1 Challenge the future Ship motion compensation platform for high payloads dynamic analysis and...
-
Upload
egbert-malone -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Challenge the future Ship motion compensation platform for high payloads dynamic analysis and...
1Challenge the future
Ship motion compensation platform for high payloads dynamic analysis and control
MSc Project at GustoMSC – Wouter de ZeeuwProf.dr. D.J. Rixen, Ir. M. Wondergem
2Challenge the future
Introduction: Pooltable on cruise ship
3Challenge the future
Two ship motion compensation platforms:Ampelmann (personnel) Bargemaster (~400 tonnes)
4Challenge the future
Feed the components to the site Jack up and install
Offshore windturbine installation with Jack-up units Present method
5Challenge the future
Goal: Complete windturbine installation from a floating unit
1000[t]
400[t](concept of competitor)
Motion stabilizing platform to extend operating limits
Fast feeder barges
Jack up unit stays at site
6Challenge the future
Small overview
Preliminary 2D model1. Analysis of Ampelmann scalemodel tests2. 3D modeling of new mechanism on ship3. Controlling the system
7Challenge the future
Goal: Complete windturbine installation from a floating unit
Preliminary 2D model showed feasibility ...
400[t](concept of competitor)
8Challenge the future
Goal: Complete windturbine installation from a floating unit
Preliminary 2D model showed feasibility but dynamic instability
400[t](concept of competitor)
9Challenge the future
1. (In-)stability due to the quasistatic control?Similar mass system: Ampelmann scale model tests
10Challenge the future
Maximum real part of eigenvalues of system matrix. 1 parameter varied around maximum likelihood estim.
1. Stability of the fitted linear model
All parameters as in fit of first 15 seconds
e.g. cH times 2 (double the hydrodyn. damping) others identical
UNSTABLE
11Challenge the future
1. Stability of the fitted linear modelMaximum real part of eigenvalues of system matrix.
1 parameter varied around maximum likelihood estim.
• Adding hydro-damping stabilizes
12Challenge the future
1. Stability of the fitted linear modelMaximum real part of eigenvalues of system matrix.
1 parameter varied around maximum likelihood estim.
• The damping on opposite movements is a destabilizing factor, possible unmodeled nonlinearities
13Challenge the future
1. Stability of the fitted linear modelMaximum real part of eigenvalues of system matrix.
1 parameter varied around maximum likelihood estim.
• The proportional control has stable and unstable settings
14Challenge the future
2. 3D modeling - ship movements
• Accelerations due to planar movements surge, sway and yaw are smaller than due to off planar movements
• Platform should compensate heave, roll and pitch
15Challenge the future
2. 3D modeling - platform mechanism
• New mechanism for a 3 degree of freedom platform• Planar movements are constrained by 3 Sarrus type
linkages• Force vs. Reach variable via α
16Challenge the future
2. 3D modeling - hydrodynamicsBarge panel model(35x115m)
State-Space approx. of wave radiation terms
External wave field realization
17Challenge the future
2. 3D modeling - vessel+platform
• Lagrangian dynamics (body fixed) • Extension of serial robot on ship to parallel robots
18Challenge the future
2. 3D modeling - total dynamics
• Nonlinear kinematics• Coriolis terms • Pose dep. mass matrix
• External waveloads• Hydrostatics• Hydrodynamics
• Wave radiation• Added mass/damping
19Challenge the future
2. 3D modeling - total dynamics
20Challenge the future
3. Controllers - Naïve Quasistatic vs. Model Based
Quasistatic:• Calculate leg length error assuming fixed boat
position• 2 Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers
• On mean error• On asymmetric errors
Model Based:• Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
21Challenge the future
3. Control - Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
22Challenge the future
3. Control - Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
23Challenge the future
Visualizations
24Challenge the future
Visualizations
25Challenge the future
Heave-Roll-Pitch in storm conditionsHead sea, seastate Hs=4m T1=6.5s.
26Challenge the future
Energy usage in disturbance rejectionMilder sea
27Challenge the future
Conclusions
• The scalemodel roll instability can be reproduced by a linear model with quasistatic control and influential parameters can be recognized.
• The coupled ship - parallel platform dynamics are derived and he new platform can compensate the ship movements.
• MPC is shown to be a successful candidate for control, requires less power than PID in disturbance rejection and is less hard to tune and to stabilize.
28Challenge the future
29Challenge the future
Thank you. Questions?
30Challenge the future
#1: Second degree model fit, technique
Fitting technique:
31Challenge the future
#1b: Second degree model fit, results
32Challenge the future
#2: Kinematics – leg joint velocity Jacobian construction
33Challenge the future
#3: Hydrodynamics – rad forces
Retardation forces (vector):
Cummins eqn. in hydrodyn. ref. frame:
State space approx. per radiation component (scalar):
Known values via hydrodynamic code (WAMIT):
Approx. model: (Gauss-Newton iter)
34Challenge the future
#4a: Dynamics – Pose dep. mass matrix
(Relative velocity)
(ref. frame transf.)
(notation)
(expand)
The total mass matrix is now (platform) pose dependent
35Challenge the future
#4b: Dynamics - Lagrange
(euler angle rates)(body fixed general velocities)