Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology

ISSN: 2046-4177 (Print) 2056-8487 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmar20

PID marine engine speed regulation under

full load conditions for sensitivity H∞-norm
specifications against propeller disturbance

N I Xiros (Lecturer)

To cite this article: N I Xiros (Lecturer) (2004) PID marine engine speed regulation under full
load conditions for sensitivity H∞-norm specifications against propeller disturbance, Journal of
Marine Engineering & Technology, 3:2, 3-11, DOI: 10.1080/20464177.2004.11020179

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2004.11020179

Published online: 01 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1919

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmar20
 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions

PID marine engine speed regulation

under full load conditions for
sensitivity H‘-norm specifications
against propeller disturbance
NI Xiros, Dr-Eng, Dipl-Eng, Lecturer,
School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens, Greece

An improved PID tuning method is proposed for marine diesel engine governors which
may encounter significant problems, under severe propeller load fluctuation due to
weather and sea conditions. A reduced second-order transfer function of the marine
propulsion plant is used for PI and PID speed regulators design that satisfies loop shaping
requirements, subject to sensitivity H‘-norm specification. Performance robustness
against neglected dynamics is demonstrated only for the proposed PID regulator. These
PID schemes for main engine speed regulation at full load are validated in the actual case
of the propulsion powerplant of a large containership.

INTRODUCTION engines can burn heavy fuel oil and, c) slow-speed diesel
engines can be directly connected to the propeller without

T
he marine diesel engine is today’s predominant
prime mover used for ship propulsion. There are
three major reasons for this fact: a) the superior
thermal efficiency of diesel engines, b) diesel
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY
Nikolaos I Xiros received a degree (Dipl-Eng) in electrical
engineering in 1995 and a doctoral degree in marine engin-
eering in 2001 both from the National Technical University of
Athens (NTUA). Since September 2002, he has been a
lecturer on ship propulsion system operation and control, with
the School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering of
NTUA.
Dr Xiros’ main research activity is automatic control theory and
applications in the marine field, ie, control and automation of
marine engines, propulsion, shipboard auxiliary and electrical
plants; marine power hydraulic system controls; automated
guidance and navigation of surface and submarine vessels;
dynamic positioning, manoeuvring and active stabilisation
systems for ships. His research interests also include marine
communications and positioning-ranging-telemetry systems, as
well as statistical and intelligent signal processing and applica-
tions to marine machinery monitoring and diagnostics. Dr Xiros
has participated in several R&D projects of the maritime
industry and has performed a number of shipboard installations
of electronic control and monitoring equipment.
the need of a gearbox and/or clutch. The typical marine
propulsion plant of modern merchant ships includes a
single, long-stroke, slow-speed, turbocharged, two-stroke
diesel engine directly coupled to the vessel’s single, large-
diameter, fixed-pitch propeller.1,2 Effectively, speed reg-
ulation of a ship’s main engine in the near-MCR operating
region becomes increasingly important as it allows for
smoother and more reliable plant operation and critical
situation avoidance. As argued in Sorensen and Pedersen,3
positive results may extend to fuel economy and environ-
mental compatibility of marine systems.
It is common practice to introduce certain performance
margins for the propulsion diesel engine in the ship’s
powerplant selection and design stage. The most common
margins include the so-called sea and engine margins. The
purpose of these margins is to allow for performance
degradation due to hull fouling, engine deterioration and
other ageing effects, as well as for the possibility of safe
engine running near the upper limit of the allowed
envelope. The latter margin proves to be necessary under
certain operating conditions, whatever penalty may it
introduce in efficiency, running and installation costs. Such
conditions occur mainly when propeller load varies
significantly, due to heavy weather or rough sea, and
therefore large transient operation is imposed to the plant.
As a PI speed regulator is most commonly used, the

No. A5 2004 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 3

 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions
operation of the plant is kept in the design range by
decreasing engine load significantly. This, in turn, means
that installed power rating must exceed at least 10% the
power requirement after such enforced engine load
reductions. The negative effect of such main engine over-
sizing is quite important on engine room space and
installation cost, efficiency and running cost, as well as
rated pollutant emissions. However, engine over-sizing
can be avoided in the first place, if the control problem of
speed regulation in the near-MCR region is appropriately
solved.
With that objective, a tuning methodology of the PI(D)
speed regulator for safer and more reliable engine operation
at the MCR vicinity, based on sensitivity G‘-norm
specification and loop shaping, is proposed here. Robust-
ness analysis of the proposed PI(D) speed regulators
against neglected dynamics is then given. At first, however,
a review of transfer function models used for marine
propulsion control developments is necessary.
SHIP PROPULSION PLANT ANALYSIS
The tuning methodology of the PI(D) speed regulator for
marine engine governor applications requires a powerplant
transfer function model. This model is localised around
steady-state operating points on the propeller curve, so as
to overcome nonlinearities of the various physicochemical
processes, such as combustion. The order of the transfer
function for marine powerplants is determined by the
integrating action of the engine-propeller shaft depicted in
the following dynamic equation of equilibrium, in the time
domain:
M(t){L(t)
N_ (t)~ (1)
J transient operation, the following signal decomposition to a
where N is the shaft speed, M is the engine torque delivery,
L is the propeller torque demand and J is the total shaft
inertia accounting for engine, propeller plus entrained
water inertias. In detail, inertia J can be calculated as the
sum:4
J(t)~JE z115%:JP zDJ(t) (2)
where JE is the engine plus shaft inertia, JP is the ‘air’
propeller inertia augmented by a nominal 15%
accounting for the entrained water inertia. Inertia
amount DJ stands for the real parametric uncertainty
introduced in J(t) due to the variation of the entrained
water mass. Note that this variation lies in the range 5-30%
of propeller ‘air’ inertia JP.4 Also, note that the shaft
dynamics of order higher than one are neglected. This
assumption has been proven in practice to hold, if the
cycle-mean value variance is investigated.
Modelling of the engine thermodynamic processes that
determine M, in transfer function plant models, is consisted
of a thermodynamic gain C plus dead time td and time
constant tTC in the following differential equation:
tTC :M
_ (t)z(M(t){Mfr )~C :y(t{td ) (3)
where y is the fuel index position and Mfr is the engine
friction torque. Mfr is actually dependent upon steady-state
engine load expressed in either terms of fuel index or engine
4 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
speed. However, for speed regulation around one operating
point it can be assumed to be approximately constant.
As shown in Winterbone et al,5 the time constant tTC is
mainly due to the effect of turbocharging on the power/
torque generation process. Indeed, combustion efficiency
depends mainly on the combustion (charge) airflow rate,
especially at high engine loads (near MCR). This variable is
controlled by the turbocharger speed, and this is why in
thermodynamic cycle mean value models the turbocharger
speed is included as a state variable.6 In simple transfer
function models, that are tuned using experimental data
series such as the ones presented in Winterbone et al,5 this
effect can be modelled as a first-order system with a time
constant determined from the time response plots. Typical
transient time response plots can be found in Lan et al,7 and
Kyrtatos et al.6
The dead time in the engine torque equation is originating
from the injection delay of the fuelling system and has been
estimated in Yates,8 to lie within the range:
15=N<td <15=Nz60=(N :Z),
(4)
Z~number of engine cylinders
Speed(rev/min)-dependent load torque is another major
feature of marine propulsion plants. Specifically, for steady-
state analysis of propeller operation at the aft end of fully-
bodied hulls, the propeller law is assumed to hold,4 ie:
L~Q:N 2 (5)
Torque coefficient Q is varying significantly and is the main
source of shaft speed fluctuation. Actually, as it will be seen
later on, minimisation of the effect of Q fluctuation on shaft
speed is the design objective of H‘ loop shaping.
In order to deduce a transfer function of the plant
steady-state plus perturbation values is applied:
N(t)~N0 zn(t), Y (t)~Y0 zy(t), Q(t)~Q0 zq(t) (6)
Also, in order to extend the propeller law for transient
operation, the following first-order Taylor approximation
for L is applied:
L(t)~Q:N 2 &Q0 :N 2 z2Q0 N0 :n(t)zN 2 :q(t)
0 0 (7)
For the steady-state values (subscript 0 in the above
decomposition) the following equality holds, according to
propeller-law, steady-state, engine-propeller matching:
Mfr zC :Y0 ~Q0 :N 2 0 (8)
After algebraic manipulation, it can be seen that propulsion
plant dynamics are described with the following equation
on the s-plane (complex frequency domain)
C :exp({td s) :y(s){ N02 :q(s) (9)
n(s)~
(tTC sz1):(Jsz2Q0 N0 ) Jsz2Q0 N0
or in compact form:
n(s)~G1 (s):y(s)zG2 (s):q(s) (10)
Note that
n(s) C :exp({td s)
G1 (s)~ ~ (11)
y(s) (tTC sz1):(Jsz2Q0 N0 )
has the standard form for diesel prime movers with speed
No. A5 2004
 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions
dependent loads, encountered in literature such as in
Winterbone et al,5 and Roy et al.9 Frequently, the dynamics
of G1(s) are enriched so as to include the fuel index
actuator, that is modelled as a first-order system with time
constant tact, ie:
n(s) C :exp({td s)
G1 (s)~ ~ (12)
y(s) (tact sz1) (tTC sz1):(Jsz2Q0 N0 )
: overloading limit is the most efficient operating mode.
All poles introduced in G1(s) and G2(s) are real and stable.
However, dead time td in G1(s) introduces a zero in the
right-half s-plane according to the following Taylor
approximation for dead time terms:
exp({td s)&1{td s (13)
Therefore G1(s), if approximated, becomes a non-minimum-
phase transfer function.
Controller synthesis will be based on reducing the order
of the characteristic polynomial of the closed-loop system,
by neglecting the fast plant dynamics present in G1(s) and
by post-performing robustness analysis against these
neglected plant dynamics. Specifically, the actuator term
(1ztacts), combustion term (1ztTCs) and injection dead
time term exp(2tds) will be neglected in controller design.
Therefore the reduced order plant transfer function is:
C :y(s){N02 :q(s)
n(s)~ (14)
Jsz2Q0 N0
that obtains the single, stable real dominant pole determined
by the shaft inertia and the speed dependent propeller
loading. This reduced transfer function demonstrates the
major features of diesel ship propulsion transient operation,
and this is why it is used extensively in related literature such
as in Yates.8 The most important conclusions are:
1. The diesel marine propulsion plant is an inherently
stable system, with a pole located at 2t1 prop ~
22Q0N0/J. This is due to speed-dependent propeller
loading as indicated also in Faber.1
2. Speed regulation through feedback control is
required if the engine operating point is to be
maintained near-MCR, when significant propeller
torque coefficient fluctuation occurs. Indeed, there is
Fig 1: The reduced order model used for H‘ PID regulator synthesis
No. A5 2004 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
a certain speed limit value indicating engine over-
loading or off-design operation; an ungoverned
engine may well exceed this limit if run to a speed
value lower, but close to it, and is subject to significant
disturbance in terms of q(t). On the other hand,
running of the engine as close as possible to the
Therefore, feedback control should allow for safe
engine running in the vicinity of the overloading limit.
Today’s merchant ship diesel propulsion plants are
controlled by use of PI speed (rev/min) regulators. The
standard form of the PID control law is repeated here:
ð
y(t)~KP :n(t)zKI : n(t)dtzKD :n_ (t)
  (15)
KI
uy(s)~GC (s):n(s)~ KP z zKD s :n(s)
s
Incorporating this in the reduced plant transfer function,
the following closed-loop transfer function from q to n is
obtained:
n(s)
G(s)~ ~
q(s)
(16)
N02 :s
{
(J{CKD ):s2 z(2Q0 N0 {CKP ):s{CKI
The block diagram of the reduced order plant transfer
function with PID control is shown in Fig 1. The numerical
values of the model constants correspond to the typical case
of the propulsion powerplant of a large containership. The
PID speed regulation problem is to determine constants KP,
KI and possibly KD of the PID control law in order to
minimise speed fluctuation n(t) due to load disturbance q(t).
As demonstrated previously, use of the reduced order
plant transfer function leads to a second-order closed-loop
characteristic polynomial. For design purposes, the
following standard form of second-order transfer func-
tions10 will be used:
Av2n :s
G(s)~ 2 (17)
s z2fvn szv2n
5
 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions

where the following design equations determine the 1. Stability, as slow closed-loop pole s1 moves closer to
relationship between the closed-loop transfer function the right-half s-plane.
parameters and the gains of the PID control law: 2. Robustness against neglected dynamics as fast
N02 2Q0 N0 {CKP closed-loop pole s2 moves closer to the region of
Av2n ~{ , 2fvn ~ , neglected open-loop poles.
J{CKD J{CKD
(18) On the other hand, when f~1, G(s) obtains the double real
CKI
v2n ~{ pole s1,2~2 vn and, in effect, appropriate selection of the
J{CKD natural, underdamped frequency can maintain both the
In the sequel, gain A, damping factor f, and natural above requirements. Furthermore, if f~1, the analytical
underdamped frequency vn, of the closed-loop transfer expression of ||G(s)||‘ obtains a rather convenient form for
function will be determined. Then, using the above equations, algebraic manipulation. Indeed, when f~1.0, the peak of
the controller constants KP, KI and KD will be calculated. the magnitude Bode plot occurs at v~ vn. This can be
proven analytically by calculating the value |G(j v)| in
equation (17); alternatively, it can be understood if the
H‘ PID SPEED REGULATOR SYNTHESIS amplitude Bode (corner) plot of a generic transfer function
The design specification for the controller is that the
with the form of equation (17) and f~1.0 is drawn.
H‘-norm of the transfer function of the compensated plant
Furthermore, the value of the H‘-norm of G(s) is:
G(s):
Avn Avn
kG(s)k? ~ sup jG(jv)j (19) kG(s)k? ~ ~ (22)
v¢0 2f 2
is equal or smaller to a bound, provided that stability is as can be obtained by calculating |G(j v)n| in (17) and
maintained.11 In general, it can be easily seen that ||G(s)||‘ taking into account that f~1.0.
is a decreasing function of damping factor f. Furthermore, The above H‘-norm bound can be used for tuning either
it is required that the closed-loop system does not exhibit a PI or a PID controller. In this paper, both options
oscillatory response. This requirement is translated to (referred to as Hinf PI and Hinf PID respectively) will be
values for the damping factor f of G(s) larger than or equal examined in the case of a large containership’s main engine.
to unity, ie fo1.10 However, it is argued that robustness of For this powerplant, an upper bound of 1.0 rev/min(rpm)
design is simpler both to achieve if f~1. Indeed, the poles speed fluctuation for 300 kNm load fluctuation is proposed
of G(s) when fo1 are real and given by: in Kyrtatos et al.6 Using the slightly more conservative
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi bound of 1.0 rev/min per 450 kNm, which corresponds
s1,2 ~{fvn +vn f2 {1 (20) approximately to 0.05 kNm/rpm2 at MCR in propeller
torque coefficient terms,12-14 the upper bound value for
When fw1, it holds that:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ||G(s)||‘ is set to:
!
s1 ~{fvn zvn f2 {1>vn >{fvn {vn f2 {1~s2 (21) 1 rpm
20:log10 (G0 )~20:log10 ~26:0 dB (23)
The rightmost inequality in the above is obvious, whilst the 0:05 kNm=rpm2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
leftmost can be ffi
supported by the fact that the function
In addition, for reference purposes the response of the same
s1 =vn ~{fz f2 {1,f¢1 is a monotonically increasing
powerplant with a standard PI (std PI) controller, used for
function of f, as can be seen from Fig 2. In effect, when
rev/min regulation at the actual installation, will be
fw1 one has to compromise:
presented. Note that the negative signs of the PID constants
are omitted, because, in practice, the governor driving
signal is assumed to be speed error (setpoint minus actual
rev/min) and not speed fluctuation (actual rev/min minus
setpoint, see definition of n) which is employed here.

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig 2: Function s1 =vn ~{fz
interval [1,3]
f2 {1,f¢1 for f in the
Std PI
The std PI settings were:
std PI : KP ~5:00 %fuel index=rpm,
KI ~1:00%fuel index=rpm=s
These settings give values for f~2.27 and vn~0.61 rad/s,
that demonstrate that disturbance rejection at full load
conditions with std PI is rather poor as the peak of the
magnitude Bode plot occurring at v~ vn exhibits a value
of approx. 32.5dB. It is mentioned here that these settings
were taken from a shipboard installation and used only for
reference purposes. No attempt to modify them by a
method other than the one proposed here (eg, Ziegler-
Nichols) was done.

6 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A5 2004

 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions

Hinf PI
The Hinf PI controller settings were calculated according to
the requirement for ||G(s)||‘, ie:
 
Kvn
kG(s)k? ~20:log10 ~26:0 dB
2
As no D-term is used, the following equation holds for gain
A and natural underdamped frequency vn of G(s):
N02
Av2n ~{
J determined:
Therefore: f~1.0, vn~2.93rad/s and A~22.33.
In effect, the PI constants are:
Hinf PI : KP ~13:19 %fuel index=rpm,
KI ~22:79%fuel index=rpm=s
Note that except the smaller (and acceptable) value
achieved for ||G(s)||‘ the peak of the magnitude plot has
been shifted to a larger frequency, ie the system is relatively
more stable. This increase in speed of response is reflected
to the step response, as well, and is preferable.
Hinf PID
Incorporation of the D-term in the control law gives an
additional degree of freedom. Indeed, in the Hinf PI case,
natural underdamped frequency vn was fixed in order to
meet the ||G(s)||‘ requirement, while maintaining f~1.0.
In this case, however, closed-loop gain A is directly
adjustable through KD. As a result, the natural under-
damped frequency vn can be selected freely. As vn
determines the closed-loop double real pole, the question is
whether to make the system more or less stable than in the
Hinf PI case. At first, the more stable option is examined.
Setting vn to a value larger than in the Hinf PI case gives a
non-minimum-phase closed-loop transfer function:
~ c (s)~ y(s) ~{ N02 :(KD s2 zKP szKI )
G
q(s) (J{CKD ):s2 z(2Q0 N0 {CKP ):s{CKI
The closed-loop zeros are determined by the coefficients of
polynomial pPID(s)~KDs2zKPszKI. A necessary and
sufficient condition for a second-order polynomial with
real coefficients not to obtain roots in the right-half s-plane,
is that all coefficients of the polynomial have the same sign
and do not vanish. For negative feedback, both gains, KP
and KI, are negative. Therefore, a necessary and sufficient
condition for G̃(s) to be minimum-phase is that KDv0,
also. Using the H‘-norm requirement, equation (22), and
assuming, without any loss of generality, that Av0:
2G0
A~{
vn
By substituting the above in the first equation of (18), vn is
2G0 : 2 N02 N2 1
{ vn ~{ [vn ~ 0 :
vn J{CKD 2G0 (J{CKD )
By defining vn,PI the value of vn for KD~0 (ie vn,PI~N20 /
(2G0 J)), the following constraint inequality is directly
obtained for natural underdamped frequency:
KD <0uvn <vn,PI
Consequently, using the argumentation above:
~ c (s) is minimum-phaseuvn <vn,PI
G
Therefore, when the PID control law is employed, instead of the
PI one, relative stability has to be compromised in order to
guarantee that transfer function G̃c(s) remains minimum-phase.
For the test case examined, the D-term was used for
providing vn about half the value of the Hinf PI case, ie
vn~1.50rad/s and:
Hinf PID :
KP ~13:19 %fuel index=rpm,
KI ~11:67%fuel index=rpm=s,
KD ~2:53%fuel index:s=rpm
Note that P-constant is unaltered and I-constant is halved
compared to the Hinf PI case. The latter is a direct
consequence of halving vn.
Comparative assessment
Comparison between the three PI(D) regulators presented
above can be done using the Bode plots of the closed-loop
transfer function derived in each case (Fig 3). As already

Fig 3: Bode plots of the reduced order plant with std PI, Hinf PI and PID rpm regulators

No. A5 2004 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 7

 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions

mentioned, the relatively most stable system is the one rev/min fluctuation n is:
using the Hinf PI regulator. The Hinf PID system is more Gc0 (s)~
stable than the std PI but less than the Hinf PI one.
N02 :s:(1ztTC :s) (25)
For validation the sinusoidal steady-state response of the { : : : :
tTC J s z(J{CKD ztTC 2Q0 N0 ) s z(2Q0 N0 {CKP ) s{CKI
3 2
three transfer functions is shown in Fig 4 for vn values of
0.61, 1.50 and 2.93rad/s, ie the natural underdamped which obtains order three and the purely real and negative
frequencies of the three closed-loop transfer functions. The closed-loop zero (21/tTC).
compliance of both Hinf regulators is demonstrated in For further analysis, the following error polynomial e9c(s)
these graphs. is defined:
e0 (s)~p0 (s){pc (s)~tTC s2 :(Jsz2Q0 N0 )
c c
ROBUSTNESS AGAINST NEGLECTED tTC : 2 : (26)
~ s (tprop sz1)
DYNAMICS tprop
It is generally known that (stable) poles of a scalar transfer
where p9c(s) is the characteristic polynomial of transfer
function having a dominant effect on transient response
function G9c(s):
(dominant poles) are the ones which are located closer to
the imaginary axis, ie obtain smaller real parts in the p0c (s)~a03 s3 za02 s2 za01 sza00 ~
absolute sense.10,15 In literature,10 it is mentioned that
~tTC J :s3 z(J{CKD ztTC :2Q0 N0 ):s2 (27)
poles with real part 5-10 times smaller than any other can
be considered as dominant. z(2Q0 N0 {CKP ):s{CKI
Since most practical marine propulsion systems
e9c(s) obtains a double root at s~0 and a single one at
contain dynamical terms due to turbocharging, fuel
s~22Q0N0/J~2t1 prop . Therefore, the introduction of the
injection, actuator etc, which have been neglected during
fast dynamical term (1ztTCs) does not affect either steady-
the H‘ synthesis procedure presented pre-
state performance, as e9c(0zj0)~0, or open-loop behaviour
viously, it is imperative to consider the properties of
as e9c(2t21prop)~0.
robust stability and performance for the closed-loop
In general, if controller gains make the value of the error
system, when the neglected dynamics are taken into
polynomial e9c(s) adequately small, in the absolute sense, at
account.
the poles assigned to pc(s) of the reduced order, then two of
To illustrate the effect of neglected dynamics, in the
the roots of p9c(s) are in a vicinity of the roots of pc(s), due
case of marine propulsion powerplant control, ana-
to continuity of polynomial functions. For pc(s), pole-
lysis is given, when the plant transfer function is
extended to include the dynamical term (1ztTCs), assignment has previously led to select a double real root at
conventionally referred to as turbocharging term, but s1,2~2 vn:
actually corresponding to any single, fast, stable, real pole pc (s)~(J{CK D ):(s2 z2vn szv2 ) n (28)
neglected during synthesis. The open-loop transfer func-
For p9c(s) it holds:
tion is:
p0c (s)~(a03 sz(a02 {2a03 vn )):(s2 z2vn szv2n )zu0 (s) (29)
C :y(s){ N02 :q(s)
n(s)~ :
(tTC sz1) (Jsz2Q0 N0 ) Jsz2Q0 N0 (24) where u9(s) is the residual first-order polynomial of the
division.
~G10 (s):y(s)zG2 (s):q(s)
However, if tTC/tprop« or vn«, or, vn.tprop<1, then
Then, the closed-loop (with PID control) transfer func- e9c(s~2 vn)<0[p9c(s~2 vn)<0, ie s1,2~2 vn is a double
tion G9c(s) from the propeller disturbance signal q to shaft root of p9c (s). This implies that u9(s) can be omitted from the

Fig 4: Sinusoidal rpm response of the three systems at their natural underdamped frequencies

8 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A5 2004

 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions

division equation above and the third root of p9c(s) can be fluctuation n is obtained:
approx. calculated as the root of the quotient polynomial: Gc00 (s)~
a0 {2a0 vn N02 :s(1ztTC s)(1ztact s) (37)
a03 sz(a02 {2a03 vn )~0[s3 ~{ 2 0 3 (30) {
a3 s(Jsz2Q0 N0 )(1ztTC s)(1ztact s){C(1{td s)(KD s zKP szKI )
2

After some algebraic manipulation, it is obtained that: It is mentioned here that both G9c(s) and G0c(s) are
J{CKD {2tTC :(Jvn {Q0 N0 ) appropriate adaptations of the output sensitivity function
s3 ~{ used in literature16 for robustness analysis of closed loop
tTC J
  (31) systems. However, in the case at hand, the fact is that this
1 : tTC : C: function is scalar, which facilitates analysis in combination
~{ 1{ (2vn tprop {1){ KD
tTC tprop J with other problem-specific features investigated hereafter.
In order to assure e9c(s~2 vn)<0[p9c(s~2 vn)<0, rela- At first, it is observed that both G9c(s) and G0c(s) are low-
tive stability considerations implies the choice of pass, meaning that the value of frequency at which the
vn.tprop<1 instead of vn«. Note that in the Hinf PID amplitude Bode plot obtains its maximum (ie the point where
regulator case vn can be adjusted in order to fulfil the their H‘-norm is calculated) is in the low frequency range.
above requirement vn.tprop<1, whilst in the Hinf PI Therefore, the fast closed-loop zeros observed in equa-
regulator case, this is not possible, as the value of vn is tions (25) and (37) do not alter the conclusions of design
fixed in order to meet the H‘-norm requirement. with the reduced order open-loop model of equation (14).
Furthermore, by assuming vn.tprop<1 the expression for For examining the effect of the enriched dynamics
s3 becomes: appearing in G0c(s), to the closed-loop pole locations the
  same line of thought with equation (26) is adopted and the
1 : tTC C:
s3 ~{ 1{ { KD (32) following decomposition is proposed:
tTC tprop J
e00c (s)~p00c (s){pc (s)~s(Jsz2Q0 N0 )
(38)
Hinf PI regulator |½(tTC ztact )sztTC tact s2 zCtd s(KD s2 zKP szKI )
As KD~0: where p0c(s) is the characteristic polynomial of transfer
 
1 : tTC 1 function G0c(s).
s3,PI ~{ 1{ >{ (33) Otherwise, e0c(s) can be factorised as following:
tTC tprop tTC
meaning that closed-loop pole s3 moves closer to the e00c (s)~s:f3 (s) (39)
dominant pole region. Therefore, even if the value of vn where:
provides vn.tprop<1, performance robustness of the closed- f3 (s)~CKI td z½2Q0 N0 (tTC ztact )zCKP td s
loop system is compromised. (40)
z½J(tTC ztact )z2Q0 N0 tTC tact zCKD td s2 zJtTC tact s3

Hinf PID regulator Therefore, e0c(s) obtains a simple root at s~0 and the three
roots of f3(s) which can be either three real roots or a pair of
As KDv0:
  conjugate ones and a real one. Based on the fact that the fast
1 : tTC C
s3 ~{ 1{ { :KD <s3,PI (34) dynamical terms obtain commonly small time constants,
tTC tprop J the following approximation can be done, at least in the
Therefore, performance robustness of the closed-loop low-pass range which is of interest:
system is compromised less than in the Hinf PI case. f3 (s)~CKI td z½2Q0 N0 (tTC ztact )zCKP td s
Furthermore, in the typical case it can be assumed that: (41)
z½J(tTC ztact )zCKD td s2
tTC C
< :jKD j (35)
tprop J At first, it can be readily seen that if td%tTC/tprop then the
results for G0c(s) are identical to the ones for G9c(s) if tTC is
In effect:
substituted by (tTCztact); furthermore, the coefficients and
1 consequently the roots of e0c(s) do not depend on the PI(D)
s3 <{ (36)
tTC controller gains. In effect, only the case for which td and
ie, the third pole of G9c(s) moves deeper inside the neglected (tTCztact) are in the same order of magnitude needs to be
region of the left-half complex s-plane. Therefore, the considered. For this case, as argued right after, the PID
approximation of G9c(s) using Gc(s), especially for sA0 is regulator offers benefits when compared to the PI regulator,
acceptable, and the Hinf PID controller designed using the due to the additional design degrees of freedom.
reduced order transfer function of the marine plant, is As can be seen, e0c(s) alters the first-order coefficient of
robust against the neglected dynamics of term (1ztTCs). the nominal (reduced order) closed-loop polynomial by the
In the more general case, when the dynamic relation quantity CKItd (which is commonly negative due to the
equation (12) is used in equation (10), with possibly the negative sign of controller gains), ie:
non-minimum-phase approximation equation (13) for the a001 ~2Q0 N0 {C(KP {td KI )<2Q0 N0 {CKP ~a1 ~2fvn
dead time factor in the numerator, the following closed-
(42)
loop relationship G0c(s) (with a full PID control law) from
the propeller disturbance signal q to shaft rev/min This fact justifies the choice of f~1.0; indeed, although a

No. A5 2004 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 9

 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions
lower value, eg the commonplace value of 0.707, could lead
to a less conservative design when only the nominal
dynamics are considered, the introduction of the dead time
term may cause a significant reduction to the value of f,
yielding an unacceptably oscillatory closed-loop response.
Furthermore, as demonstrated in the numerical example
examined previously, the introduction of the D-term
decreased the value of KI (in the example it halved it due
to the setting of vn); therefore, the use of a PID regulator
further decreases the risk of an unacceptably-oscillatory
closed-loop system.
Furthermore, for the terms of order two and higher of
e0c(s) (terms of order one and higher of f3(s)) the
conclusions for G9c(s) can be extended by substituting
tTC by (tTCztactzt0d ), where:
CKP : CKD :
t00d ~ td ~ td (43)
2Q0 N0 J
The conditions for the extension to hold exactly, are that a
PID regulator is used and the ratio between the D and the P
gains is:
KD J of 0.05 kNm/rpm2. Furthermore the response does not
~ ~tprop (44)
KP 2Q0 N0
In typical marine plants (as the one examined in this case)
the value of tprop is in the range of 1.0s. Therefore, if the P
and D gains obtain the same order of magnitude, then an
approximate analysis for the terms of order two and higher
of e0c(s) similar to the one shown for the case of G9c(s) can be
used. For the case of a PI regulator, however, the
approximate analysis method is not applicable as KD~0;
therefore, the conventional sensitivity and model order
reduction techniques16 have to be employed.
Comparative assessment
It has been shown that, even in the case when only one
negligible pole is present in the transfer function, the
freedom to choose the value of natural underdamped
frequency vn may prove rather necessary. Indeed, if vn is
selected far from the open-loop dominant pole, determined
by tprop, then the closed-loop error polynomial e9c(s) may
obtain a large value at s~2 vn, leading to large deviations
in closed-loop performance. On the other hand, the D-
term, in spite of any practical problems envisaged in
Fig 5: Step response of the reduced order plant with std PI, Hinf PI and Hinf PID regulators
10
implementation, increases the safety distance of closed-
loop pole s3 from the dominant region, leading to enhanced
robustness against neglected dynamical terms.
This is illustrated in the typical case of the propulsion
plant of a large containership investigated earlier. The step
response to a 0.05 kNm/rpm2 step in q of the reduced order
system (zero neglected dynamics assumed) with the Hinf
regulators is shown in Fig 5. As can be seen, the
performance is rather satisfactory and comparable for
both of them. Maximum overspeed for both regulators is
practically the same. On the other hand, the more stable
pole of the Hinf PI regulator gives significantly faster
response. In any case, either one of these regulators can
guarantee performance for the reduced order plant, whilst
the std PI cannot.
If a dynamical term with tTC~0.25s and a dead time
term of td~0.1s are introduced to the system, however,
only the Hinf PID preserves acceptable performance levels.
As seen in Fig 6, although the observed increase of the
overspeed is not negligible, the closed-loop system step
response is still maintained below 1 rev/min for a step in q
exhibit any oscillations. On the other hand, performance of
the Hinf PI after introduction of neglected dynamics ceases
to be acceptable. As seen in Fig 6, the engine rev/min
exceeds 96.0 rev/min overspeed (more than 1.3 rev/min
above setpoint) and therefore the specification is not met.
Additionally, significant oscillations are introduced to the
closed-loop system response, giving jiggling in the fuel
index signal. This dramatic deterioration of the Hinf PI
regulator performance can be explained by the fact that the
Hinf PI-compensated system obtains a double real pole
located deeper in the left-half complex s-plane and its
damping factor is reduced to values significantly smaller
than 0.707; these facts reduce the distance between the
dominant (double) pole and the neglected pole (1ztTCs)
as well as non-oscillatory performance robustness against
the dead time term, resulting in a less accurate represen-
tation of the physical system by the reduced order model.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
An analytic and simple-to-apply method for tuning the PID
speed regulator of marine propulsion engines for improved
Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology No. A5 2004
 PID marine engine speed regulation under full load conditions
Fig 6: Step response of the full order plant with Hinf PI and Hinf PID regulators
disturbance rejection at full load conditions has been
proposed. The design is based on a reduced order model of
the plant and guarantees that the H‘-norm of the transfer
function from disturbance to shaft rev/min does not exceed
specification. Both cases of Hinf PI and PID are examined
and assessed in comparison to a std PI controller already in
shipboard service. Both the Hinf regulators perform
satisfactorily against the specifications with the reduced
order system, whilst, when neglected dynamical terms are
introduced, only the Hinf PID regulator maintains
acceptable performance levels. In conclusion, in the case
of marine propulsion, there exists a stability-robustness
against neglected dynamics trade-off, encountered in a
variety of other control loops, too. The introduction of a D-
term in the control law exploits this fact in order to
guarantee robustness of performance against neglected
dynamics. However, an analysis of performance and
robustness against parametric uncertainty under operating
conditions other than the ones for which the proposed
design is aimed (ie full load for which the critical overspeed
hazard is more significant, especially under heavy weather
or rough sea) is still in progress and expected to report
results soon. Finally, the subject of efficient implementa-
tion of the D-term in the speed governor, that overcomes
the drawback of amplification of noise present in the
feedback rev/min signal, will also be addressed in a future
work.
REFERENCES
1. Faber EG. Some Thoughts on Diesel Marine Engineer-
ing. SNAME Transactions 1993, 101: 537-582.
2. Faber EG. System Interaction between Hull/Propulsor
and Piston Engine / Turbocharger. In: WEGEMT 21st Graduate
School. Duisburg, Germany: Gerhard-Mercator University,
1994.
3. Sorensen P and Pedersen PS. The Intelligent Engine
and electronic products – A development status. In: 22nd
CIMAC Congress. Copenhagen: CIMAC; 1998.
4. Carlton JS. Marine Propellers and Propulsion. Oxford:
Butterworth & Heinmann, 1994. Chapter 11.
No. A5 2004 Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology
5. Winterbone DE, Thiruarooran C, and Wellstead PE.
A Wholly Dynamic Model of a Turbocharged Diesel Engine for
Transfer Function Evaluation. In: 1977 International Auto-
motive Engineering Congress. Detroit, SAE, 1977.
6. Kyrtatos NP, Theotokatos G, and Xiros NI. Transient
Operation of Large-bore, Two-stroke Marine Diesel Engines:
Measurements and Simulations. In: 23rd CIMAC Congress.
Hamburg, CIMAC, 2001.
7. Lan WC, Takesi K, and Takesi H. Quasi Steady
Simulation of Diesel Engine Transient Performance and Design
of Mechatronic Governor. Bulletin of the MESJ 1993,
24.1, 1-13.
8. Yates GH. Governor Performance Slide Rule. Docu-
ment PMCC 77 – 11. Woodward Governor Nederland BV,
1977.
9. Roy S, Malik OP, and Hope GS. An adaptive control
scheme for speed control of diesel driven powerplants. IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, 1991, 6.4: 605-611.
10. Kuo BC. Automatic Control Systems. Prentice-Hall,
NJ, 1987
11. Tempo R and Blanchini F. Robustness Analysis with
Real Parametric Uncertainty. In: Levine WS, ed, Control
Engineering Handbook, 1996. USA, IEEE Press, pp 495-
505.
12. Kyrtatos NP, Politis G, Lambropoulos V, Theoto-
katos G, and Xiros N. Optimum Performance of large Marine
Engines Under Extreme Loading Conditions. In: 22nd
CIMAC Congress, Copenhagen, CIMAC, 1998.
13. Kyrtatos NP, Theodosopoulos P, Theotokatos G,
and Xiros N. Simulation of the Overall Ship Propulsion Plant
for Performance Prediction and Control. In: MarPower ’99
Conf. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, IMarE, 1999.
14. Kyrtatos NP, Theotokatos G, and Xiros N. Main
Engine Control for Heavy Weather Conditions: The ACME
Project. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium
on Marine Engineering, Tokyo, MESJ, 2000.
15. Nagrath IJ and Gopal M. Control Systems Engineer-
ing, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Singapore, 1986.
16. Zhou K and Doyle JC. Essentials of Robust Control.
Prentice Hall; 1997.
11