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

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

Find out more**Cheng Siong China , Micheal Wai Shing Laua, Eicher Lowa, Gerald Gim Lee Seeta
**

a

Robotic Research Centre, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang

Technological University, 50 Nanyang Ave, Singapore 639798 Abstract: This paper considers an analysis and cascaded controller design for a low-speed maneuvering Remotely Operated Vehicle (RRC ROV II) designed by Robotic Research Centre (RRC), in Nanyang Technological University (NTU). First, the vehicle’s, thruster’s and tether dynamic used for control system design are defined. A linear ROV model can be used since the controller is tasked to keep the vehicle about the equilibrium position during station-keeping condition, and therefore the vehicle’s dynamic and thruster’s model obtained from experiment test rig, can be linearized about this equilibrium position. To enable a best choice of input and output units for use and to achieve a block diagonal dominance system, pre and post compensators from Edmunds scaling and reordering algorithm that performs both scaling and re-ordering of the input and output pairs are used. With roll and pitch motions of the ROV being self-regulating, there are four degree of freedoms (DOF) to be controlled using four thrusters instead of six DOF. Subsequently, a cascade structure is proposed for the control system design. A H ∞ controller is designed for the inner velocity’s control loop where suitable weighting functions are chosen to account for tether disturbance and parametric uncertainty while PD controller is designed for outer position’s control loop. With the proposed proportional derivative (PD) with H ∞ cascaded control for the nonlinear vehicle model, the simulation test with disturbances show a smaller standard deviation in the output position compared to the PD-linear quadratic gaussian with loop transfer recovery (LQGLTR) and single-loop PD controller. Keywords: Edmunds scaling, thruster, diagonal dominances, tether disturbance, parametric uncertainty, H ∞ and cascaded control.

1

1. INTRODUCTION The RRC ROV II is designed to be a sub-compact intervention class ROV combining the functions of an eye-ball ROV and a work class ROV. It has a man-in-the-loop as the supervisor with complementary on-board controller for local control and decision making capabilities. The vehicle is equipped with a suite of navigational sensors; INS, Doppler and side scan sonars- a pair of cameras with ”stereo viewing” capabilities. Its designed tasks include inspections and repairs of pipe lines and structures. Station-keeping would require the vehicle to hover over a certain set of coordinates while maintaining a fixed orientation in the presence of various types of disturbances. The control of this task is exacerbated by the vehicle having non-linear dynamics, tether disturbance, under-actuated and motion amongst its DOF is coupled. Decoupling of the various DOF is useful not only for controller design but also in determining allocation of control authority. The ability to decouple depends on the vehicle physical properties and thrusters arrangement. For example, the slender form of the NPS AUV [1] allows for decoupling into three different control regimes using two propellers and control surfaces. With the ROV design, it is not possible to decouple in this sense, but in RRC ROV I [2] it is possible to allocate control efforts to the outputs and to achieve a decentralized control through Edmunds scaling and reordering routine. Even though the ROV is under-actuated, task associated with inspection requiring the station keeping can be accomplished using a roll and pitch stabilized camera platform. In controller design, it is commonly accepted that linear PID (or PD) controller based on linearized model does not perform as well as sliding mode control (SMC) [6], adaptive control (AC) [4] and feedback linearization (FBLN) [7], amongst others, for instance in trajectory tracking and when uncertainties are present [3]. It has been shown that AC can be designed to be robust. Uncertainty can also be designed using robust controller such as the H ∞ methodology [5]. However, PID/PD controllers are commonly used in commercial ROV, as it is easily understood amongst pilots. To overcome certain limitations, they can be used in combination, for example, with AC dynamic compensation [8]. The use of the H ∞ controller in cascaded with PD controller and combination of the pilot provides some robust response against disturbance and also nonlinear behaviour. The outline of this paper is as follows: The modeling of vehicle dynamic that includes modeling of added mass coefficient component, thruster’s and three-dimensional tether dynamic’s are shown. Then, the linear ROV dynamic for station-keeping condition is obtained, followed, an Edmunds scaling and reordering routine is used to identify the degree of coupling amongst the DOF and for decoupling the linear system into two block diagonal dominance system of nearly

2

decoupled subsystems. In section 6, a cascaded control structure is defined with inner loop consists of the H∞ controller for disturbance attenuation and the outer loop the PD controller. Section 7 shows a detailed approach using H∞ controller design is introduced and lastly a computer simulation is performed to compare the performance of the PD-H∞ with PD-LQG/LTR and the PD only control system design. 2. ROV RRC II OVERVIEW The development of a “twin barrel” ROV named ROV RRC II (see Fig. 1) is a joint research partnership with the British Gas. The first phase of work focuses on the implementing virtual reality (VR) techniques in the ROV RRC II simulator/training platform, is developed with British Gas to has better intelligent control and more data collection capabilities as compared to its predecessor. The ROV would be a combination of the work-class and inspection-class ROV. This “immediate” class ROV is small enough and able to maneuver within constrained workspace and yet the capacity of carrying additional payloads such as additional sensors and equipment. Thus, the ROV RRC II is slightly larger in size and heavier in weight. These sensors and equipment are mounted on two pods as shown in Fig. 2. A brief description of the component layout of the ROV RRC II is given. 1. 4x thrusters, each providing up to 70N of thrust; 2. 2x cylindrical floats 3. 4x balancing steel weight 4. Main pod (Pod 1) 5. Sensors and navigational pod (Pod 2) 6. 2x halogen lamps 7. External sensors including altimeter, scanning sonar and depth sensor This ROV has a twin-pod design. The vehicle’s circuitry and components are housed in two modular pods are secured using custom-made frame. The main pod (named Pod 1) is responsible for vehicle’s communication and control. The first stage of power transformation is placed here. The stepped-down power is consumed by all other devices and peripherals of the RRC ROV II. This pod houses the host computer that communicates with the topside ROV control platform. It interprets the topside commands and executes them and sends back vital positional and visual data to surface which is collected from the second pod and camera platform respectively. Besides that, it is also responsible for controlling the vehicle’s motion since the motion controller resides in the main processing board. The Pod 1 consists of the following components:

3

1. Thruster drivers 2. Main power supply [+48V] 3. Main QNX CPU 4. Power supply[+/-12V, +5V] 5. Main camera platform Pod 2 that house the navigation computer together with the compass, tilt sensor and inertial navigation unit. The navigation computer collects and analyzes data from internal and external sensors such as sonar and pressure sensor through serial ports. Using Ethernet connection, the navigation computer writes data to a shared memory location on the host computer. The host computer to perform closed-loop control can then use the data. The Pod 2 consists of the following components: 1. Power supply[+/-12V, +5V] 2. Crossbow inertia navigation unit 3. Navigation QNX CPU 4. Dynamic Measurement Unit(DMU)-VG600 CA 5. Magnetic compass KHV-C100 6. Secondary camera platform In summary the sensors used in the RRC ROV II are placed either in ROV’s Pod 2 or external to the ROV. Additionally, RRC ROV II has immersive 3D graphical display and control assistance subsystems. The 3D display system gives a simulated environment for the pilot to rehearse his approach and evaluate the suitability of his chosen tools, while the control assistance modules, comprising the manual cruise, station-keeping, steering, cruising modes, assist to de-skill control operation. This combined man-in-the-loop and automatic control of prescribed modes allow for a much robust system due to its capability of switching to manual mode, compared to a fully autonomous computer controlled system. In this paper, one of the controller designs for station keeping is described.

4

Figure 1: RRC ROV II

Figure 2: Pod 1(left): Main communication and Control and Pod 2(right): Sensors and Navigation 3. Nonlinear ROV Model As seen in the ROV design, the ROV model is composed of three main components: the ROV’s rigid body, the propeller and the DC motor. The rigid body model can be derived from the Newton-Euler formulation. The Newton-Euler formulation is based on Newton’s Second Law in terms of conservation of both linear and angular momentum. Another important issue when modeling 6 DOF (Degrees Of Freedom) systems is the specification of reference frames. It is important to define two main coordinate frames: the body-fixed and the earth-fixed as shown in Fig. 3. The body-fixed is attached to the vehicle. Its origin is normally fixed on the centre of gravity. The motion of the body-fixed reference frame is described relative to the earth-fixed

5

reference frame. The earth-fixed reference frame can be considered inertial for low velocity vehicles such as the ROV. Practical issues explain the need of two different reference frames. For example, it is easier to measure position and orientation on the earth-fixed reference frame instead in the body-fixed. The velocity is usually measured in the body-fixed reference frame. The notation defined by SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) is as follows: Position and orientation (earth-fixed):

η = [η1 η 2 ]T = [x y z φ θ ψ ] ∈ R 3 × S 3

T

(1)

Linear and angular velocity (body-fixed):

v = [v1 v 2 ]T = [u v w

p q r] ∈ R6

T

(2)

There is also a kinetic transformation, which maps the transformation between both frames. This transformation is based on Euler angles

& η = J (η 2 ) v

where

(3)

0 ⎤ ⎡ J (η ) J (η 2 ) = ⎢ 1 2 J 2 (η 2 )⎥ ⎦ ⎣ 0

with

(4)

⎡c(ψ )c(θ ) − s (ψ )c(φ ) + c(ψ ) s (θ ) s (φ ) s (ψ ) s (φ ) + c(ψ )c(φ ) s (θ ) ⎤ J1 = ⎢ s (ψ )c(θ ) c(ψ )c(φ ) + s (φ ) s (θ ) s (ψ ) − c(ψ ) s (φ ) + s (θ ) s (ψ )c(θ )⎥ (5) ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − s (θ ) ⎥ c(θ ) s (φ ) c(θ )c(φ ) ⎣ ⎦

⎡1 s (φ )t (θ ) c(φ )t (θ ) ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ J 2 = ⎢0 c(φ ) − s (φ ) ⎥ ⎢ s (φ ) ⎥ c(φ ) ⎢0 c(θ ) c(θ )⎥ ⎣ ⎦

(6)

and s = sin(.), c = cos(.), t = tan(.). This transformation is undefined for

θ = ±90o . To overcome

this singularity, a quaternion approach must be considered. However, in the project this problem does not exist because the vehicle is not required to operate on to operate at this angle.

θ = ±90o . Moreover, the vehicle

is completely stable in roll and pitch, and the thruster actuation is not enough to move the vehicle

6

(φ ) (θ ) (ψ )

Body-Fixed Coordinates

u p v q r w

Figure 3: Experimental RRC ROV II 3.1 General ROV Model A general dynamic model formulation for general underwater robotic vehicle [10] is used. The general motion of a ROV can be described by using a body-fixed frame relative to an earth fixed frame (see Fig. 3). These dynamic equations can be expressed in a more compact form as:

& Mv + C ( v) v + D(v)v + g (η ) = τ

where

(7)

τ ∈ ℜ6

is the actual thrust input vector consisting of control forces and moments.

The thruster configuration matrix (see Fig. 4) is obtained by summation of the forces (in X,Y,Z) and moment (in X,Y,Z) about ROV’s center of gravity (CG);

T1 + T2 ⎤ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ (T3 − T4 ) sin β ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ (T3 + T4 ) cos β τ=⎢ (6) ⎥= − δ (T3 − T4 ) ⎥ ⎢ ⎢− ε (T1 + T2 ) − α cos β (T3 + T4 )⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ γ (T1 − T2 ) + α sin β (T3 − T4 ) ⎦

⎡ 1 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢− ε ⎢ ⎣γ

1 0 0 0 −ε −γ

0 sin β cos β −δ − α cos β

α sin β

⎤ − sin β ⎥ ⎡T1 ⎤ ⎥ cos β ⎥ ⎢T2 ⎥ ⎥⎢ ⎥ δ ⎥ ⎢T3 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ − α cos β ⎥ ⎣T4 ⎦ ⎥ − α sin β ⎦ 0

(8)

with α = 0.017 m, β = 45 o , γ = 0.31m, δ = 0.293m , ε = 0.016m and T1 to T4 are the magnitude of thrust exerted by thruster one to four respectively;

7

Y

X Z Z

γ = 0.31m

Main Body

C.B

ε = 0.016m

C.G

δ = 0.293m α = 0.017m

Direction of positive thrust Front view of RRC ROV II Side view of RRC ROV II

β = 45o

Figure 4: Front and side view of RRC ROV II M=MR+MA ∈ ℜ 6×6 is the mass inertia matrix including added mass term MA

⎡ X u& ⎢Y ⎢ u& ⎢ Z u& M A = −⎢ ⎢ K u& ⎢ M u& ⎢ ⎢ N u& ⎣

and rigid body term

⎡ m − X u& ⎢ − Yu& ⎢ ⎢ − Z u& M =⎢ ⎢ − K u& ⎢ mzG − M u& ⎢ ⎢− myG − N u& ⎣

X v& Yv& Z v& K v& M v& N v&

Xw & Yw & Zw & Kw & Mw & Nw &

Xp & Yp & Zp & Kp & Mp & Np &

X q& Yq& Z q& K q& M q& N q&

X r& ⎤ Yr& ⎥ ⎥ Z r& ⎥ ⎥ K r& ⎥ M r& ⎥ ⎥ N r& ⎥ ⎦

(9)

M R to become:

− X v& m − Yv& − Z v& − mz G − K v& − M v& mxG − N v& − Xw & − Yw & m − Zw & myG − K w & − mxG − M w & − Nw & − Xp & − mz G − Y p & myG − Z p & I xx − K p & − I yx − M p & − I zx − N p & mz G − X q& − Yq& − mxG − Z q& − I xy − K v& I yy − M q& − I zy − N q& − myG − X r& ⎤ mxG − Yr& ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ − Z r& ⎥ − I xz − K v& ⎥ − I yz − M r& ⎥ ⎥ I zz − N r& ⎥ ⎦

(10)

with xG, yG, zG refers to the coordinate of the center of gravity. The mass, m=113.2kg and inertia I terms are obtained from the computer-aided design software, PRO-E. The moment of inertia value are: Ixx=6.100 kg.m2, Iyy=5.980 kg.m2 Izz=9.590 kg.m2, Ixy=-0.00016 kg.m2, Ixz=-0.185 kg.m2 and Iyz=0.0006 kg.m2. As observed that the ROV have some planes of symmetry. The highest I term (correspond to the most symmetry plane) are the XZ plane, YZ plane and followed by XY plane. In matrix form, the I become:

8

− 0.00016 − 0.185⎤ ⎡ 6.100 ⎢− 0.00016 I= 5.980 0.0006 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ − 0.185 0.0006 9.590 ⎥ ⎦ ⎣

(11)

C ( v) = C R ( v) + C A ( v) ∈ ℜ 6×6

term

is the Centripetal and coriolis matrix including added mass

C A ( v)

and rigid body term

C R ( v) :

**C12 (v) ⎤ ⎡ O C ( v) = ⎢ 3×3 ⎥ T ⎣− C12 (v) C 22 (v)⎦
**

with

(12)

− m( xG q − w) − Z w w − m( xG r + v) + Yv& v ⎤ ⎡ m( y G q + z G r ) & ; ⎢− m( y p + w) + Z w − m( yG r − u ) − X u& u ⎥ C12 ( v) = m( z G r + x G p ) & G w ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − m( zG p − v) − Yv& v − m( zG q + u ) + X u& u m ( xG p + y G q ) ⎥ ⎣ ⎦

(13)

⎡ 0 − I yz q − I xz p + I z r − N r& r ⎢ C 22 ( v) = ⎢ I yz q + I xz p − I z r + N r& r 0 ⎢− I yz r − I xy p + I y q − M q& q I xz r + I xy q − I x p + K p p & ⎣

I yz r + I xy p − I y q + M q& q ⎤ ⎥ (14) − I xz r − I xy q + I x p − K p p ⎥ & ⎥ 0 ⎦

**D(v) ∈ ℜ 6×6 is the hydrodynamic damping matrix of linear and quadratic terms:
**

⎡− Xu ⎢ ⎢ − Yu ⎢ − Zu D ( v) = ⎢ ⎢ − Ku ⎢− M u ⎢ ⎢ − Nu ⎣ − Xu u u − Yu u u − Zu u u − Ku u u − Mu u u − Nu u u − Xv − Xvv v − Yv − Yv v v − Zv − Zv v v − Kv − Kv v v − Mv − Mvv v − Nv − Nv v v − Xw − Xww w − Yw − Yw w w − Zw − Zw w w − Kw − Kw w w − Mw − Mww w − Nw − Nw w w − Xp − Xpp p − Yp − Yp p p − Zp − Zp p p − Kp − Kp p p −Mp −Mpp p − Np − Np p p − Xq − Xqq q − Y q − Yq q q − Zq − Zq q q − Kv − Kq q q − Mq − Mqq q − Nq − Nq q q − Xr − Xr r r ⎤ ⎥ − Yr − X r r r ⎥ − Zr − X r r r ⎥ ⎥ − Kv − X r r r ⎥ − Mr − Xr r r ⎥ ⎥ − Nr − X r r r ⎥ ⎦

(15)

with .|.| defines the directional dependent of the term and buoyancy vector:

g (η) ∈ ℜ 6 is

the gravitational and

( W − B) sin θ ⎤ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ − ( W − B) cosθ sin φ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ − (W − B) cosθ cos φ g (η ) = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢− ( y G W − y B B) cosθ cos φ + (z G W − z B B) cosθ sin φ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ (z G W − z B B) sin θ + ( x G W − x B B) cosθ cos φ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ − ( x G W − x B B) cosθ sin φ − ( y G W − y B B) sin θ ⎦

(16)

9

with W and B is the gravitational and buoyancy force respectively. The xB, yB and zB refer to the center of buoyancy. 3.2 ROV RRC II Model In practice, a general ROV model is used for analysis and simulation. Often it is found to be quite good for many underwater applications. Some details and simplification on the matrices, which compose equation (7), are presented. The inertia matrix M has two distinct contributions [11]. One is from the rigid body inertia. The other appears when there is water motion and is called added mass. The added mass should be understood as pressure-induced forces and moments due to a forced harmonic motion of the body, which are proportional to the acceleration of the body. Some simplifications were made on the M, C, D and g matrices in (7). a). The origin of the body-fixed reference frame was chosen to be the gravity centre, i.e. xG=yG=zG=0. This leave the MR to be block diagonal where the first 3 by 3 block consists of ROV’s mass and second block consisting of inertia term of the same size as shown in (17). In this second block, the off-diagonal elements of inertia term Ixy , Ixz in MR are much smaller than the diagonal counterparts and it is quite difficult to get all the 36 added mass parameters, and since the ROV is moving at low speed, the diagonal approximation is found to be quite good for many applications. Therefore the total mass inertia in (10) becomes.

⎡m − X u& ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 M =⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎣ 0 m − Yv& 0 0 0 0 0 0 m − Zw & 0 0 0 0 0 0 I xx − K p & − I yx − I zx 0 0 0 − I xy I yy − M q& − I zy 0 ⎤ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ − I xz ⎥ − I yz ⎥ ⎥ I zz − N r& ⎥ ⎦

(17)

The added mass coefficient used in MA (and CA) are computed using principle of Strip theory[11] as shown below. It involves dividing the submerged part of the vehicle into a number of strips. With this, two-dimensional hydrodynamic coefficients for the added mass can be computed for each strip and summarized over the length of the body to yield three-dimensional coefficients. By examining each parts of the ROV such as left and right float, main chassis and thrusters as a slender body as shown in Fig. 3, the added mass coefficients for each direction is computed.

L/2

∂X = X u = − ∫ A11 ( y, z ) dx = −0.1 & & ∂u −L / 2

(18a)

10

∂Y = Yv = − ∫ A 22 ( y, z)dx = − πρ(0.5D a ) 2 & & ∂v −L / 2 ∂Z = Z w = − ∫ A 33 ( y, z)dx = −πρ(0.5D a ) 2 & & ∂w −L / 2

D /2 D /2 ∂K = Kp = − y 2 A33 ( x, z )dy − ∫ z 2 A22 ( x, y )dz = − 1 [πρ (0.5Da ) 5 ] & ∫ & 48 ∂p −D / 2 −D / 2

a a a a

L/2

(18b)

L/2

(18c)

(18d)

D /2 L/2 ∂M = M & = − x 2 A ( y, z )dx − z 2 A ( x, y )dz = − 1 [πρ (0.5 D ) 2 L3 + 0.1D 2 ] q 33 a a ∫ ∫ 11 & 12 ∂q −L / 2 −D / 2

a a

(18e)

**D /2 L/2 ∂N 2 2 2 2 3 = N r& = − ∫ / 2 y A11 ( x, z )dy − − L∫/ 2x A22 ( y, z )dx = − 112 [πρ (0.5Da ) L + 0.1Da ] & ∂r −D
**

a a

(18f)

where L, Da are the length and diameter of the ROV’s components as tabulated in Table 1 and

**ρ=1024 kg/m3 is the density of the seawater (3.5% salinity) at 20oC. By summing the added mass
**

contributed by each components (see Table 1), the total added mass coefficients for each direction becomes: X u = −0.6 , Yv& = −107 , Z w = −107 , K p & & &

= −0.0023, M q& = −6.23 and

N r& = −6.23 .

Components Thruster Left and right barrel Left and right float Dimensions (Da ,, L) 0.09m, 0.20m 0.22m, 0.90m 0.12m, 0.92m

Table 1: Dimension of ROV RRC II components b) As mentioned in (a), the origin of the body-fixed reference frame was chosen to be the gravity centre, i.e. xG=yG=zG=0. Like the previous matrix, the C matrix also has two distinct contributions, one from the rigid body and other from the added mass. The C matrix as in (12) become:

**0 mw − Z w w − mv + Yv& v ⎤ ⎡ & ⎢− mw + Z w C12 ( v) = 0 mu − X u& u ⎥ ; & w ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ mv − Yv& v ⎥ − mu + X u& u 0 ⎣ ⎦
**

⎡ 0 − I yz q − I xz p + I z r − N r& r ⎢ C22 ( v) = ⎢ I yz q + I xz p − I z r + N r& r 0 ⎢− I yz r − I xy p + I y q − M q& q I xz r + I xy q − I x p + K p p & ⎣ I yz r + I xy p − I y q + M q& q ⎤ ⎥; − I xz r − I xy q + I x p − K p p ⎥ & ⎥ 0 ⎦

(19)

(20)

11

c) Potential damping, wave drift damping, skin friction and vortex shedding damping cause the main damping on the ROV. However, the contribution from the potential and wave drift [11] are negligible as compared to vortex shedding damping and skin friction. The viscosity of the fluid mainly contributes these damping effect. Usually, these viscous damping on the underwater vehicles are nonlinear (or quadratic) and coupled in nature. Nevertheless, if the system has planes of symmetry, the terms higher than second-order are negligible and the vehicle is performing a non-coupled motion at slow speed [11], the diagonal approximation obtaining linear terms is found to be quite good for many applications.

D = −diag{ X u ,Yv , Z w ,K p ,M q ,N r }

(21)

The definition of high or low Reynolds number (Re) in literature is mainly application dependent. Generally for flow inside a roughed-walled pipe, the Re > 2000 is considered as high Re (and turbulent flow) but inside a small-walled pipe, the Re > 40,000 is considered as high Re (and turbulent flow). For ROV application that is clearly not a streamlined bodies of inviscid flow, Re of greater than 103 are treated as high Re flow (that can be a laminar, turbulent or intermittent flow). This can be seen by the drag coefficient that is Re independent [12] in 103 onwards (as seen in Fig.5).

Figure 5: Drag force coefficient versus Reynolds number The contribution to the linear parts of the damping coefficients is the skin friction at low frequency or at low Re of 103. This corresponds to low-speed maneurving that are obtained through the drag test experiment as shown below. On the other hand, the quadratic term is contributed by both skin frictions at high frequency (or high Re of 105) and vortex shedding. The quadratic terms are obtained through the similitude using Oxford ROV as the prototype.

12

But in this paper, the quadratic terms is negligible since the ROV is designed to be for lowspeed application. In the future, the ROV will be capable of higher speed. For the linear hydrodynamic damping coefficients are approximated by a drag test [22] conducted, in a confined pool, using a draw wire displacement sensor which is mounted on a special rig designed for the drag test (see below Fig. 6). The draw-wire displacement sensor is connected to the rear (for X-direction), the side (for Y-direction) or the top (for Z-direction) of the ROV. The displacement, with respect to time, of the vehicle in the water is recorded and the terminal velocities (max 0.001 m/s) of the vehicle are determined. Through the experimentation, the net force that drives the vehicle and the terminal velocities are known. With this information, the X, Y and Z direction drag coefficients are determined. The derivation of (22)-(24) assumed that the vehicle is moving linearly in each direction and the maximum speeds (that correspond to zero acceleration) were measured. For drag force in X-direction,

(T1 + T2 ) − X u u u u = 0 ⇒ X u u = 2Tmax / u max

For drag force in Y-direction,

2

(22)

(T1 − T2 ) − Yv v v v = 0 ⇒ Yv v = 2Tmax / vmax

For drag force in Z-direction,

2

(23)

(T3 + T4 ) − Z w w w w = 0 ⇒ Z w w = 2Tmax / wmax

2

(24)

However, since no measurements were possible for the angular directions due to the limitation of the test rig as shown in Fig. 6, the following equations are used. Since the roll and pitch motions are self-stabilizable by the restoring components in (28), the pitch and roll velocity obtained from (22) to (23) are used to solve for the unknown drag coefficient in (25) to (26). For drag force about X axis or roll motion,

& I xx ( K p p p p ) + z BW sin θ = p

−1

(25)

For drag force about Y axis or pitch motion,

& I yy ( M q q q q ) + z BW sin φ = q

−1

(26)

For drag force about Z-axis, the designated four thrusters are actuated to provide the yaw motion. Assuming maximum displacement (or zero velocity) in X and Y direction.

13

(T1 − T2 + T3 − T4 ) − I zz ( N r r r r ) = 0

The estimated linear drag coefficients of the RRC ROV II are:

−1

(27)

**X u u = −252.98N .m −2 s 2 , Yv v = −1029.51N .m −2 s 2 , Z w w = −1029.51N .m −2 s 2 ,
**

−2 2 −2 2 K p p = −97.78 N .m −2 s 2 , M q q = −142.22 N .m s and N r r = −71.11N .m s .

Figure 6: Drag test using draw-wire displacement sensor in pool d) For the gravitational and the buoyancy matrix, g the simplifications are as follows: i) ii) The vehicle is designed to be neutrally buoyant in the water, that is, the gravity force equal to the buoyancy force (W=B). The center of buoyancy zB will be located directly above the center of gravity zG ( x B = xG , y B = y G ). Hence zB - zG=0.048m with W=1110.5N. iii) The origin of the body-fixed reference frame was chosen to be the gravity centre, i.e. xG=yG=zG=0.

**0 ⎤ ⎡ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 g (η ) = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢- (z B - z G )W cos θ sin φ ⎥ ⎢ - (z B - z G )W sin θ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎦ ⎣
**

.

(28)

14

3.3. Propeller and Motor Shaft Model This section gives the derivation of a dynamic model for the thruster used in control system design. Through experiment [13] shown below, a steady state thruster’s model approximates the actual characteristic of the thruster in the water. Basically, the dynamics model of the thruster consists of propeller’s hydrodynamics and motor’s electromechanical behavior. The former can be derived from basic Newtonian fluid mechanics theory, in particularly Bernoulli’s Equation[12] (assuming the flow is incompressible, inviscid and irrotational). Instead of determining the final force and moment of the thruster as a function of propeller’s rotational speed and axial velocity [3], the proposed method described below treats the axial velocity as a function of the propeller’s rotational speed. Hence we can obtained a precise and simpler equation that is a function of the propeller rotational speed. Unsteady state thruster model is derived using the Bernoulli’s Equation applied to the streamlines upstream and downstream of the propeller and assuming that the flow is incompressible, inviscid and irrotational. The thrust output from the propeller can be defined as:

& Tt = ρAp lu a + 2 ρAp u a u a

where

(29)

ua

is the axial fluid velocity at the propeller (fluid advance speed) in m/s, Ap is the axial

projected area of the propeller in m2 , l is the length of the area projected in m and ρ is the density of the seawater (3.5% salinity) at 20oC in kg/m3. It is not difficult to see that Apl is actually the control volume in m3. The relationship between axial velocity and rotational speed can be obtained from the energy balance equation. Since there is a difference in the thrust due to disturbances in the water inflow to the thruster blades, thruster-to-ROV surfaces interactions, underwater current and ROV velocities, a factor KR is included in the energy from input to output:

K RTt u a = QΩ ua = QΩ K RTt

(30)

where Q is the shaft’s torque in N/m, Ω is the rotational speed in rad/s and Tt is the thrust generated from propeller rotation in Newton. The relationship between the torque and thrust is obtained from the water tank experiment [13] that is: Tt = 40Q (forward) and Tt=-54Q (reverse) as shown in Fig.7. The KR =2.14 is an average value obtained from the ratio of

QΩ Tt u a

at

15

ROV’s surge velocity of u = 0.01 to 2 m/s under open loop condition. While the ua, is defined as function of the vehicle’s surge velocity u: ua = (1-W)u where W refers to the wake fraction number between 0.1 to 0.4.

6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4 0 .0 3 0 .0 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 .0 -1 .0 -0 .5 -1 0 .0 -2 0 .0 T t = -5 4 Q -3 0 .0 -4 0 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 Tt = 40Q

(31)

F o rw a rd T h ru s t ( u p s c a le r e a d in g )

F o rw a rd T h ru s t ( d o w n s c a le r e a d in g ) R e v e rs e T h ru s t ( u p s c a le r e a d in g )

R e v e rs e T h ru s t ( d o w n s c a le r e a d in g )

Figure 7: Experimental result of Thrust vs torque By examining (30) it is not difficult to see that

u a ∝ Ω . By applying Tt=40Q(forward), Tt= (32)

54Q(reverse) into (30) and substituting it into (29) gives:

& Tt = K Tdo Ω + K Td Ω Ω

where the constant for both forward and reverse are: Forward:

K Tdo =

ρA p l

40 K R

,

K Td =

ρAp

800 K R

2

Reverse: Similarly the torque become:

K Tdo = −

ρAp l

54 K R

, K Td

=−

ρAp

1458 K R

2

& Q = K Qdo Ω + K Qd Ω Ω

where the constant for both forward and reverse are: Forward:

(33)

K Qdo =

ρA p l D p

40 K R

,

K Qd =

ρA p D p

800 K R

2

Reverse:

K Qdo = −

ρA p lD p

54 K R

16

, K Qd

=−

ρAp D p

1458K R

2

From the experimental results, the thruster model without considering the time dependent term,

& Ω =0

portion of the thrust and torque in (32) and (33) can be obtained as

Tt = K Td Ω Ω Q = K Qd Ω Ω

(34) (35)

where the constant (see Fig.8) for both forward and reverse are: KTd = 0.0022(forward), KTd = 0.0012(reverse), KQd = 0.00022(forward), KQd =-0.00012 (reverse). By substituting KR=2.14, l=0.01m, Dp=0.1 and ρ=1024kg/m3 into (32), the forward and reverse thrust in steady and nonsteady condition coincides (due to the KTdo in the equation is small). Forward:

& Tt = 0.00094Ω + 0.0022 Ω Ω & = −0.00069Ω − 0.0012 Ω Ω

(36) (37)

Reverse: Tt

**Similarly, this applies to the forward and reverse torque, Q in (33).
**

T t = 0.0022Ω

60.0 50.0 40.0

Forward Thrust (upscale) Forward Thrust (downscale) Forward Thrust (average) Reverse Thrust (upscale) Reverse Thrust (downscale) Reverse Thrust (average) Linear (Forward Thrust (average)) Linear (Reverse Thrust (average))

2

Thrust (N)

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

-40000

-20000

-10.0 -20.0 -30.0

0

20000

40000

T t = −0.0012Ω

2

-40.0

Speed 2 (rad 2 /s 2 )

Figure 8. Experimental result of Tt vs. Ω2 Since the propeller is attached onto the shaft motor, the dc motor shaft dynamics has to be considered. The electromechanical model assuming small electrical time constant as compared to the mechanical time constant. In general, the unified hydro-electromechanical dynamic model for both the dc motor shaft speed and propeller dynamic can be written as:

& J mΩ + KvΩ =

Km Vm − K Qd Ω 2 Rm

(38)

17

where KQd is obtained from (33) at steady state, Ω is the rotational speed in rad/s, Vm is the armature voltage, Kv is the viscous friction coefficient in Nms/rad, Rm is the armature resistance in Ohms, Km is the motor torque constant Nm/A, and Jm is the rotor moment of inertia in Nm.s2/rad. Equation (36) and (37) imply that the unsteady state model in (32) to (33) can be approximated by the steady state model in (34) to (35) respectively. As shown in Fig. 9, the model steady state response match those observed in the experiments [13]. However, the approximated transient response does not match very well with the observed oscillatory response. It is observed that most oscillations diminish within 0.5s. This is relatively shorter than ROV dynamics response time. For linear system analysis, (38) is generalized by a first-order thruster model that relates (not the

Ω) the thrust output for certain voltage input:

GT =

with

0 .97 I 4 Δg T 0 .02 s + 1

if input = 40 volt if input = 30 volt if input = 20 volt if input = 10 volt

(39)

⎧1, ⎪ 0.82, ⎪ Δg T = ⎨ ⎪0.6, ⎪ 0.33, ⎩

where the value of the Δg T between each voltage interval is assumed to vary linearly, i.e Δg T = 0.91 for V=35 volt, and I4 is an identity matrix of dimension four.

Thr ust 50 (N) 40 30 20 10 0 Thr ust 30 (N) 20 10 0 Thr ust 20 (N) 15 10 5 0 0.5 1 Time(s) 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 input: 30v input: 40v

Approximation Experimental 2

input:20v

Figure 9: Time responses of the experimental thrust and the thruster model

18

3.4. Three-dimensional Tether Dynamic Tether interaction [14] in the ROV dynamic is a common disturbance present in the tethered ROV. It can be more significant as compared to the water current. The internal forces present in the tether and the wave that causes launch boat to drift from its initial can restrict the movement of the ROV even with a good tethered management system. As shown in Fig.10, the tether is divided into n equal length elements and the result from one element is propagated into next till it reaches the final end point at the ROV’s CG. The inertial reference frame (X, Y, Z) is defined at surface of waterline and the first cable’s element is attached to the launch boat. The tether forces in three-dimensional (3D) are computed by the method in Sagatun [16] that uses Catenary equations with end forces estimates. The differential equation derived in [16] is used to solve the forces at each element, i .

⎛ 1 ⎞ dFT 1 ⎟ = ( f i − Wc h)⎜ + T ⎜ EA dh ( f i − Wc h) ( f i − Wc h) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠

(40)

where h is the distance in m, EA is the axial stiffness of the cable in N, Wc is the weight per length of the cable in N/m, fi is the force exerted on the cable’s element i in N, FT is the local forces in X, Y, Z within the cable’s element i and the fi-Wch represents the tension in vectorial form. Equation (40) is solved numerically using the MATLAB routine. The initial guess for the forces in N is [4 5 180]T , cable’s length is 300m, cable’s weight is Wc = 1N/m, diameter dc = 0.014m, modulus of elasticity Ec=200×109 N/m2, axial stiffness EA=3 ×104 N and density ρc =662.2kg/m3. The launch boat positions (in X and Y directions) are assumed to move by 0 to 20 m due to the wave that causes the boat to drift from its initial position. Note that even if the initial guess for the estimated force deviated from the correct value, the routine managed to find a good estimate.

19

Boat i-1 X element 1 Z i

i+1 element n-1

θ n −1

element n C.G. n n-1

ROV

Figure 10: Schematic diagram of the tethered ROV

The forces at X, Y and Z direction (i.e

f x , f y and f z ) due to the change in boat’s position dx

and dy are so determined. The 3rd order polynomial equations that relate the boat’s position due to the disturbance dx =[x x2 x3]T , dy =[y y2 y3]T to output cable’s force [fx fy fz]T are :

**FTx = Dx d x + C x 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ x ⎤ ⎡ − 0.74 ⎤ ⎡ f x ⎤ ⎡ 0.27 ⎢ f ⎥ = ⎢− 0.012 − 0.0068 0.015⎥ ⎢ x 2 ⎥ + ⎢− 0.037⎥ ⎢ y⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ 3 ⎢ fz ⎥ ⎢ 2 0.47 0 ⎥ ⎢ x ⎥ ⎢ 300 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ FTy = D y d y + C x ⎡ f x ⎤ ⎡− 0.0045 − 0.0051 0.01⎤ ⎡ y ⎤ ⎡− 0.029⎤ ⎢ f ⎥ = ⎢ 1.6 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ y 2 ⎥ + ⎢ 2.1 ⎥ y ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ fz ⎥ ⎢ 2 0.47 0 ⎥ ⎢ y 3 ⎥ ⎢ 300 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
**

where (42) (41)

dx,dy

are the boat’s position in X and Y direction respectively. The vectors Cx and Cy

are the biased force in the X, Y and Z direction while the matrix Dx and Dy represent the cable’s force distribution in the Cartesian coordinate for the dx and dy. It is observed that the value of the disturbance force fz increases to over 300N as the input disturbance velocity tends to dx = dy = 20 m while fx and fy are small respectively. This drift in the position is just a worst case consideration which in actual situation, the launch boat will be anchored to maintain in its position, that is with [15] as well.

dx ,dy

is small. The disturbance force is consistent

20

4. LINEAR ROV MODEL During the station keeping, the controller has to keep the vehicle about the equilibrium position or orientation. Under this situation, the vehicle dynamics can be linearized about an equilibrium position. As results of the linearization of (7) and (3) about the equilibrium point, ν o ,η o , a linear time invariant model of twelve-orders in state-space model can be written as:

& Χ = AΧ + Bτ & η = ΕΧ

matrix:

(43) (44)

where the A ∈ ℜ12×12 is the system matrix, B ∈ ℜ12×4 is the input matrix, E ∈ ℜ 6×12 is the output

⎡I 0 ⎤ ⎡− M −1(C + D) − M −1G⎤ ⎡M −1 ⎤ T A= ⎢ ; B= ⎢ ⎥ ; E = ⎢ 1 ⎥; Χ = [Δv Δη] ; τ = TG T +τc , T ⎥ 0 I⎥ J 0 ⎦ 0 ⎦ ⎢ s ⎦ ⎣ ⎣ ⎣

Δv = v − vo ∈ ℜ 6 is

the perturbation in velocities vector,

Δη = η − ηo ∈ ℜ 6 is

the

perturbation in position vector, T ∈ ℜ 6×4 is the thruster configuration matrix, commanded optimal thrust input vector,

τ c ∈ ℜ6

is the

τ ∈ ℜ6

is the actual thrust input vector, GT ∈ ℜ 4×4 is a

linear thruster model matrix and T+=TT(TTT)-1 ∈ ℜ 4×6 is a Moore-Penrose pusedo-inverse. The linear matrices C, D, G and J used in (46)-(52) are computed using the follow derivative.

C=

∂D(v) v ∂g(η) ∂C(v) v ,D= ,G = ,J = J(ηo ) ∂v ν ∂v ν ∂η η

o o o

(45)

where the matrices C(v) ∈ ℜ 6×6 , D(v) ∈ ℜ 6×6 , g(η) ∈ ℜ 6×1 and J(η) ∈ ℜ 6×6 are stated in (3) and (7). Note that the linear damping matrix is used in the derivative. Details of the matrices in (43) and (44) are tabulated below.

0 ⎡m 0 0 ⎢0 m 0 0 ⎢ ⎢0 0 m 0 MR = ⎢ ⎢ 0 0 0 I xx ⎢ 0 0 0 − I xy ⎢ ⎢ 0 0 0 − I xz ⎣ 0 0 0 − I xy I yy − I yz 0 ⎤ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ − I xz ⎥ − I yz ⎥ ⎥ I zz ⎥ ⎦

(46)

21

⎡ X u& ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 MA = ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎣ 0

⎡ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 CR = ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ − mw o ⎢ ⎢ mv o ⎣ 0 0 0 mw o 0 − mu o 0 0 0 − mv o mu o 0 0

0 Yv& 0 0 0 0

0 0 Zw & 0 0 0

0 0 0 Kp & 0 0

0 0 0 0 M q& 0

mw o

0⎤ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ N r& ⎦

⎤ ⎥ mu o ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ I yz ro + I xy p o − I yy q o ⎥ − I xz ro − I xy q o + I xx p o ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎦ − mv o

(47)

− mw o mv o 0 I yz q o + I xz p o − I zz ro − I yz ro − I xy p o + I yy q o

0 − mu o − I yz q o − I xz p o + I zz ro 0 I xz ro + I xy q o − I xx p o

(48)

⎡ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 CA = ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ Z w wo & ⎢ − Yv& v o ⎢ ⎣

0 0 0 − Z w wo & 0 X u& u o

0 0 0 Yv& v o − X u& u o 0

0 Yv 0 0 0 0

0 Z w wo & − Yv& v o 0 N r& ro − M q& q o

0 0 Zw 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kp 0 0

− Z w wo & 0 X u& u − N r& ro 0 K p po &

0 0 0 0 Mq 0 ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ Nr ⎦ 0 0 0 0

Yv& v o ⎤ − X u& u o ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ M q& q o ⎥ − K p po ⎥ & ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎦

(49)

⎡X u ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 D=⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎣ 0

(50)

⎡0 ⎢0 ⎢ ⎢0 G=⎢ ⎢0 ⎢0 ⎢ ⎣0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 − ( z B − z G ) cos θ o cos φ o 0 0

0 0 0 ( z B − z G ) sin θ o sin φ o − ( z B − z G ) cos θ o 0

0⎤ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎥ 0⎥ ⎥ 0⎦

(51)

⎡J J =⎢ 1 ⎣0

where

0⎤ J2 ⎥ ⎦

(52)

22

⎡cos ψ o cos θo J 1 = ⎢ sin ψ o cos θo ⎢ ⎢ − sin θo ⎣

− sin ψ o cos φo + cos ψ o sin θo sin φo cos ψ o cos φo + sin φo sin θo sin ψ o cos θo sin φo

sin ψ o sin φo + cos ψ o cos φo sin θo ⎤ − cos ψ o sin φo + sin θo sin ψ o cos θo ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ cos θo cos φo ⎦

⎡1 sin φo tan θo J 2 = ⎢0 cos φo ⎢ ⎢ ⎣0 sin φo cosθ o

cos φo tan θo ⎤ − sin φo ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ cos φo cosθ o ⎦

For simulation purpose (see Fig. 11), the voltage input to the thrusters, T1 and T2 are both set at 40V. Since T1 and T2 are used for surge velocity, the response does show high magnitude at surge velocity as compared to the rest. However, the error in the responses between the linear and nonlinear model is represented in maximum norm, ΔG

∞

. It is mainly due to the model

uncertainty such as the nonlinearity presents in the system. The velocity range for the linear model is:

0 < v ≤ 1 . The model uncertainty will be included in the controller design.

5. DECOUPLING OF LINEAR ROV’s MODEL The direct benefit to obtain a diagonal dominance (or decouple) system is to obtain several small subsystems allowing the use of control structure such as decentralized control. Besides, it balances and enables a best choice of the input and output units to use when the knowledge about the system is insufficient. This improves the system reliability and efficiency as shown in [26]. Thus makes the individual loop more independent prior to any controller design. To achieve diagonal dominance, Edmunds scaling [17] and input-output(I/O) reordering routine is used. The routine has shown to work in some structure when Perron-Frobenius [18,19] and one-norm scaling [20] are not appropriate and inadequate to achieve the diagonal dominant system. During the Edmunds scaling and I/O reordering routine, the linear system is scaled prior to I/O re-ordering to make the dominant multivariable element more obvious. In first part of the routine, it balances the effect of each of the inputs (outputs) in each column (row) of the system gain matrix. Followed by re-ordering the I/O into pairs to maximize the diagonal dominance. As a whole, the scaling and I/O re-ordering attempt to minimize the multivariable nature of the problems by balancing the interaction between loops. Prior to Edmunds routine, the diagonal dominant of the linear ROV system needs to be determined. Rosenbrock's row (or column) diagonal dominance [21] with Gershgorin discs [18] superimposed on the diagonal elements of the system frequency response was performed. The plots in Fig. 12a indicate that the system is highly interactive over all frequencies (1-100 rad/s), as

23

observed from the increasing size of the discs in the diagonal elements in all rows. The increasing size of the disk implies that the off-diagonal terms are more dominant than its diagonal terms or in another words, the system is not diagonal dominance. As shown in step responses of Poste×G ×Pree in Fig. 13, the scaling and I/O pairing using the Edmunds scaling resulted in two diagonal blocks of higher amplitude (see the dotted line) and more evenly distributed Gershgoin discs between the loops shown in Fig. 12b. The Pree and Poste matrices (resulted from the Edmunds routine) for both the scaling and I/O pairings at frequency of 2 rad/s are given by:

0 ⎡ ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 = ⎢ 0 . 1598 ⎢ ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎣

0 ⎡ ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢ 0 = ⎢ ⎢ 0 . 3215 ⎢ 0 ⎢ 0 ⎣

0 0 . 6485 0 0 0 0

0 0 . 1332 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 . 4553 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0717

0 . 1176 0 0 0 0 0

0 . 1852 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 . 5283

0 0 0 0 8 . 318 0

Post

e

⎤ ⎥ 0 ⎥ 0 . 1043 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ 0 ⎦ 0

⎤ ⎥ ⎥ 0 . 1789 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ 0 ⎦ 0 0

(53)

(54)

Pre

e

In (53) and (54), the fourth element (input) in the first column of Pree is paired with the fourth element (q) in the first row of Poste while the second element (input) in the second column of Pree is paired with the second element (v) in the second row of Poste , and similarly for the rest. This gives the scaled input and output pairs with the following output velocities, v reordered as p, v, q, u, r, w and the commanded optimal distribution of control input

τc

becomes: τ c4 , τ c2, τ c6 , τ c1 , τ c5, τ c3 . To verify the degree of block diagonal dominance of the system after Edmunds scaling and reordering routine, the following method known as the block diagonal dominance measure of the system is used. Suppose TFM of the vehicle is partitioned into several interconnected subsystems

⎡Gii3×3 ⎢ 3×3 ⎣G ji

where superscript 3 × 3 and subscript

Gij3×3 ⎤ ⎥ G 3×3 ⎦ jj

(55)

i, j

refer to the size of the partitioned block and elements

in the block respectively. To determine the block diagonal dominance of G(s) , the gains of each blocks of G(s) are determined as follows:

24

σ (G ii ) = min x≠0

G ii v v

= smallest singular value of G ii

(56)

As a comparison, the block dominance measure of the system after the Edmunds scaling becomes more block diagonal dominance, as the value decreases from 12 × 10 −4 to 6 × 10 −16 (see Fig.14). Hence, the first 3 × 3 blocks containing the p, v, q are decoupled from u, r, w. 6. CONTROL STRUCTURE DESIGN After the dynamic modeling and decoupling are performed on the ROV, the next task is to select a control structure to be used. Typically, the control structure used is single loop in nature. However it is not efficient if the DOF is of twelfth order in the case of ROV RRC II. Furthermore, due to the ROV operation requirement, both the velocity and position must be controlled separately during the station keeping (or localized inspection). This inevitably leads to a cascade control structure consisting of an inner loop used for velocity control and outer loop for position control. While the ROV is performing the station keeping, the outer loop is trying to maintain its current position. As shown in Fig. 15, in the control structure, the pre and post compensators from the Edmunds scaling and re-ordering routine are included. This results in a decentralized control with only [v u r w]T respectively. Note that the pitch and roll velocity are not included in the feedback due to the self-stabilizing in the roll and pitch angles [22] provided by the buoyancy and gravitational force vectors that form a restoring couple in these direction. Hence, the outputs selected are the position coordinates and the yaw angle that are not self-stabilizable. These are variables that have no natural equilibrium and hence cannot be left unattended for a long period of time without control. In the next section, the H ∞ controller design used in the inner loop control (as shown in Fig. 16) of the vehicle’s velocity is illustrated. Due to the simplicity in the PD controller for outer loop control, it is not shown in this paper. 7. H∞ CONTROLLER DESIGN H∞ controller must be able to perform in the presence of tether disturbance and parametric uncertainty. In signal terms, the objective is to minimize the maximum value of exogenous output (labelled as) z due to exogenous input signal w. For example, if the uncertainties are given by FT =W4 dt and uΔ= WΔ Δ yΔ, it is desired to find a controller that minimizes the maximum norm of closed-loop transfer function, H subjected to a parametric uncertainty bound of Δ

∞

≤ 1 . The Δ

25

is a diagonal additive uncertainty that is used to represent the error due to the linearization and ROV modeling:

⎡Δ 1 ⎢ Δ = diag{Δ i } = ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣

Δ2

⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ O ⎥ Δ6 ⎦

(57)

The procedure for designing a H ∞ [23,25] controller for the ROV RRC II is shown as follow. Consider a feedback system with diagonal additive uncertainty ΔA. The WΔ is a normalization weight for the uncertainty, Wd is a weight for the tether disturbance and W1 to W2 are performance weight. The generalized plant has inputs and outputs is derived as:

⎡ yΔ ⎡ uΔ ⎤ ⎢z ⎢ ⎥ w = ⎢ d t ⎥ ;z = ⎢ 2 ⎢ z1 ⎢u τ ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣v H

c

⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦

(58)

By writing down the equations or simply inspecting the Fig.16:

yΔ = WΔ u τ z 2 = W2 u τ

c

c

**z1 = W1Wd d t + W1u Δ + W1Gu τ VH = −Wd d t − u Δ − Gu τ
**

The generalized plant P from w to z has the form:

c

(59)

c

WΔ ⎤ 0 ⎡0 ⎢0 W2 ⎥ 0 ⎥ P=⎢ ⎢ W1 W1W2 W1G ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣− I − W4 − G ⎦

(60)

Note that the transfer function from uΔ to yΔ (upper left element in P) is zero because uΔ has no direct effect on yΔ (except through K). With that, to derive closed loop transfer function, H known as Linear Fractional Transformation (LFT), first partition the P to be compatible with K, that is:

26

**⎡0 P11 = ⎢ 0 ⎢ ⎢W1 ⎣
**

and then find

0 ⎤ ⎡ WΔ ⎤ 0 ⎥ ; P12 = ⎢ W 2 ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢W1G ⎥ W1W d ⎥ ⎦ ⎦ ⎣

; P21

= [-I

-W 4 ] ; P22 = − G

(61)

**H = Fl (P,K) using P11 + P12 K(I − P22 K)−1 P21 :
**

H = P11 + P12 K(I − P22 K)−1 P21

⎡− WΔ KS = ⎢ − W2 KS ⎢ ⎢ W1 S ⎣

where the sensitivity

**− WΔWd KS ⎤ − W2Wd KS ⎥ ⎥ W1Wd S ⎥ ⎦
**

and complementary sensitivity

(62)

S = (I + GK )

−1

T = GK (I + GK )

−1

.

The upper left block, H11 in (62) is the transfer function from uΔ to yΔ. This is the transfer function, for evaluating robust stability due to parametric uncertainty:

H 11 = −WΔ K(I + GK)−1

(63)

The weighting function is used to shape the sensitivity of the closed-loop system, H to the desired level. A typical type of performance function used is the low pass filter, high pass filter and a constant weight. The tuning of the weighting function, irrespective of the type used, is performed iteratively. The sequence is to tune the first entry of the weighting function so that the nominal performance is still enforced. Retain this value for the first entry and repeat the procedure for the second entry, and so on. W1. From the frequency response of the disturbance, the disturbance are dominant up to 100 rad/s. To reduce the disturbance up to this frequency, W1 is selected to be a high-pass filter at frequency range 100 rad/s onward. Different gains for each entry were selected, sequentially. W2. A low-pass filter was selected to shape the input sensitivity of the closed-loop system. A similar first-order low pass filter was used in each channel with a corner frequency of 0.1 rad/s, in order to limit the input magnitudes at high frequencies and thereby limit the closed-loop bandwidth. WΔΔ. A gain a low-pass filter was designed for shaping the additive uncertainty to the ROV and hence shaping the input sensitivity of the closed-loop system. It limits the size of the input to the ROV. Wd. The weight here was chosen to be sufficiently small in order to prevent the appearance of some badly damped modes in the closed-loop system due to disturbance.

27

One of the difficulties in advanced control techniques, based on optimisation, is the high order of the optimal controller. It is usually necessary to reduce the order of the controller so that it can be easily implemented. To determine the lowest possible controller order to be used, Hankel singular value [24] is applied to measure the state controllability and observability at different controller’s order . Hankel SVs for modal truncation are larger than those of the Schur balanced truncation which indicates that the former has better state controllability and observability properties than latter. In other words, the modal truncation contains more information than the Schur balanced truncation. It therefore seems to be preferable to use the modal truncation method. As result, the order of the controller has reduced from 54 to 20. In the S plots, the weighting function used has indeed shaped the sensitivity of the system below the 0-dB margin. Since the singular value of the sensitivity function is low, it shows that the closed-loop system with a disturbance signal has less influence on the system output. Conversely, a large value of S means the system has a poor stability margin. From the input sensitivity, KS plot, it can be seen the effect of the input disturbances is quite negligible on the ROV output. The KS after applying the shaping function is well below the margin of 0 dB. The robust stability due to parametric uncertainty as indicated in (35) is below the margin of 0 dB and hence is robust against parametric uncertainty.

8. COMPUTER SIMULATION RESULTS In this section, a comparison between the cascaded control of the PD-PD, PD − H ∞ controller and single loop PD were performed on the nonlinear model with the disturbances. By doing so, it tests the robustness of each controller against the parametric uncertainty and tether disturbance. As the vehicle is currently fitted only with limited sensors the desired position commands values,

[0

**0 0.5 1 0 0] are chosen with this purpose in mind. The constant parameters used for
**

T

PD controllers in PD − H ∞ cascaded control are: Kp= 50 KD=50 while constant parameters used for PD controllers in PD − PD cascaded control are: Kp= 50 KD=50. As observed in Fig. 17, the response is regulated about the desired position set points and its velocity components are small. This represents the station-keeping condition whereby the velocity is kept at zero while the position is allowed to vary. Note that the velocities and its corresponding positions are rearranged as the result of the Edmund’s scaling and re-ordering routine.

28

As shown in Table 2, the standard deviation of the ROV’s position for different controllers are illustrated. It is obvious to see that H ∞ − PD has a smaller standard deviation as compared to its counterparts LQG/LTR and the PD using the single-loop structure. Controller Type x(m) PD-H∞ PD-LQG/LTR PD only 0.0068 -0.0332 -0.0456 y(m) 0.6441 0.4394 1.2076 Standard Deviation z(m) 0.0652 -0.0880 1.0409

φ(rad)

0.0001 0.0690 0.0113

θ(rad)

0.0007 0.0108 0.0015

ψ(rad)

0.0019 -0.050 0.009

Table 2: Standard deviation of the ROV’s position 9. CONCLUSIONS The vehicle’s and thruster’s dynamic used for control system design were defined. The added mass coefficient due to the pressure-induced forces and moments caused by the submerged vehicle’s acceleration was derived using the Strip theory. The linear ROV model with the added mass components for the station-keeping condition was shown. The Edmunds scaling and reordering algorithm that enables a best choice of input and output pairs and a block diagonal dominance system was performed. Due to the roll and pitch motions of the ROV being self-regulating, only four degree of freedoms (DOF) were controlled instead of six. The cascaded form of control structure was defined. The H ∞ controller subjected to a pre-determined tether disturbance and parametric uncertainty was designed for the inner velocity control loop and the PD controller for the outer position control loop. The simulation test on the proposed proportional derivative (PD) with H ∞ cascaded control demonstrates a smaller standard deviation in output position as compared to the PD-linear quadratic gaussian with loop transfer recovery (LQG-LTR) and single-loop PD controller. Although the used of H ∞ and PD controller are not new in the current ROV control application, the cascaded structure with the pre and post compensators in the inner loop to obtain a more block diagonal dominance control have not been discussed. Thus, this paper provides an insight to the above.

29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions by all the project team members from NTU Robotics Research Centre especially Mr. Lim Eng Cheng, Ms. Agnes S.K. Tan, Ms. Ng Kwai Yee and Mr. You Kim San. REFERENCES 1. Healey, A.J. and Marco, D.B. Slow speed flight control of autonomous under vehicles: experimental results with NPS AUV II. Proceedings of the 2nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco, 1992, 523-532. 2. Lau, M.W.S., Swei, S.S.M., 2003, 343-358. 3. Smallwood, D. A. and Whitcomb, L.L. Model based dynamic positioning of underwater robotic vehicles: theory and experiment. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 2004, 29 (1). 4. Fossen, I. and Sagatun, S.I. Adaptive control of nonlinear systems: a case study of underwater robotic systems. Journal of Robotic Systems, 1991, JRS-8. 5. Kaminer, I., Pascoal, A.M., Silvestre C.J. and Khargonekar P.P. Control of an underwater vehicle using the h-infinity synthesis. Proceedings of the 30th Decision and Control, Brighton, England, 1991, 2350-2355. 6. Rodrigues, L., Tavares, P., and Prado, M. Sliding mode control of an auv in the diving and steering plane. In Proceedins of Ocean’96, Coastal Ocean Prospect for the 21st Century by the Marine Technical Society, 1996. 7. Chellabi, A. and Nahon, M. Feedback Linearisation of Undersea Vehicles. In Proceedings of OCEANS, 1995, 1410–1415. 8. Antonelli, G., Chiaverini, S., Sarkar, M. and West, M. Adaptive control of an autonomous underwater vehicle: experimental results on {ODIN}. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Sept. 2001, 9(5), 756-765. 9. Carvalho, J.L.M. Dynamical systems and automatic control, 1993, Prentice-Hall. 10. Fossen, T.I. and Fjellstad, O.E. Nonlinear modelling of marine vehicles in 6 degrees of freedom. Journal of Mathematical Modelling of Systems, 1 (1), 1995. 11. Fossen, T. I. Guidance and control of ocean vehicles, New York-Wiley, 1994. 12. Potter, M.C., Wiggert, D.C. Mechanics of fluids, 1991, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Conference on Seet, G.G.L., Low, E. and Cheng, P.L. Control of an underactuated remotely operated underwater vehicle. Proceeding of IMech Engineering,

30

13. Cheng, P.L.,

Lau,

M.W.S., Low, E., Seet, G.G.L.

Modeling of a thruster for an

underwater robotic vehicle. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology (UUST'99), Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute, New Hampshire, August 1999, 455-466. 14. Driscoll, R. and Nahon, M. Mathematical modeling and simulation of a moored buoy system. Proceedings of Oceans 96, 1996, pp 517-523. 15. Mclain, T.W. and Rock, S.M. Experimental measurement of ROV tether tension. In Proceeding of ROV 92, June1992, San Diego, C.A. 16. Sagatun, I. The Elastic Cable under the action of Concentrated and distributed forces, Journal of Offshore Mechanic and Arctic Engineering, Vol 123, pp 43-45, 2001. 17. Edmunds, J.M. Input and output scaling and reordering for diagonal dominance and block diagonal dominance. In Proc. of IEE, 1998, Part D(145), 523-530. 18. Patel, E.V. and Munro, N. Multivariable system theory and design. Pergamon Press, 1982, Oxford. 19. Strang, G. Linear algebra and its applications. 1976, Academic Press. 20. Mees, A. I. Acheiving diagonal dominance, System and Control Letters. 1(3). 21. Rosenbrock, H.H. Computer-aided control system design. 1974, Academic Press. 22. Koh, T.H., Lau, M.W.S., Low, E., Seet, G.G.L. and Cheng, P.L. Preliminary studies of the modeling and control of a twin-barrel underactuated underwater robotic vehicle. ICARCV, 2002, pp. 1043-1047. 23. Skogestard, S. and Postlethwaite, I. Multivariable feedback control analysis and design. John Wiley, 1995. 24. Glover, K. Optimal Hankel Norm Approximation of linear multivariable systems and the L∞ error bounds. International Journal of Control, 1984, 39, 1115-1193. 25. Zhou, K., Doyle, J. and Glover, K. Robust and optimal control. 1995, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 26. Munro, N., Edmunds, J.M., Kontogiannis and Impram, S.T. A Sequential loop closing approach to the ALSTOM gasifier problem. Proceeding of Institution of Mech. Engineering, Part I, Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 214, September 2000, 427-439.

31

FIGURES

surge vel(m/s) 0.5 0.4 0.3 -0.005 0.2 -0.01 0.1 0 -0.015 0 20 40 Time(sec) -0.02 nonlin lin 0.01 0.005 0

sway vel(m/s) nonlin lin 0.02

heave vel(m/s) nonlin lin

0.01

0

20 40 Time(sec)

0

0

20 40 Time(sec)

roll vel(rad/s) 0.1 nonlin lin 0.1

pitch vel(rad/s) nonlin lin 0.1

yaw vel(rad/s nonlin lin

0

0

0

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

-0.3

0

20 40 Time(sec)

-0.3

0

20 40 Time(sec)

-0.3

0

20 40 Time(sec)

Figure 11: Body velocity response using thruster input: T1 = T2 = 40V

(u o , vo , wo = 0.1m/s, po , qo , ro = 0.1rad/s )

32

5 0

x 10

-3

5 0

-5

x 10

-5

**Nyquist Diagram with Gershgorin Disk -5 -5 x 10 x 10 2 2 0 0
**

-5

4 2

x 10

-5

4 2

-7

x 10

-5

-5 x -5 10 2 0 -2 x -5 10 5 0 -5 x -5 10 2 0 -2 x -2 10 5 0 -5 x -5 10 1 0 -1 -2

0 x 10

-3

-5 x 5 -5 10 1 0

-3

0 x 10

-5

-2 x 5 -5 10 1 0

0 x 10

-5

-2 x 5 -2 10 2

-4

0 x 10

-5

0 x 2 -2 10 2 0

0 x 10

2

-4

0 x -2 10 2 0

-4

0 x 10

2

-4

-5

0 x 10

-5

-1 x 5 -2 10 5 0

-5

0 x 10

-3

-1 x 2 -2 10 1 0

-3

0 x 10

2

-5

0 x -5 10 2 0

-5

0 x 10

-4

-2 x 5 -5 10 1 0.5

-5

0 x 10

-7

-2 x 5 -5 10 2 0

-5

0 x 10

5

-4

-5

0 x 10

5

-5

-5 x -2 10 4 2

-3

0 x 10

2

-4

-1 x -2 10 2 0

-4

0 x 10

2

-3

-2 x -5 10 2 0

-3

0 x 10

5

-5

0 x -2 10 2 0

-6

0 x 10

2

-5

-2 x -2 10 5 0

-5

0 x 10

2

-5

-4

0 x 10

2

-5

0 x -5 10 2 0

-5

0 x 10

5

-3

-2 x -2 10 1 0.5

-4

0 x 10

2

-4

-2 x -2 10 5 0

-6

0 x 10

2

-3

-2 x -5 10 2 0

-4

0 x 10

5

-6

-5 x -2 10 2 0

-4

0 x 10

2

-4

-3

0 x 10

-2 x 5 -2 10 2 -4 0

-4

0 x 10

2

-5

0 x -2 10 1 0

-5

0 x 10

-5 x 2 -1 10 5 -4 0

-5

0 x 10

-2 x 1 -2 10 2 -5 0

-5

0 x 10

-2 2 -2 0.01 -4 0

0 x 10

2

-4

0 x 10

-2 2 -2

-3

0 x 10

-1 2 -1

-4

0 x 10

-5 1 -2

-5

0 x 10

-2 2 -2

-4

0 x 10

-0.01 2 -0.02

-5

0

0.02

Figure 12a: Direct Nyquist Array with Gershgoin disk before Edmunds scaling

**Nyquist Diagram with Gershgorin Disk 1 0 -1 -2 0.4 0.2 0 -1 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.05 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.05 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 2 -1 1 0 -1 1 -2 0.02 0 -0.02 0.05 -0.05 0.01 0 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.05 0 -0.05 0.05 -0.05 0.05 0 -0.05 0.05 -0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 -5 1 -0.01 0.1 0 -0.1 2 -0.1 1 0 -1 0.05 -2 0.1 0 -0.1 x 0.01-0.2 10 0 5
**

-3

x 10

-3

5 0 0

x 10

-3

0.02 0 -0.02 0 5 -0.05 0.01 -3 x 10 0 0 -0.01 0.05 -0.02 0.1 0 0 -0.1 0.5 -0.2 0.5 0 0

0.02 0 -0.02 0.05 -0.05 0.02 0 0 -0.02 -3 0.02 x 10 0 -0.02 2 0 -2 0.2 -2 0.01 0 0 x 10 2

-3

-5 0.01 -5 0.05 0

0

0.05

0

-0.05 0.1-0.05 0.2 0

0.02

0

-0.2 2 -0.5 1 0 -1 0.2 -2 0.05 0

0

0 2 -1 0.5 0

0

-0.01 1 -0.01 0

0

0.01

0 -5 0.05 -0.01 0.2 0 -0.2 0.05-0.2 0 0

-0.05 0.01 -0.05 1 0 -1 0.2 -1

0

-0.5 0.05 -1 0.5 0

0

-0.5 1 -1 0.5 0

0

1

0

-0.5 1 -0.5

0

-0.5 0.5 -1

0

1

Figure 12b: Direct Nyquist Array with Gershgoin disk after Edmunds scaling

33

**First diagonal dominance block
**

tau_c 4 1 p 0 -1 1 v 0 -1 2 q 1 0 2 u 1 0 -1 1 r 0 -1 1 w 0 -1 tau_c 2

**Command optimal thrust input (τc )
**

Step Response tau_c 6 tau_c 1 tau_c 5 tau_c 3

Output velocities (ν)

Second diagonal dominance block

0

1

2

3 0

1

2

3 0

1

2

3 0 Time (sec)

1

2

3 0

1

2

3 0

1

2

3

**Figure 13. Step responses after Edmunds scaling
**

Block Diagonal Dominance Measure of the System using min σ(G) 12 11 5 10 9 8 Gain Gain 7 6 2 5 4 3 2 -10 0 Frequency (rad/s) 10 10 0 -10 10

0

x 10

-4

6

x 10

-16

4

3

1

Frequency (rad/s) 10

Figure 14: Block diagonal dominance measure of the system before(left) and after(right) Edmunds scaling

34

Disturbance (tether) v u r w + + 1x1

Input

3x3 + ψ

z

PD

+

H∞

y x

E output matrix

y x

Decoupled ROV system (Post e × G × Pre e ) inner loop

ψ

z

outer loop

**Figure 15:Decoupled cascaded control structure design
**

H ∞ controller dt Wd FT

WΔ + -

uΔ

Δ

+

yΔ + + +

W2

z2

+ -

PD

K

uτ c

G

W1 z1 vH

E Output matrix

y Decoupled ROV (Post e × G × Pre e )

Figure 16: H ∞ block diagram with PD controller

35

surge vel(m/s) 0.6 PD-Hinf PD-LQG/LTR PD 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2

sway vel(m/s) 4 3 2 1 0

heave vel(m/s)

0.4

0

0 -0.2

-1 0 20 40 Time(sec) pitch vel(rad/s) 60 -2 0 20 40 Time(sec) yaw vel(rad/s 4 3 2 60

-0.2

0

20 40 Time(sec) roll vel(rad/s)

60

4 3 2 1 0 -1

4 3 2

1 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 20 40 Time(sec) 60 -2 0 20 40 Time(sec) 60

0

20 40 Time(sec)

60

surge pos(m) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1 0 20 40 Time(sec) roll angle(rad) 0.3 0.04 0.02 0.2 0 0.1 -0.02 -0.04 0 -0.06 -0.1 0 20 40 Time(sec) 60 -0.08 0 60 -0.1 0 PD-Hinf PD-LQG/LTR PD 0.3

sway pos(m) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2

heave pos(m)

0.2

20 40 Time(sec) pitch angle(rad)

60

0

20 40 Time(sec) yaw angle(rad

60

0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 20 40 Time(sec) 60 -0.08 0 20 40 Time(sec) 60

Figure 17: Position (top) and velocity (bottom) response using H ∞ − PD cascaded control

36

- Sstv Handbook
- 2291-Jornadas07 Velascof Def1
- IJEST11-03-02-206
- Article
- Apli Control Barcos
- Kewirausahaan Pengelolaan Usaha & Strateginya
- L10_12_Multi
- mantenimientoindustrial-vol4-correctivo
- Paper Colregs Camera
- Solidworks Flow Simulation 2012 Tutorial
- 3dem
- Curso de Ingles 1-2-3
- Vehicle Simulator Reference Manual
- Using Cfd Hydrodynamic Coefficents
- 446 Structure
- 439 Highspeed
- Sname 1950
- Robust Controller Design Method and Stability Analysis of an Underactuated Underwater Vehicle
- Robust Controller Design Method and Stability Analysis of an Underactuated Underwater Vehicle
- BrutzMan Dissertation
- 10.1.1.130.5096
- 8895451
- 75
- 206_Neves_Marcelo

- electrical
- 04 04 Unary Matrix Operations
- fea-mezzadri-web
- Hagen–Poiseuille Flow From the Navier–Stokes Equations - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- Aerodynamics-problems (Has 1.9)
- Exp 2
- Chapter 13 II Matrices Enhance
- Realization of Hardware Architectures for Householder Transformation based QR decomposition using Xilinx System Generator block sets
- Matrix Determinants
- Determinant
- Mws Gen Sle Bck Binary
- CS Practical File
- schlieren
- Normalization Cross Correlation Value Of
- Sistem Penunjang Keputusan
- Q6
- 04027562
- Broyden_A Class of Methods for Solving Nonlinear Simultaneous Equations
- egr537-lctrs
- Multigrid Method
- Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Observers
- FEM 1
- Surface Pressure and Aerodynamic Loads Determination of a Transonic Airfoil Based on Particle Image Velocimetry
- Teoria_Ingranaggi_Nasa_19900010277.pdf
- Answer Technique MM 2
- 10.1.1.12
- Observability of Systems Involving Flow Circulation_1996_IJMP_ragot
- 3dswirlvanes
- 1-s2.0-S0169743998001099-main
- 2412ijcsea01

Are you sure?

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

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

Get the full title to continue

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

scribd