Investigation of the positioning performances for DP vessels considering thruster failure modes by a novel synthesized criterion

Original article
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

For safety critical offshore operations, the dynamically positioned (DP) vessel should maintain reasonable positioning performance even under the circumstance of thruster failure. In this case, thruster failure mode analysis is often taken into account when designing a new DP vessel. In this paper, the positioning performances of the vessels with thruster failure modes are investigated by time domain simulations. A novel synthesized positioning performance criterion is proposed to quantify the positioning performance including the aspects of positioning accuracy and power consumption. The synthesized criterion concerns how well the vessel is positioned rather than how large the environmental conditions that the vessel can counteract. A semi-submersible employed with eight azimuth thrusters is adopted to perform the simulation. It can be concluded from the obtained results that, if the thruster system is well designed, thruster failure may not affect the thrust system in supplying sufficient thrust force with two or less than two thrusters failure for the semi-submersible. With four thrusters failure, the thrust system tries its best to counteract the environmental yaw moment in order to keep its heading, however, it cannot supply sufficient forces to assist the semi-submersible going back to its desired position, which is very dangerous in practical operation. Therefore, the failed thrusters should be timely maintained to guarantee safe operation and to save power. The performance of the thrust re-allocation logic dealing with thruster failure during the simulation is also approved. Finally, several design guideline regarding improvement of the positioning performance of the vessel after thruster failure have been summarized.

Keywords

Dynamic positioning system Synthesized positioning performance criterion Thruster failure modes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly acknowledge the supports of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51709170), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (Mooring position technology: floating support platform engineering(II)), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0303405) and the Shanghai Sailing Program (Grant No. 17YF1409700).

References

  1. 1.
    Brink A, Chung JS (1981) Automatic position control of a 300,000 tons ship during ocean mining operations. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen H, Moan T, Verhoeven H (2008) Safety of dynamic positioning operations on mobile offshore drilling units. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(7):1072–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faltinsen OM (1990) Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faÿ H (1990) Dynamic positioning systems: principles. Design and Applications, TechnipGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fossen TI (2011) Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fossen TI, Strand JP (1999) Passive nonlinear observer design for ships using lyapunov methods: full-scale experiments with a supply vessel. Automatica 35(1):3–16CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fu M, Ning J, Wei Y (2011) Fault-tolerant control of dynamic positioning vessel by means of a virtual thruster. In: Mechatronics and automation (ICMA), 2011 international conference on IEEE, pp 1706–1710Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansen TA, Fossen TI, Berge SP (2004) Constrained nonlinear control allocation with singularity avoidance using sequential quadratic programming. Control Syst Techn IEEE Trans 12(1):211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan MJ (1978) Dynamic positioning of offshore vessels. Petroage Publishing CoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serraris J-J (2009) Time domain analysis for dp simulations. In: ASME 2009 28th international conference on Ocean, offshore and Arctic engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 595–605Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skjetne R, Egeland O (2006) Hardware-in-the-loop testing of marine control systems. Model Identif Control 27(4):239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sørensen AJ (2011) A survey of dynamic positioning control systems. Annu Rev Control 35(1):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sørensen AJ, Ronxss M (2002) Mathematical modeling of dynamically positioned and thruster-assisted anchored marine vessels. Ocean Eng Handb 1:15–28Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sørensen AJ, Strand JP (2000) Positioning of small-waterplane-area marine constructions with roll and pitch damping. Control Eng Pract 8(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spjtvold J, Johansen TA (2009) Fault tolerant control allocation for a thruster-controlled floating platform using parametric programming. In: Decision and control, 2009 held jointly with the 2009 28th Chinese control conference. CDC/CCC 2009. Proceedings of the 48th IEEE conference on IEEE, pp 3311–3317Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tannuri E, Pesce C, Alves G, Masetti I, Ribas Ferreira P, Umeda C (2002) Dynamic positioning of a pipeline launching barge. In: The twelfth international offshore and polar engineering conference. International society of offshore and polar engineersGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wichers JEW (1988) A simulation model for a single point moored tanker. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit DelftGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu S, Li B, Wang X, Wang L (2016a) A novel real-time estimate method of wave drift force for wave feed-forward in dynamic positioning system. Ships Offshore Struct 11(7):747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu S, Wang L, Wang X (2015a) Local optimization of thruster configuration based on a synthesized positioning capability criterion. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 7(6):1044–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu S, Wang L, Wang X, Li B (2016b) Experimental evaluation on a newly developed dynamic positioning time domain simulation program. J Ship Mech 20(03):265–276Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu S, Wang X, Wang L, Li B et al (2016c) A dynamic forbidden sector skipping strategy in thrust allocation for marine vessels. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 26(2):175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xu S, Wang X, Wang L, Meng S, Li B (2015b) A thrust sensitivity analysis based on a synthesized positioning capability criterion in DPCap/DynCap analysis for marine vessels. Ocean Eng 108:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu X, Yang J, Li X, Xu L (2015c) Time-domain simulation for coupled motions of three barges moored side-by-side in floatover operation. China Ocean Eng 29:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamamoto I (2001) Robust and non-linear control of marine system. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 11(13):1285–1341CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamamoto I (2016) Practical robotics and mechatronics: marine, space and medical applications. The Institution of Engineering and TechnologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Ocean EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced Ship and Deep-Sea Exploration (CISSE)ShanghaiChina
  3. 3.School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations