This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

### Publishers

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 16, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2008

**Model-Based Output Feedback Control of Slender-Body Underactuated AUVs: Theory and Experiments
**

Jon E. Refsnes, Asgeir J. Sørensen, and Kristin Y. Pettersen, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper presents the design and experimental results of a novel output feedback controller for slender-body underwater vehicles. The controller is derived using model-based design techniques. Two separate control plant models are employed: a 3-degree-of-freedom (DOF) current-induced vessel model accounting for the current loads acting on the vehicle and a 5-DOF model describing the vehicle dynamics. The main design objective behind this strategy is to incorporate the vehicle dynamics when estimating the current inﬂuence on the vehicle. Furthermore, the transit model is based on the notion of constant propeller revolution resulting in a partly linearized model, which subsequently leads to perspicuous and implementable controller and observer structures. The controller is derived using the observer backstepping technique, and the closed loop is proved to be asymptotically stable using Lyapunov and cascaded systems theory. The control objective is to track the desired pitch and heading angle generated by the line-of-sight guidance system while keeping constant forward thrust. Experimental results demonstrate successful performance of the proposed output feedback controller implemented on the Minesniper MkII AUV/ROV. Index Terms—Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), experimental results, nonlinear model-based output feedback control.

I. INTRODUCTION

F

OR underwater vehicles, moving with some forward speed, the dynamics are highly nonlinear and coupled. This presents control challenges that have led to considerable interest on nonlinear observer and controller design for underwater vehicles during the last decades. There are, however, relatively few reported results on model-based control (MBC) designs for underwater vehicles that include experimental tests. The main reason for this lies probably in the great difﬁculties in obtaining an accurate model of the vessels. Furthermore, unpredictable current loads and poor position measurements present challenges when employing MBC due to their potentially strong inﬂuence on the controller. For these reasons, in addition to

Manuscript received June 7, 2007; revised August 21, 2007. Manuscript received in ﬁnal form January 7, 2007. Published July 30, 2008 (projected). Recommended by Associate Editor F. Caccavale. This work was supported by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Kongsberg ASA, Norway. J. E. Refsnes and A. J. Sørensen are with the Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway (e-mail: jon.refsnes@marin.ntnu.no; asgeir.sorensen@ntnu.no). K. Y. Pettersen is with the Department of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway (e-mail: kristin.y.pettersen@itk.ntnu.no). Color versions of one or more of the ﬁgures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identiﬁer 10.1109/TCST.2007.916347

issues related to the actual implementation, tuning, and debugging, nonmodel-based solutions are often preferred. There are, however, important advantages that can follow from employing MBC. Based on the model, one can predict the motion of the vehicle by using controller actuator inputs and available state measurements. Moreover, a model-based observer can provide estimates of unmeasured states in addition to ﬁltering of noisy signals. This paper presents successful results of an MBC system of a slender-body underwater vehicle, demonstrating orientation tracking, estimation of unmeasured states, ﬁltering, and dead reckoning. We will, in this paper, denote the model that is designed for the purpose of control design as the control plant model (CPM). A CPM is, according to [31], deﬁned as a model that captures the main characteristics of the physical system. Unfortunately, poorly formulated CPMs that do not capture the important characteristics of the dynamic system may cause reduced performance and also stability problems. Hence, when deriving the CPM, emphasis should be placed on stability and robustness issues related to the system in addition to simplifying the model such that analysis is feasible. We will thus, in this paper, describe the development of the dynamic model and explain the most important hydrodynamic features of slender-body autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). The more complex process plant model (PPM) is a comprehensive description of the actual process and should be as detailed as needed. The main purpose of this model is to simulate the real plant and to test controllers and observers that are designed based on the corresponding CPM. A. Background There are some reported results on MBC of AUVs in the literature. In [16], a state feedback controller is proposed for tracking of the NPS ARIES AUV. The model is linearized about a constant forward velocity and decoupled into three separate systems: surge, horizontal steering (sway and yaw), and the diving system (heave and pitch). Sliding-mode controllers and observers [9] are proposed to solve the tracking problem. Experimental results, reported in [22], demonstrate successful controller performance. The NPS ARIES is an underactuated slender-body AUV intended for orientation tracking while maintaining some forward speed. This kind of streamlined AUVs should be distinguished from open box-framed vehicles. These are low-speed vehicles, usually fully actuated, and with hydrodynamic and stability properties that may vary signiﬁcantly. In [30], a model-based positioning system is proposed for robotic vehicles where experimental evaluation

1063-6536/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 931 of the different controllers is performed on the JHRUROV vehicle. or slowly varying bias. the controller provides good tracking results. Moreover. The AUV/ROV is a low-cost. and orientation. Furthermore. are measured. A drawback of this method is that the hydrodynamic properties of the vehicle are not properly accounted for when modeling the current loads. In [30] and [34]. the guidance kinematics algorithms are included in the controller derivation. [5]. This paper adds to the results on output feedback control presented in [29] since we in this paper consider the case where velocity measurements are not available. which can be contaminated by severe noise. it is not model-based since it does not incorporate the model dynamics in the controller. This is a current-induced vessel model that can be interpreted as a third-order ﬁlter with constants obtained based on the vehicle parameters.e. We use a slightly different approach in this paper by considering the desired trajectories as external. roll. Therefore. e. A 3-degree-of-freedom (DOF) model in surge. The . in which all require velocity feedback of some kind.. This makes it possible to prove convergence to the desired path despite the lack of control actuators. Other reported methods involve using kinematics and ﬁltering techniques to obtain an estimate of the current velocity. according to [30]. torpedo-shaped underwater vehicle. [3]. This approach was ﬁrst introduced in [13]. In this paper. The proposed model is completely decoupled. The work presented in this paper is motivated by the Minesniper MkII developed by Kongsberg ASA. The three-dimensional guidance system is based on the line-of-sight method. and heave is derived to serve as a foundation for current observer design. the performance is greatly degraded when employing incorrect model parameters.. Although employed on a nonlinear model of the ODIN vehicle. assume that the destabilizing Coriolis forces are dominated by the hydrodynamic damping in some sense. and in addition. The position is measured by using a short base line acoustical measurement system. this assumption is not realistic. Consequently. We then show that the unactuated states are bounded due to hydrodynamic damping by analyzing the inherent dynamics of the proposed controller. The vehicle. However. sway. and the current inﬂuence is difﬁcult to predict even though measurements of both vehicle and water velocity are available.g. The design and results of a guidance and control system for slenderbody underactuated AUVs measuring only position. and it is a convenient tool which follows from using the backstepping method [20]. and that the hydrodynamic Coriolis forces are negligible. The sensor suite also provides measurements of the heading. The relatively small weight compared to the nominal speed implies that the dynamics are speed dominant and that the nonlinear characteristics of the hydrodynamics become decisive. and depth. we propose an observer providing position and velocity estimates. a higher order model is preferred in order to avoid large jumps and oscillations in the current estimate. depth. the hydrodynamic properties of a box shaped vehicle indicates that the damping is dominant. and bounded signals. Furthermore. we consider underactuated AUVs. IMUs are subject to drift in the derived velocity when integrating faulty acceleration measurements. the Coriolis forces are not explicitly included in the model. B. speed measurements can be obtained by using Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) [19] or by integrating accelerations measured by the IMU. see. the key hydrodynamic properties are taken into account when estimating the effect of the environmental disturbance.g.. The goal is to provide an estimate of the current velocity and thereby estimate the inﬂuence of the current loads on the vehicle. and [4]. since only the orientation. for slender-body vehicles with some forward speed. except [2]. e. All these mentioned results have in common that the velocity is available for feedback. Comparing with low-speed applications for ships. e. i. Main Contribution and Paper Outline The main contribution of this paper is the following. Successful tracking results of an MBC derived using the backstepping theory are presented in [2]. The control objective is to track the desired pitch and heading angles while keeping constant forward thrust. This restriction in the instrumentation contributes to increased challenges for accurate tracking. An output controller has not yet been tested with the observers in [27]. However. to improve the performance. [7] and [8].g. and all. see. Moreover. and in particular the position. experimental study on tracking of the open frame vehicle ODIN is presented. In [34]. is descried by a three DOF horizontal model without nonlinear damping. In underwater applications. With this approach. this is a common approach for control plant modeling. and thus contribute to increased reliability of the control system by providing analytical redundancy to the measurements. an open-frame hovercraft. pitch.g. a common approach is to model the disturbance as a constant. the DVL can only generate accurate velocity measurements provided that the distance to the seaﬂoor is within a certain boundary. which has been thoroughly described and analyzed in the literature. the ocean current has severe inﬂuence on the vehicle performance. However. velocity measurements are available for feedback. dynamic positioning [21]. the output feedback controller proposed in this paper may also improve the performance for slender-body vehicles with more sophisticated sensor suites since the proposed observer and controller may work independently of these velocity measurements. we will employ the modeling approach ﬁrst introduced in [26] and more thoroughly described in [29]. Examples of this can be seen in. this generation of the Minesniper does not carry any velocity or inertial measurement units (IMU). This contributes to relatively simple solutions for the observer-controller design. this paper presents the results from experimental tests carried out on a full-scale vehicle in the ocean. Therefore. [34] and [14]. Hence. In [10] and [3]. This makes the system more tolerant to faults. a vehicle property which often complicates the overall analysis. due to cost reasons. Nevertheless. For underwater vehicles.. The paper concludes that ﬁxed model-based controllers outperform the PD controller.. In this paper. e. since the estimated current velocity is explicitly used in calculation of the nonlinear hydrodynamic damping and Coriolis forces. the reported controller is a linear PID controller. Successful experimental results of this observer concept can be found in [27] which reports the design of a three DOF current-induced vessel model coworking with a complete nonlinear six DOF vehicle model. time-varying. and the hydrodynamics are dominated by linear and nonlinear damping.REFSNES et al.

Some concluding remarks are given in Section VI. the guidance system. it follows from (2) and (3) that will vary accordingly. More details regarding the thruster forces will be presented in Section V-A1.e.g. 13]. Fig. The relative surge velocity is given by . see. Steady-State Analysis of Surge Motion The motivation behind this section is to determine the constant about which to linearize the CPMs.g. rigid-body Coriolis. Other common thruster models for underwater vehicles omit the term propor. This paper is organized as follows: A description of the mathematical modeling is given in Section II. (i. A. note that the vehicle velocity is altering with the heading. such that the relative velocity remains constant in steady state. To illustrate the scenario. Two Separate Systems The CPM presented in this section is based on the approach presented in [29]. nonlinear damping is included. MATHEMATICAL MODELING The CPMs proposed in this paper are based on the following six DOF dynamics presented as the PPM in ([12]. the experimental results are shown.3) and [31] (1a) (1b) and denote where the North-East-down (NED)-frame position/orientation and body-frame velocities in six DOF. respectively. . 1 depicts a simulation using the PPM (1) of the Minesniper MkII performing way-point tracking in a current. a will be automatically compotential error in the calculated pensated for. This is valid independently of the vehicle orientation. The key idea is to apply two coworking . the stability analysis becomes quite involved. but the resulting observers and controller are easily implementable. and are the frame transformation. This is mainly because obtaining a certain speed is of less importance compared to tracking of the orientation and depth.. e. Cascaded systems theory is employed to prove asymptotical stability of the closed loop system. Euler-angles.932 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. we will consider AUVs in transit where the forward velocity is larger than the current velocity such that . sway. SEPTEMBER 2008 output feedback controller consists of a pair of coworking nonlinear Luenberger observers providing ﬁltering and estimation of the position. respectively. However. e.g. 5. and the observer and controller gains can be tuned separately. Hence. and damping matrices. see Section V. Whitcomb and Yoerger [33] have presented a quasi-steady approach for mathematical modeling of thrust which has shown to match the thrusters on the Minesniper MkII well (3) where [rad/s] denotes the propeller revolution.. In transit. respectively. this veriﬁed by the following: It follows that means that the even though is dependent on the orientation of the vehicle relative to the current. [17]. provided that the observer converge to the actual state. This decoupling of the dynamics is a method that has shown to provide a successful basis for underwater vehicle control design. and and are positive constants. full-scale tional to basin tests of the Minesniper MkII have shown that (3) matches the actual thruster forces in a satisfactory manner. chap. 16. and heave. [16]. VOL. it is reasonable to determine a constant propeller revolution which the forward thruster is operating on. where is a known constant velocity. describing the actuator modeling. where and denote the body-ﬁxed vehicle and current velocity. since the approach in this paper is also valid when there is ocean currents present. added mass Coriolis. only slightly varying when changing course direction. Considering only steady-state. i. This paper is an extension to the work presented in [28]. mass. Inaccuracies in the parameters are equivalent to the effect of a current which will be estimated by an observer. Experimental results show satisfactory performance of the proposed observers and controller.e. although . the destabilizing Coriolis forces and moments are linearized about the relative forward speed when applying constant thruster revolution. Neither high gain nor bounded controller feedbacks are required. However. it follows from (2) and (3) that the relative forward velocity is constant in steady-state . i. 4. employing constant propeller revolution.. II. gives the following steady state surge force equality: (2) where represents the linear and nonlinear hydrodynamic damping. The relative velocity is given by . Moreover. We decouple the surge motion from the rest of the model and study the steady-state behavior. B. e. and the vehicle and current velocities. The observer and controller design and analyses are given in Sections III and IV. a case study on the Minesniper MkII is presented in Section V. [16] and [12.. displaying all proofs and also elaborating on the guidance system and the actuator modeling.e.. The reason for this can be . which is time-varying. In this paper. see. Furthermore. The vectors and capture the restoring and control forces and moments. respectively. see. These features are convenient for practical implementation. where is the current velocity vector containing the body-ﬁxed current velocities in surge. Furthermore. Therefore. Hence. Note that is obtained analytically by solving (2) and (3) with respect to . straight line motion. Ch. The following subsections present the corresponding CPMs for the application considered in this paper. Furthermore. The proposed vehicle CPM is semi-linearized. NO. The right plot shows that the relative forward velocity is the same for all headings. An important objective of this work is to develop an observer-controller system that is easily implementable. and ﬁnally. Due to the nonlinear coupling between the three DOF current-induced vessel model and the ﬁve DOF vehicle model. respectively. the modeling approach proposed in this paper is an extension to the results in which constant forward velocity is assumed. ..

This vector is rotated into the body-frame as . In this paper. self-stabilizing roll. u and u . (5) . Thus. The bias relative velocity captures the external disturbances such as drag from an optical ﬁbre connecting the vehicle to the surface vessel. is the vehicle mass. sway. 7]. CPM 1: Vehicle Model: Key properties of a slender-body AUV are taken into account when deriving the CPM: port-starboard symmetry. Furthermore. This gives the following expression for the . and yaw velocity. and the fact that the length is much larger than the width. since we consider underwater vehicles measuring only the position and orientation. The velocity vector denotes the surge. and are the distances between the buoyancy and gravity center in surge and heave direction. and the vector contains the pitch and yaw angles. Following slender-body theory presented in [23. and yaw resulting in the following control vector . heave) which captures the main current loads on the vehicle. the following CPM is proposed: (4a) (4b) (4c) denotes the NED-frame position and where orientation vector. where is a diagonal matrix containing the positive time constants. the vehicle dynamics are taken into account when modeling the current loads since the current velocity is used explicitly in the vehicle model. where . 1. These are included for stability purposes and will be determined in the upcoming section. pitch. 7. When utilizing this method. we consider vehicles with control actuators in surge. Moreover. it is included to compensate for unmodeled vehicle and thruster dynamics. It is assumed that the vehicle is neutrally buoyant. The mass and damping matrices yield Fig.4]. Ch. we choose to employ a model-based observer for the current estimation. It is modeled as a slowly varying process. Left: Horizontal position. and denotes the Earth gravity. heave. Right: Surge velocities u. by neglecting roll and applying a constant propeller set-point. Only the linear off-diagonal terms are included since these are dominating for slender-body vehicles [23. [12]. and since the current loads are strongly dependent on the vehicle dynamics. sway. be deﬁned as follows: (9) where and so forth are the linear and nonlinear damping coefﬁcients.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 933 and (6) is the vector containing the gravity and buoyancy moments. pitch. In the NED-frame. The matrix transforms body-ﬁxed vectors into NED-frame coordinates and is given by (7) (8) where denotes the mass elements included added mass. Ch. dynamic models: a ﬁve DOF vehicle model and a three DOF current induced vessel model (surge. respectively. and and are tunable scalar gains. The total damping is thus given by a linear and a nonlinear part according to . which is common for slender-body underwater vehicles in transit. which are all positive. the current is described by the vector .REFSNES et al. respectively. we let the damping coefﬁcients in (8). Simulation with the Minesniper MkII performing way-point tracking. respectively. Furthermore.

there matrix such that . that . and in pitch and yaw.. Underwater vehicles with no control actuators in sway and heave are incapable of counteracting the forces induced by the current in these directions. we propose two separate nonlinear Luenberger observers for the CPMs presented in Section II. respectively. and denote deﬁnite and symmetric matrix the minimum and maximum eigenvalue of . Hence. i. Although the signals in . e. it can be shown by using the assumption on constant current velocity in . the NED-frame.g. and are the added mass coefﬁcients in surge. but a model that serves as basis for an observer intended to estimate the dominant response of the vehicle due to the current. To simplify Hence. respectively. 16. that We use the following notation in this paper. CPM 2: Current-Induced Vessel Model: This is a current induced vessel model that captures the slowly varying loads caused by the current. any nonzero velocities in sway and heave must originate from the bias . it is clear that given . The reason for this partition is the is not necessarily positive deﬁnite for slendermatrix body AUVs. In CPM 2. The model may also be interpreted as a third-order ﬁlter with gains obtained from the vehicle parameters. respectively. Ch. By comparing the nominal with the actual velocity . and denotes the vehicle position in the NED-frame. the ﬁve DOF damping matrix in CPM 1 is separated into a diagonal and an off-diagonal part according to .1: The pitch angle is limited by . In this model. Hence. the vector . respectively. OBSERVER DESIGN In the following section. See. sway. and since and are diagonal matrices. A. P. especially the hori. This CPM includes the most dominant Munk-moments. where (skewsymmetric). Preliminaries The following assumption and properties yield throughout the paper. respectively.. the induced current velocity velocities in surge. However. this yields the following property. Hence.3: It follows from (8) that the nonlinear diagonal damping satisﬁes . rotation of the vehicle is contributing to neither stabilizing or destabilizing the system. respectively. and the control vector yields .. respectively. the resulting moments are often negligible. Hence. P. the Munk-moment is decisive. Moreover. [12]. The following three DOF model is proposed: (12a) (12b) (12c) where represents the vehicle velocities in surge..g. VOL. in a Lyapunov sense. is measured. and heave. e. this is realistic given the inherent restoring moments preventing the vehicle from large pitch angles. we conzontal position sider the error generated by the zero-order-hold in discrete time as bounded. (12) is not a model of . thermore.e. exists a constant is diagonal. SEPTEMBER 2008 where and denote the linear and nonlinear damping matrices. In fact.e. For more details on this. where . it follows that (11) where .. NO. i. sway.2: The magnitude and direction of the current is unknown such but upper bounded.e. the Munk-moments in pitch and yaw are captured in and in . III. Thus. 5. The main elements of the destabilizing overall Coriolis forces and moments shown in (1) are comprised in (10) and (11). respectively. the proposed CPM 2 of the main current loads on the vehicle is valid. Here. there exists a constant . The key task of this model is to function as a basis for observer design to obtain an estimate of the current velocity .. the three DOF damping matrix . For most underwater vehicles. is considered continuous. we assume that the main current loads are captured in the linear motions: surge. 3] for further details regarding the coefﬁcients in Coriolis matrices. The Munk-moment is a hydrodynamic phenomenon which affects all geometric shapes in water except spheres. [12. a current-induced vessel model. The matrices are the top left submatrices of and in (4). P.. Ch. are updated at low frequencies. and heave may be obtained according to the following: (13) (10) Although the current velocity also affects the motions in pitch and yaw.1: Only the position and the Euler angles. i. For any positive . [32] and [11. i. Furdenotes the Euclidian norm of a vector. sway. including the Munk-moment. in CPM 2. For box framed vehicles with . and heave. and heave.e. 6)]. In order to fully utilize the properties of the hydrodynamic damping. i. A. sway. Especially for slender-body vehicles with length much larger than the width causing . see.934 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. and denote the diagonal and off-diagonal part of the linear damping matrix.e. The Coriolis matrices are deﬁned as follows: the current. which captures the slowly varying current forces. The Munk-moment is destabilizing in the sense that it tries to turn the vehicle perpendicular to the ﬂow.

CPM 1 (4) is rewritten in NED-frame coordinates as follows: (18a) (18b) (18c) where . and is on the line segment joining and . This results in the following nominal observer error dynamics: (22a) (22b) (22c) Notice that also evolves linearly with the estimated velocity .6: There exist sufﬁciently large constants that the Coriolis matrices are upper bounded according to We propose the following Luenberger observer by copying the dynamics in (18) and adding correction terms B. Subtracting (19) from (18) and using P. Ch. under A. including the controller error dynamics.3 gives the following observer error dynamics (20a) (20b) (20c) and . Vehicle Observer In this section. Current Observer The following Luenberger observer is proposed. we deﬁne the error vectors . To avoid technicalities using two frames . the estimated current velocity is derived as (15) and Furthermore. we deﬁne the following perturbation vector (21) since is proportional to the current estimation error. and are positive deﬁnite and diagonal observer gain matrices. which growth is unknown. the observer error dynamics become (16a) (16b) (16c) where refers to in P. e.4: The mass matrix and its submatrices are positive and deﬁnite and symmetric.1.REFSNES et al. See.g.3. where is the mass matrix transformed into the NED-frame.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 935 the notation we deﬁne the function employing the mean value theorem gives . Furthermore. exists a constant P. This asvelocity is bounded according to sumption will be lifted when the overall closed loop system. Furthermore.2: There exists a constant . [12. .3] for details regarding the matrix transformations. 3. Subtracting (14) from (12) and letting and . e. Hence. The suthe NED-frame relative velocity yields perscript marks the NED-frame matrices. Let (17) denote the overall current estimation error state.. are analyzed. where . Employing cascaded systems where theory [24]. we derive a nonlinear Luenberger observer for the vehicle dynamics.g. the damping matrix (8) gives that there such that . P.. According to (13). (19a) (19b) (19c) . which by (NED and body-frame).5: The rotation matrix is orthogonal and satisﬁes . The error dynamics (16) will be proven uniformly globally exponentially stable (UGES) in the upcoming section. Hence. there exist constants such that yields denotes the NED-frame velocities. Note that the gray box indicates that this is implemented in the control system (14a) (14b) (14c) where . The following property yields: such P. and are positive deﬁnite where and diagonal observer gain matrices. C. see. we apply the following assumption: such that the relative A. This is a common method in output feedback controller design.

936 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. This sume that the time-varying vector is trivial since in the following proofs is part of the tracking error which automatically lifts this assumption. which only consists of error variables and thus corresponding with cascaded systems theory methods. Eulerframe of Rodrigues parameters. Moreover. since of system (23). that the right-hand side of the . the demand on (24) may be unnecessarily strict since the nonlinear damping. the origin of the nominal observer . Notice. unbounded Lyapunov function candidate with respect to time gives Differentiating is the minimum eigenvalue of Using P. it follows that is GES. SEPTEMBER 2008 [6]. it folof system (16) is UGES. Let the error vectors be deﬁned as . 5. which is dominant for most states. Note here that the error vector includes the current estimation error. there exist positive deﬁnite and symmetric matrices and such that . However. the result clearly indicates that the observer feedback gains must be sufﬁciently high to dominate the destabilizing Coriolis forces and the bias loads. there exists a constant such that . is not contributing to alleviate the condition on . or similar. of system (22) respectively. The nominal observer error dynamics (16) and (22) can then be written in compact form as the following: where . Proposition 1: The origin of the nominal observer error dynamics (23) is globally exponentially stable (GES) if the following condition is satisﬁed: (24) . Due to the topological prop. and hence. We thus arrive at the following upper bound on the Lyapunov function derivative: (26) Using Lyapunov theory [18]. we have that . Moreover. Proof: Consider the following positive deﬁnite and radially .2. we can consider varying signal using forward completeness as in [21]. ables are concatenated in the error vector we apply autonomous Lyapunov stability theory. Hence.3 as follows: Moreover. To circumas a general timevent this problem.2. error dynamics (23) is GES. something which precludes Recall that where and where The nonlinear and the diagonal linear damping matrices are collected in using P. whereas the system (16) includes the time-varying vector current error dynamics only involve . Under A. Euler parameters. and . Recall that the current estimation error dynamics (16) is a stand-alone system independent on the vehicle observer error dynamics (22). it follows that if (24) is satisﬁed. We thus lows that the origin deﬁned in (17) can be bounded have that the error variable by (27) where and are positive constants. the vector consists of the following functions: Notice that system (23) is autonomous since all the error vari. since the current velocity is upper bounded. Thus. and of (16) are GES and UGES. In order to fully exploit the dissipative property of the hydrodynamic damping. as claimed such that in P. It is not topologically possible to using any coordinate obtain results that are global in like the Euler angles. NO. In this case. these representations will either have one sinerties of gularity or two equilibrium points. can be upper bounded as follows: (25) (23) which gives that for all . gives that there exists a constant . we will analyze the current estimation error and the vehicle observer error dynamics using one Lyapunov function.6. The matrix is Hurwitz. Consequently. Remark 1: The Lyapunov analysis provides only sufﬁcient conditions for stability which often leads to conservative results. Remark 2: Note that the globalness is given with respect to the chosen coordinate frame. and . 16. however. We asexists for all . VOL.

and are the continuous reference trajectories for the angular velocities. [7]. it is desirable to back-step into the following observer dynamics: (29a) (29b) (29c) In this section. The second error vector is deﬁned as (32) where is a vector of stabilizing functions that we will choose. and where we have multiplied with the positive and diagonal controller gain matrix in order to increase the design ﬂexibility in the controller. Note that we have used in the -function in order to avoid nonlinear coupling terms involving the estimation error . way-points or a path can be obtained if the control objective (28) is met. This approach was ﬁrst introduced in [13]. This concept is based on the fact that given a nonzero forward speed and some orientation of the vehicle. Ch. Thus. Therefore. the velocities of the unactuated states converge to a bounded set. computing the corresponding error dynamics by and with respect to time and using (29a) differentiating and that give (31a) (31b) where Here. 2) By carefully designing the guidance system.REFSNES et al. The method is shortly described by ﬁrst designing the control vector considering it as an arbitrary vector in . 7)]. Moreover. Controller Design Based on the observers designed in the prior section. . Furthermore. the estimated position and velocity are available for feedback.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 937 global results on . enables a separate study of the tracking error dynamics and the unactuated states. and it is a convenient feature of the backstepping procedure. the state space deﬁned in . A. are subjects to linear hydrodynamic damping. 1) Design a control system such that the control objective stated in (28) is guaranteed. However. Step 1: The nonlinear damping introduces undesirable coupling terms that complicate the stability analysis. the fact that all states. global tracking of. The key idea behind the approach shown in this paper is to split the total tracking task in two. OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL In this section. for instance. In order to render (33) stable differential equations. since the control vector naturally evolves in the bodyframe. The control objective is deﬁned as tracking the desired orientation as follows: (28) as . including the unactuated states sway and heave. we choose the stabilizing function to evolve according to (34) where is a positive diagonal controller gain matrix. Therefore. the Euler angle symbol is omitted when it is used in a transformation matrix for notational simplicity. Since the vehicle is underactuated.and -dynamics (35a) (35b) where the stabilizing function is rewritten as to ﬁt into (35b). It will become clear that due to hydrodynamic damping in all degrees of freedom. any point in the global frame can be reached. Inserting for in (32) into (31) yields (33a) (33b) where contains the stabilizing functions for the actuated states: pitch and yaw. we design a nonlinear controller utilizing the observer backstepping technique [20. This results in the following expression for the . we analyze the inherent dynamics of the controller that arise since there are no controls in sway and heave. Hence. the controller design and analysis become more involved. the controller error dynamics are nonautonomous. IV. and the results in this this paper does not include paper are thus only global in the chosen coordinate frame. we utilize the observer backstepping method. For more details. and is the velocity tracking error vector. Second. for instance. see. since the pitch and heading angles are measured. Then. where contains the smooth and continuously differentiable reference trajectories. the time variable is included for the reference trajectories since these are external time-varying signals. in which they prove global convergence to the desired track/path using a line-of-sight-based method in the guidance system. we deﬁne two tracking error vectors as follows: (30) The reason for this will become clear in the upcoming stability analysis.

consists only on error variables and can be treated as a stand-alone perturbation. i. This is. which claims bounded bation vector velocities of the vehicle.3. VOL.3. we will show that the controller error can be written in a cascade with the nominal obdynamics as follows: server dynamics (36) (39a) We choose the control vector according to (39b) where the perturbation is to be deﬁned. trivial since the Lyapunov analysis is valid. In order to rewrite the control vector (37) so that it consists of the actual states and not the estimated states. NO. we lift A.3: There exists a constant velocity is bounded according to . in(21) will be analyzed in the cluding the perturbation vector proof of the ﬁnal theorem of this paper. we have that the perturbation vector to the nominal observer error dynamics (23) can be upper bounded according to (37) where . and not the estimated state . Note that the proof of Proposition 1 still holds when replacing A. by employing cascaded systems theory [25]. where also will be determined. Remark 3: The proposed controller (37) is not directly dependent on the estimation error .2 with A. independently of the contents of vector . scattering and thereby degradation of the controller is likely to occur. provided that (37) is satisﬁed.e. Notice that we have used feedback gain and not in (37) in order to keep the level of measurement noise in the controller to a minimum. note that the conand that troller is considered as a general vector in are left undecided. The complete observer system. Furthermore. Inserting the modiﬁed control vector (42) . the error between the desired state and the actual state . 16. we need to deﬁne new controller error vectors. a solution for output feedback control of dynamic positioning (DP) of ships is reported.2. will be considered in Section IV-C. and is a diagonal controller gain matrix. SEPTEMBER 2008 Step 2: Proceeding with the -dynamics With the new error states. we have collected the terms involving the estimation error into the perturbation vector as follows: (38) where we have used (41). a convenient method for deriving observers and controllers for nonlinear systems.2 and replace it with the following assumption on bounded desired velocities. The error system (39b) represents the nominal observer error dynamics depicted in (23). B. where the origin is proven GES in the Proof of Proposition 1. which is the natural result of the observer backstepping technique used for the controller design in Section IV-A. In order to avoid circularity in the following stability analysis. Hence. Another favorable result of the following analysis is that the controller and do not need to meet high gain criteria in gains order to ensure stability. such that the desired A.938 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. The DP model in [21] is nonlinear only because of the rotation matrix between the NED and the body-frame.. The fact that the second and third element are zero. Hence. It is shown that the separation principle holds for the nonlinear case in the sense that the controller and observer can be tuned separately. and that . In order to achieve this. Recall that the perturis derived under A. 5. This is an advantage since the horizontal position provided by the acoustical measurement system can be contaminated by severe noise. The paper presents. we deﬁne the following new error vectors: (40) by using (32) and (34). Under A. we use that and resulting in (41) Using (41). We want to formulate the controller error dynamics and observer estimation error as a cascaded system. Controller Analysis In [21]. the controller (37) can be rewritten as follows: (42) Here. This paper is thus an extension to that result since the CPM models in this paper are coupled and involve nonlinear damping. however. If controller terms proportional to are included.

described in (43) and (23). 3) This step involves determining the growth of the perturba. and where the perturbation vector . Up to this point. and from (35a) and (41) the perturbation vector for the tracking error capturing the . Furthermore. The following theorem establishes uniform global asymptotic stability of the overall output feedback controller. which will be proven to hold in the Appendix. A. the linear growth restriction on in the perturbation is satisﬁed. Proof: Following cascaded systems theory arguments each of the functions in (39) are analyzed separately in three steps. and P. The perturbation can be shown to be upper bounded by the tracking error state and the estimation error as follows: (47) where (44) and . it follows that condition (46) holds. and A.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 939 into the actual vehicle dynamics (4) results in the following -dynamics: where we have inserted for the current estimation error dynamics (16). based on the three prior steps.e.4. 2) At this step.4: The time-varying signals exist for all . A. and thus is UGAS.3. (20). We thus include the current estimation error in the controller stability analysis and propose the following radially unbounded Lyapunov function candidate where we have used that . Differentiating where (44) with respect to time and inserting for the tracking dynamics (43) without the perturbation gives Thus. the current estimation error dynamics (48b) are proven UGES in Proposition 1. is given by Notice here that the nominal observer error dynamics (23) includes the time-varying signals . is uniformly globally asymptotically stable (UGAS) under A. Theorem 1: The origin and of the cascaded system (16). i. The following assumption. and is a class function satisfying . Lemma 2]. The origin of the unperturbed system in (48a) is UGAS given Proposition 1 and 2. and (43) is UGAS under A. and if condition (24) is satisﬁed. Proof: We write the overall system including the current error dynamics in the following compact form: (48a) (48b) . which are rewritten in the body-frame. In this case. Similarly as in Section III.1. Following cascaded systems (45) . it follows that the rewritten tracking error state (43) can be viewed as a cascade with the nominal observer error dynamics (23). Theorem 2. while we only consider the tracking error . is applied. 1) The origin of the nominal observer error dynamics (23). since is proven UGES and satisfying (27). it follows that the origin and of the cascaded system (39) is UGAS [24.8]. the origin Lyapunov function (44) satisﬁes (46) where . terms involving the estimation error becomes Having established this. Proposition 2: The origin and of the cascaded system (39). and is some constant. Let the error vector denote the complete error state excluding the current estimation error. is proven GES in the Proof of Proposition 1. Acis UGAS if the cording to [1. and if (24) is satisﬁed. A.6. We thus consider as general time-varying signals using forward completeness [21]. under A.REFSNES et al.3. where . as depicted in (39). denoted as in (39). and therefore also the origin of the unperturbed system (39a) is UGAS.4.5 gives tion vector (43) where . we have only considered the nominal observer error dynamics (22). we want to exploit the dissipative property of the hydrodynamic damping. we want to establish the stability properties of the unperturbed system shown in (43). . Consequently. P.2. Using P.. This completes the proof.2.

Moreover.6]. we achieve UGES of of the unforced system. is not employed in this paper since only leads to negative semideﬁnite Lyapunov function derivatives. Clearly.e. as implies that as . in this sense. Proposition 3: The —subsystem is input-to-state stable (ISS) from to . 16. The added mass coefﬁcients were obtained by using the computer program WAMIT.e. is bounded. there exists a constant that satisﬁes .. and (43) are UGAS. the obvious choice is to design the stabilizing function rendering the tracking error dynamics stable since we can assign and arbitrarily. It thus follows from [24] that the origin of the system (48) is UGAS. damping and Coriolis matrices ( and ). and must satisfy the differential equation (37) that arises since there are no controls in sway or heave . From (37). it follows that the origin of the error dynamics (16). This approach. Therefore.. Finally. Lemma 4.940 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. Hence. Another common approach in marine applications is to deﬁne the bias as constant. which clearly manifests the statement above. which subsequently enhance the complexity of the stability analysis. Proof: This can be proven by applying for instance the Lyapunov function candidate . the velocities in sway and heave. it follows naturally to declare the effect of the unmodeled dynamics as bounded and hence. however. VOL. the -dynamics track the actual velocities . Consequently. 2) are shown in Table I. SEPTEMBER 2008 theory. Obviously. Consequently. since and as . which differentiating with respect to time along the solutions of gives . converges to the bounded set . Underactuated In this section. instead of tracking . we have that The vector captures the off-diagonal terms in the mass. i. the proposed CPM (4) needs to resemble the real world to a certain extent in order to obtain a stable MBC for real systems. This leads to (53) is inserted into since is proven where bounded in Section III-B. are bounded and converge to the same set. 5. Hence..e. due to the dissipative hydrodynamic damping. This is. Recall from Section II that this captures the unmodeled dynamics. and the following upper bound on (53) is obtained: (51) where the bounded and converging variables are concatenated in the function . we consider the fact that the vehicle is underactuated. This is the fundamental idea behind MBC in this paper. (20). Furthermore. This implies that the system is ISS from to [18. V. -dynamics by rewriting We proceed by analyzing the (51) into compact form and collecting all the bounded and converging signals into the vector function (52) The linear growth restriction on in the perturbation term is satisﬁed. All the signals in are shown to be bounded or converging to zero except the bias term . not feasible for and . For pitch and heave. Instead. whereas the damping and thruster coefﬁcients were calculated based on basin tests . This completes the proof. Recalling that the control vector yields where and (50) This results in a dynamic constraint in the controller for the unactuated states. Hence. i. It follows from (40) that it can be bounded vector and hence satisfying linearly by (49) where [12]. sway and heave since we cannot assign control force in these directions. Then. it remains to show bounded growth on the perturbation . CASE STUDY: THE MINESNIPER MKII The parameters of the Minesniper MkII (see Fig. NO. it follows that as . C. It is clear from the analysis in Section IV that the -dynamics are UGAS provided that the control vector satisﬁes (37). notice that consists solely of bounded and converging signals . It will become clear that the -dynamics converge exponentially to a bounded set due to the linear hydrodynamic damping in sway and heave. however. i. we add to the function .

hence . TABLE I MINESNIPER MKII CPM CONSTANTS Fig. 2) Pitch Actuator: The Minesniper is equipped with a moveable mass for pitch control. Based on the linear approximation and are positive constants. (typically 0.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 941 Fig. where is the water density. Recall that the vehicle is neu. see (6).REFSNES et al. and where denotes the weight of the actuator. Notice also that the contrally buoyant. Then. This is avoided by this type of control action since the static pitch angle varies with the location of the pitch mass. It is a common phenomenon that underwater vehicles can have difﬁculties obtaining initial pitch angle when surfacing. to obtain the expression for the distance of the pitch .4) is denoted as steady-state where the wake fraction number [12].1–0. Courtesy of KDA. The corresponding revolutions are then obtained by (56a) (56b) where is the constant revolution providing surge velocity. Recall from (3) that the . we solve the equation mass actuator with respect to . the heading control is obtained by two horizontal thrusters located on each side of the hull at the center of the vehicle. Movement of the pitch mass leads to the following . Pitch control by mass movement. to generate the pitch moment given this pitch angle. Fig. Norway. 2. Minesniper MkII. 3 describes the system of pitch control by mass movement. Norway. and and denote the propeller diameter and the thrust deduction coefﬁcient. which contains the trol moment obtained in (37) involves . 3. is the distance from the propeller to the center of the and body. expression for the static pitch angle given a certain Therefore. respectively. 1) Thrusters: On the Minesniper MkII. expression for the center of gravity: is the distance from the center to the mass. Table II presents the sensor suite of the vehicle. it follows from Fig. Furis the ambient water velocity in thermore. where the constants thruster force is are deﬁned as [33] (54) (57) . 3 that the pitch mass distance is at Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace at Stjørdal. Control Forces and Moments This section describes the mapping from the control moments derived in Section IV-A to the control action of the actuators on the vehicle. The equations for forward thruster force and yaw moment can then be described as (55) TABLE II SENSOR PROPERTIES where and are port and starboard propeller revolutions. A.

The angle or if then Activate next way-point. 1) Heading: In order to avoid potentially large cross-track errors. tween way-point and where and sign if otherwise. 5. The most usual case is if the vehicle has penetrated the or if the vehicle has passed a way-point watch radius way-point by a distance larger than . the desired . 5. 4.e. Kinematics of the vertical LOS guidance system. The distances by where the if then or where Care must be taken when determining the size of prior to a run. Fig. The next way-point is activated if one of two conditions is met. the guidance system automatically switches to way-point tracking according to the following: ordered pairs and are the present and the previous and are given way-points. 4) is given by In order to ensure correct desired heading at all times. the aiming point is moved from the next way-point to a point on the track line by setting the length of the aiming vector to . actuators. Line-of-Sight Guidance System which .942 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. 16. VOL. Based on the . The pitch angle between two way-points is Note that ranges from 0% to 100% of between these two vectors is then deﬁned by (58) where may now be deﬁned as . The LOS-point on the track (see Fig. 4. It is shown in [15] that for way-point maneuvering of ships. 5. respectively. We start by deﬁning the total track length be. The cross-track error . must be larger than some constant which is dependent on the vehicle dynamics. 2) Pitch: The LOS method is modiﬁed for pitch control according to Fig. NO.. This corresponds well with tests carried out on the Minesniper revealing that when was too small. respectively. [22]. i. cross-track-error and the length of the aiming vector. SEPTEMBER 2008 Fig. . where is saturated such that inherently includes the limit B. where heading yields Guidance is provided by two decoupled line-of-sight systems for heading and pitch. and the forward speed. Kinematics of the horizontal LOS guidance system. see Fig. excessive control action and an increase in the cross-track error occurred.

6 shows the measured and the estimated position and orientation of the Minesniper MkII. and position reference trajectories. the reference system . (62) (59) Hence. The observer provides satisfactory estimates for the entire run with small deviations and little noise. is the where natural frequency.e. 6.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 943 Fig. 5. 6 shows large variations of the heading. Right: Measured (red) and estimated (blue) depth and orientation of the Minesniper MkII.REFSNES et al. A 5-m radius of acceptance around each way-point is included. The observers.. Left: Measured (red dots) and estimated (blue line) horizontal position of the Minesniper MkII performing way-point (green squares) tracking. From Fig. in order to keep gain was chosen relatively low. The distance between the next way-point and the LOS point is given by to ensure that the desired on the ﬁnal reference pitch angle pitch angle is feasible at all times. Sea Trials—Results and Discussion The sea trials of Minesniper MkII were performed in Trondheimsfjorden nearby Stjørdal. D. Nevertheless. Reference Trajectories In order to obtain smooth and continuously differentiable acceleration. according to Fig. The reference trajectories are then given by (60) (61) is the relative damping ratio. Fig. The bay area is quite shallow and narrow which limited the location of the way-points. we utilize a second-order ﬁlter cascaded with a low-pass ﬁlter [12]. C. dead-reckoning can be seen between the second and third way-point. the observer provides satisfactory position estimated despite measurement drop outs. Moreover. we experienced increased noise in the acoustical measurements mainly due to the topography of the seabed blocking the view of the acoustical receivers. velocity. The way-point watch radius was set m. A saturation is included . and the guidance functions are collected in . which demonstrates the performance of the controller. i. guidance. Toward the end of the run. respectively. where are determined by setting the pitch weight in where its maximum and minimum position. Norway. . the heading shown in the bottom right plot of Fig. the observer seemed to cope with measurement drop outs and the noise in a satisfactory manner. 6. the desired pitch angle is given by . Clearly. and controller were implemented as functions written in C code with 20-Hz update rate. However. This caused the vehicle to slightly miss the to third and the fourth way-point.

7. the pitch controller calms the motion relatively fast despite limited rate in the pitch mass actuator. Left: The desired trajectories provided by the reference generator. However. were proven UGAS using Lyapunov and cascaded system theory. the estimates indicate a slight current from South-East. SEPTEMBER 2008 Fig. Further work involves obtaining more accurate vehicle parameters and optimal tuning of the controller feedback gains in attempt to optimize the performance of the vehicle. Center: The tracking error in pitch and heading. APPENDIX In this section. Table III shows the controller/observer gains used in this run. we prove that A. An advantage of the employed method is that it does not require any high gain nor bounded feedback controller gains. 5. This was because the forward acceleration generated a pitch moment. The controller gains were found by trial and error since there exists. large VI. This is mainly due to and uncertainty of the damping coefﬁcients which. The current observer gains were set equal to the upper left matrices of the vehicle observer gains. the observer and controller gains can be tuned separately. The tracking performance is satisfactory with relatively small deﬂections of the actuators. . which was designed using the observer backstepping technique. NO. VOL. aggravated the performance. thruster revolution. some error occurred in the beginning of the run. This is carried out by including the reference system algorithms presented in Section V-C in the overall stability analysis and thereby show exists all . the yaw rate small.. no formal methods for tuning gains in a backstepping controller at the present time. z and [z Right: The controller action. togethers with a . several sea trials revealed that erratic usage of the thrusters could cause intractable yaw motion.e. i. Part of the vehicle CPM was linearized about the relative surge velocity. emphasis was placed on keeping the yaw motion within relatively restrictive boundaries. to the author’s best knowledge. In pitch. Tracking results.944 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY.4 holds by showing forward completeness of the closed loop system. We were unable to measure the actual current. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER WORK An output feedback controller was proposed for slender-body underactuated underwater vehicles. Fig. Furthermore. The nonlinear Luenberger observers and the controller. that the global position Proposition 4: The time-varying vector exists for all . Proof: Consider the following Lyapunov function: (63) . The CPM system consisted of two separate models: a ﬁve DOF vehicle model and a three DOF current induced vessel model accounting for the main current loads. 16. and position of the pitch weight. 7 presents the tracking results in pitch and heading and the actuator action. Several should be set small runs indicated that the controller gain large for optimal tracking results. The estimation results are presented in Fig. The main reason for this was that given the center location of the thrusters.z ] . However. Experimental sea trials on the Minesniper MkII were presented showing satisfactory observer and tracking performance. 8 showing satisfactory observer performance. Therefore.

pp. F. REFERENCES ´ [1] O. “Global output tracking control of a class of Euler-Lagrange systems with monotonic nonlinearities in the velocities. 7. Silvestre. Hence. I. it can be shown that . FL. 2002. . D. Decision Control.” Int. Decision Control. The center column presents the estimated velocities (t). and J. w (t)]. no. Alonge. Differentiating with respect to time gives (64) Before proceeding we note the following: 1) Based on the guidance algorithms presented in Section V-B. and P.REFSNES et al. J.” in Proc. P. M. Hespanha. CA. Cremean. pp. where inequality that is a constant. AND LOS GAINS 2) The overall observer-controller error dynamics given in (16). P. Aguiar and A. The right column describes ~ ^ ^ v ^ the estimated current velocity (t) and the (t)-dynamics versus [^(t). HI. 3858–3863. Based on these observations. V. and P. vol. the vector exists and can .4 holds. Aamo. L. 649–658.: MODEL-BASED OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL OF SLENDER-BODY UNDERACTUATED AUVs 945 Fig.4 since is in. Batista. 51–56. 2003. “Position tracking for a nonlinear underactuated hovercraft: Controller design and experimental results. Aguiar. and F. be continued for all ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank their colleagues at CeSOS for valuable discussions and contributions to the testing of the Minesniper MkII. it can be cluded in shown by inserting the error dynamics and using Schwartz satisﬁes . [2] A. where is a sufﬁciently large and can be linearly upper constant. [5] P. Kokotovic. NV. T. pp. Las Vegas. “Dynamic positioning and way-point tracking of underactuated AUVs in the presence of ocean currents. C.” in Proc. Thus. TABLE III CONTROLLER. pp. Control. Decision Control. and (43) can now be analyzed using the Lyapunov function (63) without applying A. 41st IEEE Conf. Orlando. The left column shows the estimation error (t). 40th IEEE Conf. 2105–2110. 2001. M. “A quaternion sensor based controller for homing of underactuated AUVs. pp. 4421–4426. A. [4] F. Estimation results. Maui. 47. bounded by signals captured in . P. San Diego. Moreover. 45th IEEE Conf. Fossen. OBSERVER. 2006. 2001.” in Proc. “Trajectory tracking of underactuated underwater vehicles. Ippolito. 8. Arcak. [3] A.” in Proc. M. 42nd IEEE Conf. (20). Decision Control. Pascoal. Oliveira. Raimondi.

354–361. Krstic. in 1988 and 1993. Spain. U. Aug.” IEEE J. Tech. 1–8. [10] K. [7] E. degrees in electrical engineering from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Technol..” in Proc. Kinsey and L. IFAC Workshop Motion Control. 5360–5367. satellites. vol. Greece. K. 2. Pettersen received the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY Outstanding Paper Award in 2006.” IEEE Trans. 21. Faltinsen. Panteley. Pettersen. 12.” in Proc. Athens. degree in marine technology . 4. Healey and D. pp.” in Proc. I. Nijmeijer. Department Manager. Fossen and O. 9. [30] D. 29. Fredriksen and K.marinecybernetics. Nijmeijer. in 2003. Control Lett. Eng.” Int. From 1993–2002. B. “A passivity approach to controller-observer design for robots. Pettersen. no. Sørensen.” in Proc. Trondheim. Khalil.” J. 125–149. Berghuis and H.Sc.D. vol. A. Athens. 221–226. Jiang. A. no. 1990. Fossen. Fossen. Cambridge. she was a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Loría. pp. Control Eng. and H. [17] A. J. Decision Control. She holds several board positions. and A. Børhaug and K. vol. in 1992 and 1996. vol. “Experimental study on advanced underwater robot control. Y. T. “Maneuvering and control of marine vehicles. I. Eng. 2001. 332–343.K. Y. and navigation: Experimental results with the NPS ARIES AUV. comparison and preliminary experimental validation of nonlinear dynamic thruster models. pp.. MA: MIT Press. no. 44th IEEE Conf. Y. Press.” Syst. “On global uniform asymptotic stability of nonlinear time-varying non autonomous systems in cascade. Cambridge. navigation and control of ships. Norway. 2007. pp. vol. Dec. pp. Cody. 602–608.. E. “A separation principle for dynamic positioning of ships: Theoretical and experimental results.. IFAC Manoeuvring and Control Marine Craft (MCMC). [31] A. 117–124. S. 26. Contr. 4. Bahamas. (CAMS95). 2007. no. 1998. Portugal. M. I. Oct. Sørensen. he was employed in the ABB Group in various positions as a Research Scientist. E. Refsnes. E. Decision Control.. VOL. V. A. 5.: Cambridge Univ. where he is currently working toward the Ph. Spain. I. Breivik and T. SEPTEMBER 2008 [6] H. 33. She has published more than 70 conference and journal papers. “A 6 DOF nonlinear observer for AUVs with experimental results.Sc. Grenoble. 8. “Development. Stjørdal. NTNU. 16.” IEEE J. 169–186. E. in the Department of Engineering Cybernetics.. pp.946 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. vol. vol. Fjellstad. 2004. A. Greece. 40.Sc. [23] J. [15] E. Rock.” in Proc. E. Panteley and A. S.” J. Z. M. 3rd ed. Zhao and J. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design. “Preliminary ﬁeld experience with the DVLNAV integrated navigation system for oceanographic sumbersibles. D. 6. She became a Associate Professor in 1996. P. Ocean. [27] J. Ocean. 15. respectively. 66–74. E.. . pp. [11] O. pp. 1998. Y.. [18] H. [19] J. Jon E. Refsnes.” in Proc. Upper Saddle River. 1. Jul. Control Syst. Princeton. Loría. “Exponential tracking control of a mobile car using a cascaded approach. L. 1990. 1. Pettersen.” IEEE J. Marco and A. 1977. Trondheim. 2. N. 2004. Fossen. [22] D. 1993. Nijmeijer. “Marine control systems: Guidance. Control Automation (MED). 18. and in 2002 Professor. Ocean. Papoulias. and K. Jan. Y.. NJ. Panteley. IFAC Manoeuvring Control of Marine Craft (MCMC). Refsnes received the M. Traiantafyllou and F. “Toward an improved understanding of thruster dynamics for underwater vechicles. In 1999. degree in marine technology from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). 2002. no. [34] S. 15th IEEE Mediterranean Conf. “Command. Dr. J. Pettersen. Y. 2005. no. 1995. 1995. Available: http://www. Spain.com [13] T. “Global output feedback universal controller for stabilization and tracking of underactuated ODIN: A spherical underwater vehicle. Yuh. pp. 695–703. 1995. NO. 15th IEEE Mediterranean Conf. “Cross-track control for underactuated autonomous vehicles. 24. 1541–1549. Whitcomb. no.” IEEE Trans. Do. The project is in cooperation with Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace. and P. Brown. pp. degree in engineering cybernetics. J. and J. Atlantis. Asgeir J. 12.” IEEE J. pp. 740–753. Whitcomb. Sea Loads on Ships and Ocean Structures. 2002. 4. and control. J. Control Automation (MED). Newman. 1999. 2004. degree in marine technology and the Ph.” IEEE J. Jul. Her research interests include nonlinear control of mechanical systems with applications to robotics. S. 2002 [Online].” Maneuvering and control of marine vehicles. NTNU. Robotics Autom. J. Sørensen. M. no. Whitcomb and D. J. J. vol. I. 131–138. Eng. no. Decision Control. Kristin Ytterstad Pettersen (SM’04) received the M. pp. [33] L. Norway. Norway. Oct. New York: Wiley. Control. 44th IEEE Conf. Ocean. ´ ´ [20] M. I. Robotics. 3rd IFAC Workshop Control Applicat. Pan. “Output feedback control of an AUV with experimental results. vol. 627–634. “Adaptive sliding mode control of autonomous underwater vehicles in the dive plane. S. and K. Healey. [12] T. Breivik. Sørensen. and K. [24] E. Practice. Hover. Eng. 1136–1150. Kanellakopoulos. “Multivariable sliding-mode control for autonomous diving and steering of unmanned underwater vehicles. 481–494. Yoerger. Aug. Smallwood and L. 7. “Structural issues in the design and operation of marine control systems. vol. 20. vol. 152–160. [9] R. Seville. pp. “Output feedback control of underwater vehicles with current estimation. Project Manager.. Sørensen.” Marine Cybernetics. “Model-based dynamic positioning of underwater robotic vehicles: Theory and experiments. Marine Syst. Lisboa. 80. Healey. no. control. Ocean. no. NJ: Prentice-Hall. 244–249. 2006. C. [28] J. no. [32] M.” in Proc. Paradise Island. Rep. Trondheim. and R.” Automatica. pp. Oct. Pettersen. Trondeim. “Robust adaptive control of underwater vehicles. [29] J. 2003. Seville. Kokotovic. Eng. Lienard. 3. and E. [14] T. Cambridge.D. Since 1999. D. and Technical Manager in the Business Area Automation Marine and Turbochargers. Fossen. AUVs. Rev. [21] A. pp. 466–476. 2004. 43rd IEEE Conf. Lefeber. A. Trondheim. pp. Eng. and ships. Ocean. Princeton University. pp. observer design. Christi. His research interests are underwater vehicles. vol. A. 327–339. Sørensen received the M. Girona. “Observer design for underwater vehicles with angle and position measurement. Miles. he has held the position of Professor of Marine Cybernetics at the Department of Marine Technology. 2000. 3. vol. 2005. “Line-of-sight path following of underactuated marine craft. both from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). pp. Refsnes. Refsnes. Healey. 29. Norway. modeling and hydrodynamics.. pp. J. and A. 2005. and H.” Annu. J. MA. 2007. K. J. pp. and Ph.” in Proc. 2005. 1–7. “-exponential way-point manoeuvering of ships. rigs and underwater vehicles. no. [8] M. Pettersen. [16] A. respectively. 1993. F. pp.” in Proc.D. Skjetne. vol. [25] E. France. 4. “Principles of guidance-based path following in 2D and 3D. [26] J. Nonlinear Systems. J. Marine Hydrodynamics. pp.” IEEE Trans. Loría. L.

Download

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Restart preview

scribd