)
97
 yref 3.1 Digital PID controller
Heading c Ship y
A classical conventional PID controller used to
controller model
control ship’s course changes is described by the
following control rule
Figure 5. Ship course changing control system.
 t
dey (t ) 

1
 c (t )  K P ey (t )  ey ( )d  TD  (29)
The course steering controller made use of fuzzy  Ti dt 
 0 
self-tuning PID digital controller (Fig. 6). The main
idea of this control is to adjust PID controller where ey(t)=yref(t)y(t) is the heading angle error
parameters in order to improve the quality control of between the desired and obtained heading, and c is
the entire system. the set rudder deflection. A discrete version of this
controller was implemented in the ship steering
control system after replacing the continuous time by
Fuzzy a series of discrete sampling points
1–z1 cy(kT) controller
T t  kTs , k  0,1,2,...

KP KP KD where Ts is the sampling period. Then, the

ey(kT) c(kT) continuous integral part of controller can be replaced
PID controller by following approximate numerical integration
Figure 6. Structure of self-tuning fuzzy PID controller t k k
parameters.  ey ( )d  
j 0
ey (kTs ) Ts  ey (k )
j 0
(30)
0
The fuzzy PID controller has the following
and the differential part can be substituted by the
special properties:
subtraction of the neighbouring error
1 It has the same linear structure as the
conventional PID controller, but has self-tuned dey (t ) ey (kTs )  ey [(k  1)Ts ] ey ( k )  ey ( k  1)
  (31)
control gains, among which the proportional KP, dt Ts Ts
integral KI and the derivative KD are nonlinear
functions of the input signals. By substituting (31) and (30) to equation (29), the
2 The controller design bases on the theory of control law is formed as
classical discrete PID controller. k

3 The fuzzy controller consists of the fuzzy rule  c (k )  K Pey (k )  K I ey (k )  K

j 0
D
ey (k )  ey (k  1)  (32)
base, the fuzzy inference system, and the
fuzzification and defuzzification interfaces. The where
membership functions are simple triangular
K PTs K T
functions. KI  , KD  P D
TI Ts
The inputs to the fuzzy controller are the error
ey(kT) and the error derivative approximated by To avoid the sum in equation (32), we can get
first-order difference k 1
cy(kT) = [ey(kT)  ey(kTT)]/T, while its outputs are
KP, KI, KD changes in the PID controller (Fig.
 c (k  1)  K Pey (k  1)  K I ey (k )
j 0 (33)
6). This allows to modify the controller parameters  K D ey (k  1)  ey (k  2) 
according to the following relationships
K P  K P'  K P (26) By substracting (27) and (29) the output of the
controller is obtained as
K I  K I'  K I (27)  c (k )   c (k  1)  ( K P  K I  K D )ey (k )
(34)
 ( K P  2 K D )ey (k  1)  K Dey (k  2)
KD  KD
'
 K D (28) In the block diagram schematically shown in
where KP, KI, KD are the PID controller parameters Figure 5, a mathematical model of ship dynamics
after modification, KP, KI, KD are the values of described by equation (34) was used to control the
changes, and KP, KI, KD are the values of controller ship on the course. The parameters of the linear PID
parameters before modification. The initial values of controller were selected using the pole placement
the parameters used by the linear PID controller method with Nomoto model of the ship (16), in
were determined by standard methods. details described by Fossen (2002) where
n2T
KP  (35)
K

98
 2nT  1
TD  (36) Rule base guP
KP(kT
K Pk ge

Defuzzyfication
ey(kT)

Fuzzyfication
Fuzzy guI KI(kT
10
TI  (37) cy(kT) gc inference
n system
guD KD(kT
In equations (35-37) n is the natural frequency
computing by the formula
Figure 7. Structure of self-tuning fuzzy PID controller
b parameters.
n  (38)
1  2 2  4 4  4 2  2
m(ey) ge ge
where b is the bandwidth and  is the relative 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
1,0
damping ratio of the designed control system which
was shown in Figure 4. 0,5 NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB

0,0
3.2 Fuzzy tuner 1,0 0,67 0,33 0,0 0,33 0,67 1,0 ey(kT)
Figure 8. Membership functions for input eψ(kT).
The parameters KP, KI and KD which have to be
tuned by the fuzzy tuner depend on the configuration
m(KP) gu1 gu1
of the fuzzy controller. The fuzzy tuner has two
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
inputs: the course error (ey) and the course error 1,0
change (cy), and three outputs: KP, KI and KD, as
0,5 NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
shown in Figure 7. The membership functions of
these inputs and outputs are shown in Figures 8 0,0
1,0 0,67 0,33 0,0 0,33 0,67 1,0 KP(kT)
and 9. The fuzzy sets for each input and output
variables consist of seven linguistic values {NB, Figure 9. Membership functions for output ΔKP(kT).
NM, NS, ZE, PS, PM, PB} representing the levels
described as ”negative big”, ”negative medium” and
so on. The same set of linguistic values can be 4 COURSE CHANGING COST FUNCTION
shown in the numeric form as {3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2,
3}, more convenient to write in computer software. Evaluating the quality of operation of the examined
Let us notice in Figures 8 and 9 that the widths of controllers makes use of the cost function used as
the membership functions are parameterized by ge the design criterion in course steering and defined by
and guP and will be adjusted by changing these equation (36). This function is a discrete version of
values. The membership functions on the universe of the integral least squares criterion.
discourse and the linguistic values for the second J E  y E   E (40)
inputs cy(kT) are the same as for ey(kT), with the
N N
exception that the adjustment parameter is denoted
 
1 1
yE  (y i ) 2 ,  E   2
by gc. Respectively, the same situation is for the next N i 0 N i 0
i

outputs KI and KD, which have the same member

ship functions as for KP with the exception that the
adjustment parameters are denoted by guI and guD.
Therefore, there are five parameters for changing the
fuzzy controller ge, gc, guP, guI and guD.
Assuming that there are seven membership
functions on each input universe of discourse, there
are 49 possible rules that can be put in the rule base.
For the considered fuzzy controller consisting of two
inputs and two outputs, each fuzzy rule takes the
following form
  
IF ey is Ei AND cy is C j THEN  (39)
 K P is K Pk   K I is K Ik   K D is K Dk 
Generally, fuzzy rules are dependent on the plant
to be controlled and the scope of designer’s
knowledge and experience.
 = 0.1. The first term of this equation refers to the
course change, where N is the total number of
iterations in the control system process,  is the
weight coefficient, yi is the i-th heading error
between the desired and obtained heading, i is the i-
th rudder deflection. The quantity y gives an
indication of how close the actual heading is to the
desired heading, thus showing how well the
controller is operating. The component  is used to
keep the magnitude of the rudder angle to a
minimum. The main task of the weight coefficient 
is to amplify the course error term to the same level
as the term representing the rudder deflection.
In addition, the overshoot Mp and the settling time
ts values are given. The overshoot Mp is the
maximum value to which the ship heading
overshoots its final value divided by its final value,
expressed as a percentage. The settling time ts is the
time required for the transient of ship heading to

99
decay to a small value and to be almost in the steady
state. Here, the measure of smallness amounting to
5% is used.

5 RESULTS

In order to evaluate the quality of the derived

algorithm of fuzzy self-tuning controller, simulation
tests were performed using Matlab/Simulink and
full-scale experiments using the training ship Blue
Lady which was navigated on the lake Silm in
Ilawa/Kamionka in the Ship Handling Research and
Training Centre (Foundation 2012). Moreover, to
compare the obtained results, additional tests were
performed on a classical PID controller (34). The
PID controller parameters were determined within Figure 10. Zigzag test for identification of the Nomoto model
the aid of the first Nomoto model identified from (yme – measured heading, yid – heading from the identified first
full-scale zigzag manoeuvre. Nomoto model, c – command rudder angle, Ue – ship
velocity).
First, the ant colony optimization algorithm
(Fig. 4) was applied to estimate the manoeuvring Table 4. Parameters calculated for the PID controller.
indices K, T and r of the Nomoto’s first order model __________________________________________________
KP KI
__________________________________________________ KD
(17) from full-scale zigzag trial data. The tests of
parameter’s estimation of the first order Nomoto PID controller (PID) 1.88 0.0048 92.1
__________________________________________________
model were performed and their results are collected
in Table 2. The minimum value of the performance The full control system with the fuzzy self-tuning
index (20) was obtained for Test no. 4. controller shown in Figure 6 was modeled in
Figure 10 presents the results of zigzag Matlab/Simulink used for performing simulation
manoeuvres obtained in the full-scale test and in the tests. In the simulation tests the complex
simulation test making use of the identified first mathematical model of the training ship Blue Lady,
Nomoto model (17). described in details by Gierusz (2005), was applied.
To obtain perfect performance of the whole control
Table 2. Results of estimation the parameters for the first order system, it is necessary for fuzzy tuner to follow
Nomoto model using the ant colony optimization algorithm fuzzy control rules, which is difficult to obtain. The
 = 3.0,  = 0.2.
__________________________________________________ knowledge of the functions performed by the
Test no. K T r Jc
__________________________________________________ parameters KP, KI and KD along with observations of
1 0.074 339.3 1.565 12.7450 dynamic characteristics of the process being
2 0.110 641.6 1.469 14.4752 controlled and analyzes of numerous simulations,
3 0.161 677.7 1.455 16.6680 have made the basis for formulation of the fuzzy rule
4 0.041 158.1 1.620 9.7040
5 0.059 425.4 1.485 14.4461 base presented in tabular form in Tables 5-7.
6 0.095 765.8 1.315 16.4155
7 0.035 192.1 1.729 11.2180 Table 5. Rule table for KP (Fig. 5)
___________________________________________
8 0.125 888.8 1.691 16.8357 | Ei
____________
9 0.038 178.2 1.167 15.2787
| 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
10 0.059 908.9 0.941 20.2486
__________________________________________________
___________________________________________
3 | 3 3 2 1 1 1 0
2 | 3 3 1 1 1 0 1
The best values of parameters of ten Nomoto 1 | 2 1 2 1 0 1 1
model were collected in Table 3 and in this model Cj 0 | 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
the rudder angle r at which the ship sails a straight 1 | 1 1 0 1 2 1 2
course was omitted. 2 | 1 0 1 1 1 3 3
3 | 0 1 1 1 2 3 3
___________________________________________
The parameters KP, KI and KD of the PID
controller with constant coefficients were calculated
from equations (35-37) and are collected in Table 4. In these tables the premises for the input ey are
These parameters are also the initial values of the represented by the the linguistic values found in the
fuzzy self-tuning PID controller. top row, the premises for the input cy are represented
by the linguistic values in the leftmost column, and
Table 3. Parameters estimated for the first Nomoto model (16).
__________________________________________________ the linguistic values representing the consequents for
K T each of 49 rules can be found at the intersections of
__________________________________________________
First order Nomoto model 0.041 158.1 the row and column of the appropriate premises.
__________________________________________________

100
Table 6. Rule table for KI (Fig. 5)
___________________________________________
| Ei
____________
| 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
___________________________________________
3 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 | 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
1 | 0 1 3 0 0 1 0
Cj 0 | 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
1 | 0 1 0 0 3 1 0
2 | 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
3 | 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
___________________________________________

Table 7. Rule table for KD (Fig. 5)

___________________________________________
| Ei
____________
| 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
___________________________________________
3 | 0 0 2 3 2 1 0
2 | 0 0 0 2 1 1 1
1 | 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Cj 0 | 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 | 1 1 1 1  0 1
2 | 1 1 1 2 0 0 0
3 | 0 1 2 3 2 0 0
___________________________________________
Figure 12. Experimental results of time-histories of controllers’
During the simulation tests, the scaling gains for setting values: PID controller (PID), fuzzy self-tuning PID
controller (fstPID).
fuzzy tuner inputs and outputs (Fig. 7) were selected
as
controllers, which were the conventional linear PID
ge  40,0; gc  0,8; guP  0,6; guI  0,001; guD  50,0; (41) controller (34), the results for which are marked with
a dashed line, and the fuzzy self-tuning PID
After completing the simulation tests, the controller (Fig. 6), marked with a solid line.
proposed algorithms were tested in full-scale trials The experimental results of the time-histories of
performed on the training ship Blue Lady on the lake parameters of the examined controllers are shown in
Silm in Ilawa/Kamionka. For this purpose the Figure 12. The exact values of the time performance
control and measurement system was used which indices, determined from the step response of these
had been worked out in the Department of Ship controllers are collected in table 8. The step
Automation, Gdynia Maritime and described in responses shown in Figure 11 reveal that the use of
detail in (Pomirski et al. 2012). Figure 11 presents the fuzzy self-tuning PID controller gave better
the experimental results of full-scale tests of two results.

Table 8. Values of time performance indices obtained in

experimental results with PID controller (PID) and fuzzy self-
tuning PID controller (fstPID)
_________________________________________________
yE E JE Mp
_________________________________________________ ts
PID 112.8 166.9 129.5 27.9 309.0
fstPID 109.4 199.2 121.4 15.4 235.0
_________________________________________________

6 REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS

Two points of interest have arisen from this

Figure 11. Experimental results of PID control (PID) and fuzzy
self-tuning PID control (fstPID) to step reference input.
study. First it has been shown that the ant colony
based optimisation technique can be successfully
used to obtain the parameters of the first Nomoto
model from the full-scale zigzag manoeuvre data.
Another interesting point arises from the
application of the fuzzy self-tuning PID controller in
course changing operations. However, course
changing is effective in manoeuvres in which the
positional course is not of particular importance (e.g.
in open waters). The proposed control system
cooperating with the fuzzy self-tuning PID controller

101
reveals better performance than the conventional
PID controller, which manifests itself in smaller
overshoot and shorter settling time, as was
demonstrated by the full-scale trials results. Both
controllers worked with sampling time Ts = 1 (s).
Further studies are planned on the floating model
of the real vessel, which is building in Ship
Automation Department at Gdynia Maritime
University (Gierusz, 2012).
REFERENCES
Abkowitz, M. A. 1964. Lectures on ship hydrodynamics –
steering and manoeuvrability, Technical report Hy-5,
Hydro- and Aerodynamics Laboratory, Lyngby, Denmark.
Amerongen, J. Van. 1982. Adaptive steering of ships: a model-
reference approach to improved manoeuvring and
economical course keeping, PhD thesis, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands. URL: http://www.ce.
utwente.nl/amn.
Aström, K. J., Hang, C. C., Persson, P. & Ho, W. K. 1992.
Toward intelligent PID control, Automatica, 28(1): 1–9.
doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(92)90002-W.
Azarsina, F. & Williams, C. D. 2013. Nomoto Indices for
Constant-Depth Zigzag Manoeuvres of an Autonomous
Underwater Vehicle, SRN Oceanography, pp. 1-8.
http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/oceanography/2013/219545/.
Bououden, S., Filali, S., Chadli, M. & Allouani, F. 2011. Using
Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for Enhancing an
Optimal PI Controller, International Journal of Sciences
and Techniques of Automatic Control & Computing
Engineering, 5(2): 1648-1659.
Chen, W., Yuan, H.-M. & Wang, Y. 2009. Design and
implementation of digital fuzzy-PID controller based on
FPGA, Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Conference on
Industrial Electronics and Applications, Beijing 25-27 May
2009, China, pp. 393-397.
Clarke, D. 2003. The foundations of steering and manoeuvring,
Proceedings of IFAC Conference Manoeuvering and
Control Marine Crafts, IFAC, Girona, Spain, pp. 10-25.
Davidson, K. S. M. & Schiff, L. I. 1946. Turning and Course
Keeping Qualities, Transactions of Society of Naval
Architects Marine Engineers., 54:152-200.
Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., Colorni, A. 1996. The ant system:
Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B,
26(1):1-13. doi: 10.1109/3477.484436.
Fairbairn, N. A. & Grimble, M. J. 1990. H marine autopilot
design for course-keeping and course-changing,
Proceedings of the 9th Ship Control System Symposium,
September 10-14, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 3: 311-336.
Fossen, T. I. & Strand, J. P. 1998. Nonlinear ship control
(Tutorial paper), Proceedings of IFAC Conference on
Control Applications in Marine Systems, (CAMS-98),
Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 1-75.
Fossen, T. I. 2002. Marine Control Systems: Guidance,
Navigation, and Control of Ships, Rigs and Underwater
Vehicles, Marine Cybernetics, Trondheim, Norway.
Gierusz, W. 2005. Synthesis of multivariable systems of precise
ship motion control with the aid of selected resistant system
design methods, Publishing House of Gdynia Maritime
University (in Polish).
Gierusz, W. & Łebkowski, A. 2012. The researching ship
“Gdynia”, Polish Maritime Research, 19(S1):11-18.
doi: 10.2478/v10012-012-0017-3.
102
He, S., Tan, S. & Xu, F. 1993. Fuzzy self-tuning of PID
controllers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 56(1):37–46. doi:
10.1016/0165-0114(93)90183-I.
Foundation. 2012. Foundation for Safety of Navigation and
Environment Research, URL: www.ilawashiphandling.
com.pl.
Journée, J. M. J. 1970. A simple method for determining the
manoeuvring indices K and T from zigzag trial data, Report
267, Delft University of Technology, Ship Hydromechanics
Laboratory.
Kempf, G. (1932). Measurements of the Propulsive and
Structural Characteristics of Ships, Transactions of Society
of Naval Architects Marine Engineers, 40:42-57.
Kula, K. S. (2016). Heading control system with limited turning
radius based on IMC structure, Proceedings of the 21st
International Conference on Methods and Models in
Automation and Robotics (MMAR), pp. 134-139. doi:
10.1109/MMAR.2016.7575121.
Mamdani, E. H. 1974. Applications of fuzzy algorithm of
simple dynamic plant, Proceedings IEE, 121(12):1585-
1588. doi: 10.1049/piee.1974.0328.
Le, M., Nguyen, S. & Nguyen, L. 2004. Study on a new and
effective fuzzy PID ship autopilot, Artificial Life and
Robotics, 8(2):197-201. doi: 10.1007/s10015-004-0313-9.
Lisowski, J. 2013. Sensitivity of computer support game
algorithms of safe ship control, International Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, 23(2):439-
446. doi: 10.2478/amcs-2013-0033.
Liu, Y., Mi, W. & Guo, C. 2010. Study of fuzzy self-tuning
steering controller for ship course, Navigation of China,
33(1): 11-16 (in Chinese).
McGookin, E.W., Murray-Smith, D. J. Li, Y. & Fossen, T. I.
2000. Ship Steering Control System Optimisation Using
Genetic Algorithms, IFAC Journal of Control Engineering
Practice, 8(4):429-443.
Minorsky, N. 1922. Directional Stability of Automatice Steered
Bodies, Journal of the American Society for Naval
Engineers, 34(2): 280-309, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-
3584.1922.tb04958.x.
Mort, N. & Linkens, D. A. 1980. Self-tuning controllers
steering automatic control. Proceedings of the Symposium
on Ship Steering Automatic Control, June 25-27, Genova,
Italy, pp. 225-243.
Nomoto, K., Taguchi, T., Honda, K. & Hirano, S. 1957. On the
steering Qualities of Ships. Technical Report. International
Shipbuilding Progress, 4:354-370.
Nomoto, K. 1960. Analysis of Kempf's standard maneuver test
and proposed steering quality indices, Proceedings of the
1st Symposium in Ship Maneuverability, DTRC Report
1461.
Norrbin, N. H. 1963. On the design and analyses of the zigzag
test on base of quasi-linear frequency response. Technical
report, Technical Report B 104-3,Gothenburg, Sweden.
Nurbaiti, W. & Nurhaffizah, H. 2012. Self-tuning Fuzzy-PID
Controller Design for Aircraft Pitch Control, Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Intelligent
Systems Modelling and Simulation, 08-10 February, Kota
Kinabalu, Malaysia, pp. 19-24.
Perera, L. P. & Soares, C. G. 2012. Pre-filtered sliding mode
control for nonlinear ship steering associated with
disturbances, Ocean Engineering, 51(9): 49-62.
doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.04.014.
Pomirski, J., Rak, A. & Gierusz, W. 2012. Control system for
trials on material ship model, Polish Maritime Research,
19(S1):25-30. doi: 10.2478/v10012-012-0019-1.
Roberts, G. N. 2008. Trends in marine control systems, Annual
Reviews in Control, 32(2): 263-269. doi:
10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.08.002.
Saari, H. & Djemai, M. 2012. Ship motion control using multi-
controller structure, Ocean Engineering, 55(12): 184-190.
doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng. 2012.07.028.
Shen, Z. & Guo, C. 2008. Fuzzy self-tuning PID steering
control for ultra large container ship, Proceedings of the 7th
World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, 25-
27 June, Chongqing, China, pp. 7661-7666, doi:
10.1109/WCICA.2008.4594119, (in Chinese).
SNAME. 1950. Nomenclature for Treating the Motion of a
Submerged Body through a Fluid. Technical Report
Bulletin 1-5. Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, New York, USA.
Tomera, M. 2010. Nonlinear controller design of a ship
autopilot, International Journal of Applied Mathematics
and Computer Science, 20(2): 271-280. doi:
10.2478/v10006-010-0020-8.
Witkowska, A., Tomera, M. & Śmierzchalski, R. (2007).
A backstepping approach to ship course control,
International Journal of Applied Mathematics and
Computer Science, 17(1):73-85. doi: 10.2478/v10006-007-
0007-2.
Witkowska, A. & Śmierzchalski, R. 2012. Designing a ship
course controller by applying the adaptive backstepping
method, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and
103
View publication stats
Computer Science, 22(4): 985-997. doi: 10.2478/v10006-
012-0073-y.
Yang, Y., Zhou, C. & Ren, J. 2003. Model reference adaptive
robust fuzzy control for ship steering autopilot with
uncertain nonlinear system, Applied Soft Computing, 3(4):
305-316. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2003.05.001.
Yang, Y. & Bian, H. 2012. Design and realization of fuzzy self-
tuning PID water temperature controller based on PLC,
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics,
Nanchang, Jiangxi 26-27 August 2012, China, 2:3-6.
Yoazhen, H., Hairong, X., Weigang, P. & Changshun, W.
2010. A fuzzy sliding mode controller and its application on
ship course control, Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery,
pp. 635-638.
Zhao, Q., Li, L. & Chen, G. 2011. The research of fuzzy self-
tuning of PID autopilot, Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on Transportation Engineering, Chengdu,
China, pp. 985-990.
Zuidweg, J. K. 1981. Optimal and sub-optimal feedback in
automatic track-keeping system. Proceedings of the 6th Ship
Control Systems Symposium, October 26-30, Ottawa,
Canada, vol. 3, pp. G1.1.1-G1.1.18.