IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO.
2, APRIL 2018
Identification of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
Hydrodynamic Model Using the Extended, Cubature,
and Transformed Unscented Kalman Filter
Mohammad Taghi Sabet, Hamidreza Mohammadi Daniali, Alireza Fathi
Abstract—Having an accurate mathematical model is essential
in design, control, and navigation process of an autonomous un-
derwater vehicle (AUV). Due to the modeling simplifications, the
available mathematical models suffer from the uncertainty of their
parameters and they usually need an identification phase for im-
proving the modeling accuracy. In case of AUVs, the hydrodynamic
coefficients of the model play an important role and they should
be identified using the available experimental data. In this paper,
a 6-DoF dynamic model of an AUV is presented and then some
of its parameters including viscous damping, the body lift, and
control input coefficients that have the highest effects on the mod-
eling error are identified by augmented state model method. The
extended Kalman filter (EKF), cubature Kalman filter (CKF), and
transformed unscented Kalman filter (TUKF) are used as the es-
timation filters. To verify and compare the three estimation filters
with consideration of the predetermined hydrodynamic coefficients
and spiral maneuver AUV results, these three methods are eval-
uated. The results indicate that the TUKF identifies the best hy-
drodynamic model due to solving both the CKF nonlocal sampling
problem and the EKF linearization problem.
Index Terms—Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), cuba-
ture Kalman filter (CKF), extended Kalman filter (EKF), system
identification, transformed unscented Kalman filter (TUKF).
I. INTRODUCTION
YSTEM identification and parameter estimation are strong
S techniques in developing an accurate mathematical dy-
namic model of a system using the experimental data. In marine
industry, establishing an identified dynamic model of a vehicle
is very important since the model can be applied in a variety
of applications such as control, navigation system, and optimal
design of a vehicle [1]–[3].
Many researchers have studied the model identification
and parameter estimation of autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs). Valeriano et al. [4] derived a dynamic model of the
Hydrographic Research Center (HRC)-AUV, based on low-cost
sensors and a set of low-cost experimental tests. The model
was evaluated by experimental data and a simplified version of
it was used for pitch, depth, and heading controls. Martin and
Whitcomb [5] presented a 6-DoF second-order nonlinear model
Manuscript received July 23, 2016; revised February 18, 2017 and February
24, 2017; accepted April 9, 2017. Date of publication May 16, 2017; date of
current version April 12, 2018. (Corresponding author: Alireza Fathi.)
Associate Editor: B. Bingham.
The authors are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nooshirvani
University of Technology, Babol 4714871167, Iran (e-mail: mohammadtaghi.
sabet@gmail.com; mohammadi@nit.ac.ir; fathi@nit.ac.ir; Alizadeh@nit.ac.ir).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JOE.2017.2694470
0364-9059 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
457
, and Ebrahim Alizadeh
of an AUV and its parameters were identified by open-loop ex-
perimental data. They used the ordinary least squares and the
total least squares (TLS) methods as the estimation algorithms
and showed that the TLS has a better performance. Xu et al. [6]
developed an identification method for modeling the nonlinear
dynamics of a typical torpedo-shape AUV. They used a hybrid
algorithm of least square (LS) and support vector machines
(SVM) in identification of Coriolis, centrifugal, and damping
coefficients by experimental data. Petrich et al. [7] presented
a fourth-order dynamic model for pitch motion. The dynamic
model was used to control the pitch and heave motions. The hy-
drodynamic coefficients were identified for designing a robust
and stable control, based on experimental data. Taubert et al. [8]
derived an accurate model of Cwolf AUV for designing a robust
and stable autopilot system. The damping parameters, Coriolis
and centrifugal forces, added mass, gravity, and buoyancy were
estimated by open-loop experimental tests and the identified
model was used in PID controller designing. Geng and Zhao [9]
assessed a dynamic model of an AUV in the horizontal plane and
an ARMAX model in the vertical plane. The identified model
was used in designing a model predictive controller and the con-
troller performance was evaluated by experimental tests of the
depth control. Rentschler et al. [3] studied the adaptive control
of Odyssey III AUV using the model identification method. Xu
et al. [10] derived a nonlinear and coupled dynamic model of
an AUV in the vertical plane. The hydrodynamic parameters of
mathematical model were estimated by the LS-SVM method
and obtained data from the numerical simulation. Sadeghzadeh
and Mehdigholi [11] calculated the hydrodynamic coefficients
of the SUT-2 AUV by using experimental tests. In these tests,
they used a scaled size of the SUT-2 AUV. The calculated hy-
drodynamic coefficients were applied in dynamic model and
controller design. Hegrenaes et al. [12] studied the model iden-
tification of HUGIN4500 AUV. The models were identified by
experimental data and LS estimation method and dynamic mod-
els were derived by estimation of hydrodynamic coefficients.
In online identification methods, the model parameters are
updated recursively. The KF and recursive least square (RLS)
methods are the most famous filters for online system identifi-
cation. In online identification methodologies, many simplifica-
tions such as linearity, assuming a two-dimensional (2-D) model
and gray box are included into the model [12], [14], [18]. Pin-
heiro and Barros [13] used EKF in estimation of hydrodynamic
coefficients of an AUV and the identified model was evaluated
458 IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO. 2, APRIL 2018

by experimental data. Pelevin [14] presented an identification

model for estimation of model parameters of a hydrographic
ship in disturbance environment. The vehicle model parameters
and disturbance were estimated by an RLS method. Tiano et
al. [15] derived a linear discrete model for an AUV. The KF
method was used for model identification. The identification
method was firstly evaluated based on simulated data of both
linear and nonlinear yaw dynamic of an AUV. Eng et al. [16]
studied the online and offline identification of a 2-D dynamic
model of an AUV in the horizontal plane. The usefulness of the
RLS method was shown by comparing the two methods in ex-
perimental tests. Yan et al. [17] identified a nonlinear model of
an AUV using a hybrid model of Propagation Error and extended Fig. 1. Schematic view of the AUV and its 6-DoF velocities in body frame.
instrumental variable. The recursive identification method was
evaluated by several online identification experiments. where c = cos (·) and s = sin (·). Also, ϕ, θ, ψ are rotation
The previous works reported the implementation of linear and angles about z-, y-, and x-axes, respectively.
nonlinear filters for identifying only a single or 3-DoF dynamic Using this rotation matrix, the representation of AUV velocity
model of an AUV, therefore these works cover a low number vector in this two reference frames are related with each other as
of identification parameters. Moreover the filters (such as EKF,
RLS, particle filter, unscented Kalman Filter (UKF), and, etc.,) ṗnb/n = Cnb (Θn b ) vb/n
b
(2)
suffer from linearization, nonlocal sampling (in high state-space
dimension) and negative semidefinite covariance matrix prob-
where vb/n
b
= [u, v, w]T and ṗnb/n = [ṗx , ṗy , ṗz ]T are the ve-
lems. In this paper, the hydrodynamic parameters of an AUV in- locity vector represented in the body-fixed frame and in the
cluding nonlinear damping, lift, and control surface parameters
NED reference frame, respectively [18] and [.]T denotes the
are estimated. Since the process is nonlinear and the estimated
transpose.
state-space dimension is very high, the nonlinear identification
Similarly, for the angular velocity vector, the body-fixed an-
techniques such as cubature Kalman filter (CKF) and trans- b
gular velocity vector ωb/n = [p, q, r]T and the Euler rate vector
formed unscented Kalman filter (TUKF) are examined. The
linearization, nonlocal sampling and negative semidefinite co- Θ̇n b = [ϕ̇, θ̇, ψ̇]T are related through a transformation matrix
variance matrix problems are resolved using the TUKF in this TΘ (Θn b ) according to [18] as
paper. The rest of paper is organized as the following. Section II
defines the equations of motion model of underwater vehicles. Θ̇n b = TΘ (Θn b ) ωb/n
b

Section III defines the identification method of the AUV hydro- 

dynamic coefficients and reviews solutions to the EKF, CKF, ⎡ ⎤
and TUKF problems. Section IV describes the simulation and 1 taθsϕ taθcϕ
⎢ ⎥
evaluation methodology used in this paper and simulation re- TΘ (Θn b ) = ⎣0 cϕ −sϕ ⎦ (3)
sults are presented in this section. Section V concludes and 0 sϕ/ cθ cϕ/ cθ
summarizes the paper.
II. AUV 6-DOF MANEUVERING MODEL where ta = tan (·). Based on (1)–(3), the 6-DoF kinematic
equation of the AUV can be expressed in the following combined
The main purpose of this paper is to develop a mathematical matrix form:
model for an AUV vehicle and investigate the versatility of three
different identification algorithms in estimation of its hydrody- η̇ = JΘ (η) v
namic parameters. Fig. 1 shows a schematic view of the AUV
and six independent generalized coordinates that are necessary 
for calculating AUV attitude and position [18]. In this figure,   
ṗnb/n Cnb (Θn b ) 03×3 vb/n
b
{b} and {n} are body and North–East–Down (NED) reference = (4)
frames, respectively. Θ̇n b 03×3 TΘ (Θn b ) b
ωb/n

A. AUV Kinematic Equation where η = [ pnb/n Θn b ]T is a translational and rotational posi-

Rotation matrix that relates two reference frames is essential
in kinematic analysis of the AUV. This matrix can be expressed
in terms of three rotation angles as the following:
⎡ ⎤
cθcψ −sψcϕ + cψsθsϕ sψsϕ + cψsθcϕ
⎢ ⎥
Cnb (Θn b ) = ⎣cθsψ cψcϕ + sψsθsϕ −cψsϕ + sψsθcϕ⎦
−sθ cθsϕ cθcϕ
(1)
tion vector.
B. AUV Kinetic Equation
The Newton–Euler method is used for deriving the equa-
tions of motion. The equations are derived in body-fixed frame
and they are categorized into translational and rotational mo-
tion equations. The vector forms of the equations are derived
SABET et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF AN AUV HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL USING THE EXTENDED, CUBATURE, AND TUKF 459

TABLE I TABLE II
INTRODUCTION OF THE FORCE MATRICES AND VECTORS IN (8) INTRODUCTION OF THE COEFFICIENTS

Force Matrices and Vectors Description Coefficients Units Description

M = MR B + MA Added mass and rigid body inertial matrix X u̇ , Y v̇ , Z ẇ kg Added mass coefficients
C (v) = C R B (v) + C A (v) Added mass and rigid body Y ṙ , Z q˙ kg·m/rad
Coriolis-centripetal matrix K p˙ , M q˙ , N ṙ kg·m2 /rad
D (v) Damping matrix M ẇ , N v̇ kg m
g(η ) Restoring forces and moments
X u |u | , Y v |v | , Z w |w | kg/m Damping matrix coefficients
τ = τlift + τc o ntro l + τp ro p u lsio n Control inputs, lift, and propulsion force
Y r |r | , Z q |q | kg·m/rad2
vector
K p |p | , M q |q | , N r |r | kg·m2 /rad2
M w |w | , N v |v | kg
as [19] Yu r l , Zu q l kg/rad Lift vector coefficients


 Yu v l , Zu w l kg/m
m v̇b/n
b b
+ ω̇b/n ×rbg +ωb/n
b
×vb/n
b b
+ωb/n × ωb/n
b
×rbg = fbb Mu q l , Nu r l kg·m/rad
Mu w l , Nu v l kg
(5)
Yu u δ r , Zu u δ e kg/(m·rad) Control inputs vector coefficients

 Mu u δ e , Nu u δ r kg/rad
Ib ω̇b/n
b b
+ωb/n × Ib ωb/n
b
+mrbg × v̇b/n
b b
+ωb/n ×vb/n
b
= mbb
Xp ro p u lsio n N Propulsion vector force and moment
(6) Kp ro p u lsio n N·m

where, fbb = [Xforce , Yforce , Zforce ]T is the force vector, mbb =

[Km om ent , Mm om ent , Nm om ent ]T is the moment and rbg =
[xg , yg , zg ]T is the center of mass with respect to a body-fixed
coordinate system.
The above kinetic equations that’s right can be represented as
[18], [19]
MRB v̇ + CRB (v) v = τRB
τR B = τhy d + τhs + τcontrol + τpropulsion
where MR B and CR B (v) are the rigid body inertial matrix and
Coriolis and centrifugal matrix, respectively. v = [ vb/n
b b
ωb/n ]T
is the velocity vector and τRB is a generalized vector of exter-
nal forces and moments. The external forces and moments are
decomposed into the hydrodynamic (added mass and viscous
damping), hydrostatic, control inputs, and propulsion forces.
According to Fedyaevsky and Sobolev model [20], and as it
was shown in [18] and [19], the dynamic model of an AUV is
derived with hypothesis of small velocity as
MRB v̇ + CRB (v) v + MA v̇ + CA (v) v + D (v) v
and buoyancy), hydrostatic (weight and buoyancy), hydrody-
namic (added mass, damping), lift and control input). Some of
these parameters can be computed theoretically with a good ac-
curacy (mass, moment of inertia, geometry (center of gravity
and buoyancy), hydrostatic (weight and buoyancy) and added
mass) [21] while the others cannot. For example Humphreys
and Watkinson [22] showed that the added mass forces can be
(7) calculated by theoretical method up to 95% accuracy. Analyz-
ing the state space, (9) reveals that 22 parameters (damping, lift,
and control input coefficients are listed in Table II) cannot be
computed theoretically and they should be identified using the
experimental data.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUV HYDRODYNAMIC
COEFFICIENTS
The augmented state model method is used for the estimation
of hydrodynamic coefficients. In this method, each of these co-
efficients is considered as an augmented state in the equations of

  
  state. Because of the quasi-stationary assumption, the hydrody-
rigid−b o dy forces hydro dynam ic forces
namic coefficients are regarded as constant, therefore the time
+ g (η) =τ derivation of these augmented state variables is considered to

  be zero. The equation of augmented state can be represented as
hydrostatic forces

Mv̇ + C (v) v + D (v) v + g (η) = τ. (8) f (x, Ω, u, ξ)  T
ẋa = fa (x, Ω, u, ξ) = , xa = x Ω
The coefficient matrixes of this relation are shown in Table I. 022×1
The coefficient matrixes of (8) depend on some unknown
ya = Ha xa + ζ. (10)
parameters, which are listed in Table II. These parameters should
be identified using the experimental data. In this equation, xa is the augmented state space that can
According to the AUV kinematic and kinetic motion equa- be categorized to nine state variables of the AUV dynamic
tions, the AUV dynamic model can be represented as the fol- x = [ u v w p q r ϕ θ ψ ]T and 22 state variables Ω22×1 (the
lowing state-space equation hydrodynamic coefficients for estimation). u and ya are control
 
v̇ M−1 (τ − C (v) v − D (v) v − g (η)) inputs and measurement model, respectively. ξ and ζ are the dy-
= . (9) namic model and the measurement model noises, respectively.
η̇ JΘ (η) v
The doppler velocity log (DVL), gyroscope, and attitude head-
This model that has the gray box structure includes many pa- ing reference systems (AHRS) are necessary for estimation of
rameters (mass, moment of inertia, geometry (center of gravity these coefficients. According to the given description, the dy-
460 IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO. 2, APRIL 2018


namic and measurement model of the estimation algorithms can My = −(zG W−zB B) sin θ − (xG W − xB B) cos θ cos ϕ
be represented as (11) and (14).
The dynamic model for AUV identification is represented as +Mw |w | |w| w+Mq |q | |q| q+(Mu w l +Xu̇ −Zẇ ) uw
⎡ ⎤ ⎡  ⎤ +(Mu q l − Zq̇ − mxG ) uq + (mxG − Nv̇ ) vp
u̇ F
⎢ ⎥  x
⎢ v̇⎥ ⎢ F ⎥ +mzG (vr − wq) + [(Iz z − Ixx ) + Kṗ − Nṙ ] rp
⎢ ⎥ ⎢  y ⎥
⎢ ẇ⎥ ⎢ Fz ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢  ⎥ +Mu u δ e u2 δe
⎢ ṗ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 
Mx ⎥ 
⎢ q̇⎥ ⎢ ⎥ Mz = (xG W − xB B) cos θ sin ϕ + (yG W − yB B) sin θ
⎢ ⎥ = M−1 ⎢ 
M y ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ +ξ.
⎢ ṙ⎥
a
⎢ M z ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ + Nv |v | |v| v + Nr |r | |r| r + (Nu v l + Yv̇ − Xu̇ ) uv
⎢ ϕ̇⎥ ⎢p+tan (θ) sin (ϕ) q+tan (θ) cos (ϕ) r⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ θ̇⎥ ⎢ cos (ϕ) q − sin (ϕ) r ⎥ + (Yṙ + Nu r l − mxG ) ur + (Mẇ + mxG ) wp
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ψ̇⎦ ⎣ sin (ϕ)/cos (θ) q+cos (ϕ)/cos (θ) r ⎦ + myG (wq − vr) + [Mq̇ − Kṗ + (Ixx − Iy y )] pq
Ω̇22×1 022×1
(11) + Nu u δ r u 2 δ r . (13)
    
 In (11), parameters F x , F y , F z , M x , M ,
y and
Also, the measurement model (DVL, gyroscope and AHRS
Mz are total forces and moments and Ma is the rigid body
models) is expressed as
and added mass inertial matrix. The detailed expressions of
   T
these forces, moments and inertial matrix can be shown as (12), ya = I9×9 09×22 × u v w p q r ϕ θ ψ ΩT22×1 + ζ.
shown at the bottom of the page, and (14)
 Three state estimation algorithms, the EKF, CKF, and TUKF
Fx = −(W − B) sin θ + Xu |u | |u| u + (m − Yv̇ ) vr are used for estimation of hydrodynamic coefficients. In this
section, these three algorithms are described.
+ (Zẇ −m) wq−myG pq−mzG pr+(Zq̇ +mxG ) q 2
+ (mxG − Yṙ ) r2 + XPropulsion A. Extended Kalman Filter

Fy = (W − B) cos θ sin ϕ + Yv |v | |v| v + Yr |r | |r| r KF is the most famous filter among the estimation filters. This
filter is an optimal estimator for linear systems with Gaussian
+ Yu v l uv + (Yu r l + Xu̇ − m) ur + (m − Zẇ ) wp distribution and white noise [23]. Based on time priority and
 
− (Zq̇ + mxG ) pq − mzG qr + myG p2 + r2 posteriority, the KF has two time steps. At the first time step,
called the prediction (time update) step, the state variables x− ak ,
+ Yu u δ r u2 δr
 and the error covariance matrix P− ak are predicted by using es-
Fz = (W − B) cos θ cos ϕ + Zw |w | |w| w + Zq |q | |q| q timated state variables x+a k −1 and error covariance matrix P +
a k −1
on the previous step and based on the dynamic model. At the
+ Zu w l uw + (m + Zu q l − Xu̇ ) uq second time step, called the measurement update (time update)
+ (Yv̇ − m) vp + (Yṙ − mxG ) rp − myG rq step, the state variables x+ a k and the error covariance matrix
  P+ are updated by updated measurements yk . If the dynamic
+ mzG q 2 + p2 + Zu u δ e u2 δe ak
 or measurement model or both of them are nonlinear, the KF
Mx = (yG W − yB B) cos θ cos ϕ + (zG W − zB B) cannot be used for state estimation. In these cases, the EKF
is used for state estimation. In the EKF, the dynamic and the
× cos θ sin ϕ + Kp|p| |p| p + myG (uq − vp) measurement models need not be linear functions of the state
+ mzG (ur − wp) + (Iy y − Iz z ) qr + Kpropulsion but at each time step the Jacobian matrix of the nonlinear func-

⎡ .. ⎤
m − Xu̇ 0 0 0 mzg −myg .
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ 0 m − Yv̇ 0 −mzg 0 mxg − Yṙ . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ 0 0 m − Zẇ myg − (mxg + Zq̇ ) 0 . 06×22 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ −mzg Ix − Kṗ ⎥
Ma = ⎢ 0 myg 0 0 . ⎥ (12)
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ mzg 0 − (mxg + Mẇ ) 0 Iy − Mq̇ 0 . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ −my mx − N Iz − Nṙ ⎥
⎢ g g v̇ 0 0 0 . ⎥
⎢ ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ⎥
⎣ ⎦
..
022×6 . I22×22
SABET et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF AN AUV HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL USING THE EXTENDED, CUBATURE, AND TUKF 461

tions are used in the EKF. This process essentially linearizes

the nonlinear function around the current estimation [24]. In the
identification problem of the AUV hydrodynamic coefficients,
the dynamic model is nonlinear but the measurement model is
linear. The prediction step is presented as
 tk
−
 
xa k = xa k −1 +
+
f a x+
a k −1 , uk −1 dt
t k −1

P−
ak ≈ Φa k P+
a k −1 Φa k
T
+ Qa k dt (15)
where dt is the time step, and Φa k is the state transition matrix
of the discrete time augmented state-space system. The state
transition matrix is calculated as
Φa k = eA a dt ≈ I + Aa dt (16)
where Aa is the state matrix of the linearized continuous system Fig. 2. AUV path to identify the hydrodynamic coefficients.
as the following:
⎡ ⎤
 ∂f ∂f
∂fa  TABLE III
Aa = = ⎣ ∂x ∂Ω ⎦ . (17) NAVIGATION SENSORS SPECIFICATIONS
∂xa x a =x +a 0 0 x =x +
k −1
a a k −1
Sensor type Specifications Accuracy Measuring rate
According to (14), the measurement model is linear and there-
fore, the measurement update step is similar to that in KF and 3DM-GX3-25 (Accelerometer) Bias stability error ±0.003 g 100 Hz
3DM-GX3-25 (Gyroscope) Bias stability error 0.2 °/s 100 Hz
can be presented as Teledyne WHN300 (Speed DVL) Velocity accuracy 0.1 cm/s 7 Hz
 −1 HMC1001 (Magnetometer) Angle accuracy –1.5° ∼ +1.5° 10 Hz
Ka k = P− −
a k Ha Ha Pa k Ha + Ra
T T

−
 −

a k = xa k + Ka k ya k − Ha xa k
x+
In the Bayes filter, the posterior probability density function
−
P+
a k = (I − Ka k Ha ) Pa k (18) (PDF) of states is a description of the states in the time tk −1 .
In this filter, the posterior PDF is updated in two steps by re-
where Ha = [ I9×9 09×22 ] is the measurement matrix, Ra is ceiving new measurements in the time tk . Two time steps of the
the measurement covariance matrix, and Ka k is the Kalman Bayes filter with Kushner approximations and Gaussian density
gain matrix. Higher order terms of the Taylor series expansion assumptions are presented as follows [33]:
of (16) are ignored in the EKF for simplification, however, they Prediction: In the prediction step, the predicted mean x− k and
are effective in filter application [25]. In EKF method, the fil- the predicted covariance P− of the states are calculated as the
k
ter tuning and the state estimation can be hard for a process following:
with a high degree of nonlinearity and the state estimation algo-
rithm can diverge due to the linearization errors [26]. The EKF x−
k = E [ xk | Dk −1 ]
pseudocode is presented in Table A1 of Appendix A. 
 
= f (xk −1 , uk −1 ) × N xk −1 ; x+
k −1 , Pk −1 dxk −1
+
B. CKF and TUKF Based on Bayes Filter Rn x
(20)
The UKF [27] decreases the linearization errors of the EKF
but it suffers from computational complexity [28] and therefore
it cannot be applicable for high dimensional problems [29]. The where N(xk −1 ; x+k −1 , Pk −1 ) is a Gaussian PDF with the mean
+

CKF [30] is a nonlinear estimation filter that has been developed x+k −1 and the covariance Pk −1 , E is the expected value and
+
k −1
for state estimation of high dimensional nonlinear problems Dk −1 = {ui , yi }i=1 is the input and the measurement pair vec-
[31]. The nonlocal sampling problem occurs in CKF algorithm tor from time t1 to tk −1 .
   
when the state dimension is very high [32]. In those cases, TUKF
 − T
[32] is used, which eliminates the nonlocal sampling problem P−
k =E xk − x −
k x k − x k  y 1:k −1
of CKF. 
The dynamic and measurement model of a discrete time sys- = f (xk −1 , uk −1 ) f T (xk −1 , uk −1 )
tem can be represented as Rn x
  − −T
xk = f (xk −1 , uk −1 ) + ξk −1 × N xk −1 ; x+
k −1 , Pk −1 dxk −1 − xk xk + Qk −1
+

(21)
yk = h (xk , uk ) + ζk (19)
where x is the state variable, u is the control input, and ξ and ζ where nx is the number of states and Qk −1 is the covariance
are the model and measurement noises, respectively. matrix of the dynamic model noise.
462 IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO. 2, APRIL 2018

Fig. 3. Estimation of viscous damping coefficients (dash-dot, dash, solid-thin, and solid-thick diagrams are TUKF, CKF, and EKF, and predetermined values
(True), respectively).

Update: In the update step, the updated mean x+ k and the

and yk− :
updated covariance P+
k of the states are calculated as

 
  yk− = h (xk , uk ) × N xk ; x− −
k , Pk dxk (25)
x+
k = x−
k + K k yk − yk− (22) Rn x

−  
P+
k = Pk − Kk Py Kk
T
(23) Py = h (xk , uk ) hT (xk , uk ) × N xk ; x− −
k , Pk dxk
Rn x
Kk = Pxy P−1
y (24)
− yk− yk− + Rk
T
(26)

 
where yk− is the predicted measurement, Kk is the Bayes filter Pxy = xk hT (xk , uk ) × N xk ; x− − − −T
k , Pk dxk −xk yk
gain, Py is the covariance matrix of the predicted measurement Rn x
(yk− ), and Pxy is the cross covariance matrix between the x−
k
(27)
SABET et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF AN AUV HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL USING THE EXTENDED, CUBATURE, AND TUKF 463

TABLE IV
PERCENTAGE OF THE STEADY-STATE ERROR AND THE ROOT MEAN SQUARE
ERROR OF ALL OF THE COEFFICIENTS

The root mean square error Percentage of the steady-state error

EKF CKF TUKF EKF CKF TUKF

X u |u | 0.0201 0.0186 0.01235 0.3692 0.0408 0.0324

Y v |v | 36.83 34.68 35.32 5.926 2.094 2.721
Y r |r | 23.81 21.54 20.13 7.407 3.535 3.334
Z w |w | 32.55 17.25 10.08 4.754 0.2887 0.1083
Z q |q | 39.46 17.20 9.328 7.438 1.468 1.305
K p |p | 1.524 0.47 0.5764 2.904 0.4046 0.0688
M q |q | 554.2 236.0 208.0 6.559 1.079 0.8796
M w |w | 2.184 0.9551 0.7588 14.81 0.8398 0.6413
N r |r | 148.6 90.80 35.37 0.3014 0.5914 0.3182
N v |v | 1.559 0.5494 0.2604 9.941 1.641 0.2140
Yu r l 3.438 1.058 1.007 3.672 2.486 0.1160
Yu v l 1.843 0.8573 0.8508 6.622 1.829 1.112
Zu q l 10.86 5.546 3.266 5.128 1.772 0.7841
Zu w l 4.685 1.710 0.8295 6.723 0.1577 0.06394
Mu q l 48.65 23.21 12.50 3.768 0.8225 0.7027
Mu w l 12.27 5.640 2.996 1.124 0.3012 0.1396
Nu r l 6.654 2.913 1.837 2.082 0.4209 0.1326
Nu v l 7.801 3.673 1.243 5.454 2.466 0.0906
Yu u δ r 1.786 0.7973 0.6349 18.74 7.927 0.3985
Zu u δ e 12.76 6.357 3.211 9.603 5.822 3.254
Mu u δ e 6.806 2.814 1.352 4.954 3.318 0.3217
Nu u δ r 1.278 0.2226 0.2216 5.571 0.6216 0.1396
Average 6.064 1.815 0.7672
CPU time (s) 3.543 75.897 77.328

where Rk is the covariance matrix of the measurement model

noise.
The Bayes filter is not limited to the linear system; it can be
used for nonlinear dynamic systems as well. However, the basic
problem of the filter appears by solving the multidimensional
integrals in (20), (21), and (25)–(27). Fig. 4. Estimation of control input coefficients (dash-dot, dash, solid-thin,
With a Gaussian assumption, the multidimensional integrals and solid-thick diagrams are TUKF, CKF, and EKF, and predetermined values
in the Bayes filter can be represented as (True), respectively).

f (x) e−x x dx.
T
I (f ) = (28)
Rn x The integrals in (20), (21), and (25)–(27) are calculated with
The integrals can be solved by a numerical method as a the set of cubature points and weights {μi , αi } [34]. Parameter
weighted sum of functions as [1]i is the ith column of the [1] matrix as
 

m
[1] = In x ×n x , −In x ×n x n x ×2n x . (32)
I (f ) ≈ αi f (xi ) (29)
i=1 Numerical solution of the Bayes filter integrals by using cu-
where xi and αi are a set of quadrature points and weights, re- bature points was called CKF. The pseudocode of the CKF is
spectively, and m is the number of points. Therefore, the solving presented in Table A2 of Appendix A.
of the integrals depends on calculating the quadrature points xi The distance
√ of the weighted points from the mean is propor-
and weights αi . In the CKF, the number of points is twice the tional to nx + κ in a problem with nx state [32]. Parameter
number of state variables (m = 2nx ). κ is equal to 3 − nx in conventional UKF. For nx > 3, param-
In this method, the multidimensional Gaussian integral in eter κ is negative, and therefore, the weight of the mean point
(28) is calculated as [30], [31] α0 = κ/(nx + κ) becomes negative and consequently the cal-
 culated covariance matrix will be negative semidefinite. For
m
κ = 0, the UKF method converges to the CKF, and therefore,
IN (f ) = f (x) N (x; 0, I) dx ≈ αi f (μi ) (30)
Rn x the CKF is a special case of UKF with κ = 0 [35]. The dis-
i=1
tance of the cubature points from the mean is proportional to
√
where nx in the CKF. With increasing the state variables, the dis-

m 1 tance becomes too large and the nonlocal sampling problem
μi = [1]i , αi = , i = 1, 2, ..., m = 2nx . (31) occurs [32], [35]. Both the nonlocal sampling problem and the
2 m
464 IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO. 2, APRIL 2018

Fig. 5. Estimation of body lift coefficients (dash-dot, dash, solid-thin, and solid-thick diagrams are TUKF, CKF, and EKF, and predetermined values (True),
respectively).

negative semidefinite covariance matrix problem are modified TABLE V

COMPARISON OF MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR BETWEEN SIMULATION VELOCITY
by the transformation of the CKF sampling points in the TUKF. AND MEASUREMENT VELOCITY FOR EKF, CKF, AND TUKF ×10 −4
According to previous
 comments, the cubature points are de-
fined as μi = m/2[1]i , therefore, the set of cubature points
Parameter Units EKF CKF TUKF
can be represented as
u m/s 1740 1420 1379
μ = [μ1 , μ2 , ..., μ2n x ] . (33) v 87 23.7 22
w 25 10 9
In the TUKF, the CKF cubature points transform to the new p Rad/s 20 14 10
sampling points with transformation matrix T as q 16 14 10
r 18 13 11
δ = Tμ = [δ1 , δ2 , ..., δ2n x ]
TTT = In x ×n x (34)
tained by numerical simulation of the AUV dynamic model
where,
√ δi = [δi,1 , δi,2 , ..., δi,n x ], i =√1, ..., 2nx with δi,2j −1 =
using predetermined values for model parameters. In this step,
2 cos (2j − 1)((kπ)/nx ), δi,2j = 2 sin (2j − 1)((kπ)/nx ),
it is assumed that the AUV maneuvers with 3.9 m/s velocity on
j = 1, 2, ..., [nx /2]. If nx is odd, δi,n x = (−1)i .
a spiral trajectory in the lateral and vertical planes. Fig. 2 shows
The pseudo code of the TUKF is presented in Table A2 of
the maneuvering trajectory.
Appendix A.
The gyroscope, speed sensor (DVL), magnetometer, and ac-
celerometer (for AHRS algorithm to generate the Euler angles)
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS are simulated by the output of the AUV simulation. The accuracy
In this section, the results of implementing three estimation range of the sensors according to the catalogue of commercial
filters (i.e., EKF, TUKF, and CKF) for identifying an AUV sensors are presented in Table III. Using the output of these
dynamic model are presented. The identification data are ob- sensors and hydrodynamic coefficients estimation method, ten
SABET et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF AN AUV HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL USING THE EXTENDED, CUBATURE, AND TUKF 465

Fig. 6. Comparison of the performance of the TUKF, CKF, and EKF identified model and the measurement velocities.

viscous damping coefficients, eight body lift coefficients and
four control input coefficients are estimated. All coefficients are
initialized zero.
The identified results of viscous damping coefficients are
presented in Fig. 3 and Table IV. According to this figure, for
most of the coefficients, TUKF and CKF present superior results
in comparison with those for EKF. The observed weakness of
EKF in these results is due to the linearization error. Since the
EKF filter utilizes the first term of the Taylor series expansion
(linearization), it cannot identify the model parameters of a
system with a high degree of nonlinearity. The estimator filter
must be appropriate for at least three orders of the degree of
nonlinearity.
In Figs. 4 and 5, estimation of control input and body lift coef-
ficients are shown, respectively. Similar to the viscous damping
coefficients, EKF has the lowest accuracy in comparison to CKF
and TUKF. The identification error is because of the lineariza-
tion errors.
Table IV illustrates the identification results for all of the
model coefficients. The results show that the average percent of
steady state error in the model coefficient estimates from EKF,
CKF, and TUKF are about 6.064, 1.815, and 0.767, respectively.
This means that the TUKF has the best accuracy.
From the computational complexity and CPU time point of
view, the EKF has lowest time, which is 3.543 s while it is 75.8
and 77.3 s for CKF and TUKF, respectively. The magnitude
466 IEEE JOURNAL OF OCEANIC ENGINEERING, VOL. 43, NO. 2, APRIL 2018

order of CPU time in EKF is much lower than the others, which
means this algorithm can be implemented more easily than the
others. But the CPU time in CKF and TUKF methods does not
have a significant difference.
Fig. 6 illustrates the numerical simulations of the identified
models. The simulation results are presented as the translational
and rotational velocities in body coordinate representations. The
mean absolute errors of these simulations are summarized in
Table V. As this table shows, TUKF has smaller error compared
to the two other methods and therefore the identified model by
the TUKF filter has better accuracy. Moreover it can be con-
cluded the identified model with the CKF has a lower bounded
error, while according to Fig. 6 and Table V, the steady-state
error of velocities (especially translational velocities) and root
mean square error are larger in the EKF compared with the two
other methods.
In Fig. 6 and Table V, the output velocities of the simulation
are corrupted by sensor errors that are presented in Table III.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the identification of a 6-DoF dynamic model
of an AUV using EKF, CKF, and TUKF has been studied. The
identified parameters are 22 unknown coefficients including the
hydrodynamic of viscous damping, body lift, and control input
coefficients. Simulation results clearly show that these nonlinear
filters could accurately estimate the hydrodynamic coefficients.
Among these three methods, the TUKF and CKF present supe-
rior results in comparison with the EKF. Moreover it was shown
that TUKF algorithm improves the nonlocal sampling problem
of CKF method and has better prediction accuracy while their
CPU times are almost the same.
APPENDIX A
Pseudocodes of EKF, CKF, and TUKF are represented in
Tables A1 and A2.

TABLE A1
PSEUDOCODE OF EKF

x− − − − T
The initialization of the state variables and covariance matrix a 0 = E[x a 0 ], P a 0 = E[[x a 0 − x a 0 ][x a 0 − x a 0 ] ]
1) Prediction (Time Update)
 tk
Predicted estimation of the augmented state variables x− +
a k = x a k −1 + t k −1 f a (x +
a k −1 , u k −1 ) dt
Predicted estimation of the error covariance matrix P− +
a k ≈ Φ a k P a k −1 Φ a k + Q a k dt
T
∂f ∂f
∂ fa
State transition matrix of continuous time system Aa = ∂ x a |x a = x + = [ ∂ x ∂ Ω ]x = x +
a k −1 0 0 a a k −1
State transition matrix of discrete time system Φ a k = e A a d t ≈ I + A a dt
2) Update (Measurement Update)
Innovation or measurement residual ya k − H a x−ak
Innovation or residual covariance Ha P− a k Ha + Ra
T

Filter gain Ka k = P− −
a k H a (H a P a k H a + R a )
T T −1

− −
Updated estimation of augmented state variables x+a k = x a k + K a k (y a k − H a x a k )
−
Updated estimation of error covariance matrix P+
a k = (I − K a k H a )P a k

TABLE A2
PSEUDOCODE OF CKF AND TUKF

x− − − − T
The initialization of the state variables and covariance matrix a 0 = E[x a 0 ], P a 0 = E[[x a 0 − x a 0 ][x a 0 − x a 0 ] ]

1) Prediction (Time Update)

Factorize (Cholesky factorization) P+ + +
a k −1 = S a k −1 (S a k −1 )
T
+ + +
Cubature points of the CKF χi , a = x a k −1 + S a k −1 μ i
k −1
Transformed cubature points of the TUKF χ+ = x+a + S+ a k −1 δ i
 t kk −1
i,a k −1
Propagation of sampling points χ−
i,a k = χ+
i , a k −1 + t f a (χ +
i,a , u k −1 ) dt
k −1 k −1
2 n
ax
Predicted estimation of the augmented state variables x−
ak =
1
2n a x χ−
i,a
i= 1 k
2 n
ax
χ− (χ −
T
Predicted estimation of the error covariance matrix P−
ak = 1
2n a x i,a k i,a k ) − x−
ak (x −
a k ) + Q a k dt
T
i= 1
2) Update (Measurement Update)
Factorize (Cholesky factorization) P− − −
a k = S a k (S a k )
T

Predicted estimation of the cubature points χ−

i,a k = x −
a k
+ S −
a k i
μ
Predicted estimation of the transformed cubature points χ− − −
i , a k = xa k + Sa k δi
Propagation of sampling points Υ− i,a = Ha χ− i,a
k k
2 n
ax
Measurement predicted estimation y a−k = 1
2n a x Υ−
i,a
i= 1 k
2 n
ax
Υ− (Υ −
T
Innovation or residual covariance Py a = 1
2n a x i,a k i,a k ) − y a−k (y a−k ) T + R a k
k
i= 1
2 n
ax
χ− −
T
Estimation of cross covariance Px a ya = 1
2n a x − x−
i , a (Υ i , a )
ak (y a−k ) T
k k k k
i= 1
−1
Filter gain Ka k = Px a y a Py a
k k k
− − −
Updated estimation of augmented state variables x+
a k = x a k + K a k (y a k − H a x a k )
+ −
Updated estimation of error covariance matrix P a k = P a k − K a k P y a K Ta k
k
SABET et al.: IDENTIFICATION OF AN AUV HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL USING THE EXTENDED, CUBATURE, AND TUKF
REFERENCE
[1] Ø. Hegrenaes and O. Hallingstad, “Model-aided INS with sea current
estimation for robust underwater navigation,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 36,
no. 2, pp. 316–337, Apr. 2011.
[2] L. Paull, S. Saeedi, M. Seto, and H. Li, “AUV navigation and localization:
A review,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 131–149, Jan. 2014.
[3] M. E. Rentschler, F. S. Hover, and C. Chryssostomidis, “System identifica-
tion of open-loop maneuvers leads to improved AUV flight performance,”
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 200–208, Jan. 2006.
[4] Y. Valeriano-Medina, A. Martinez, L. Hernandez, H. Sahli, Y. Rodrı́guez,
and J. R. Cañizares, “Dynamic model for an autonomous underwater
vehicle based on experimental data,” Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst.,
vol. 19, pp. 175–200, 2013.
[5] S. C. Martin and L. L. Whitcomb, “Experimental identification of six-
degree-of-freedom coupled dynamic plant models for underwater robot
vehicles,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 662–671, Oct. 2014.
[6] F. Xu, Z.-J. Zou, J.-C. Yin, and J. Cao, “Identification modeling of under-
water vehicles’ nonlinear dynamics based on support vector machines,”
Ocean Eng., vol. 67, pp. 68–76, 2013.
[7] J. Petrich, W. L. Neu, and D. J. Stilwell, “Identification of a simplified
AUV pitch axis model for control design: Theory and experiments,” in
Proc. OCEANS, 2007, pp. 1–7.
[8] R. Taubert, M. Eichhorn, C. Ament, M. Jacobi, D. Karimanzira, and
T. Pfuetzenreuter, “Model identification and controller parameter opti-
mization for an autopilot design for autonomous underwater vehicles,” in
Proc. OCEANS -TAIPEI, 2014, pp. 1–9.
[9] T. Geng and J. Zhao, “Modeling and identification of autonomous under-
water vehicle for advanced control,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Model. Identifica-
tion Control, 2012, pp. 624–630.
[10] F. Xu, Z.-J. Zou, J.-C. Yin, and J. Cao, “Parametric identification and
sensitivity analysis for autonomous underwater vehicles in diving plane,”
J. Hydrodyn., Ser. B, vol. 24, pp. 744–751, 2012.
[11] B. Sadeghzadeh and H. Mehdigholi, “Identification of underwater vehicle
hydrodynamic coefficients using model tests,” in Proc. ASME Int. Mech.
Eng. Congr. Expo., 2010, pp. 165–173.
[12] O. Hegrenses, O. Hallingstad, and B. Jalving, “Comparison of mathemat-
ical models for the HUGIN 4500 AUV based on experimental data,” in
Proc. Symp. Underwater Technol. Workshop Sci. Use Submarine Cables
Related Technol., 2007, pp. 558–567.
[13] A. R. M. Pinheiro and E. Apolonio De Barros, “Identification of hydro-
dynamic derivatives from AUV “Pirajuba” using extended Kalman filter,”
in Proc. Symp. Comput. Autom. Offshore Shipbuilding, 2013, pp. 11–16.
[14] A. Pelevin, “Identification of vehicle model parameters under external
disturbances,” Gyroscopy Navig., vol. 6, pp. 143–148, 2015.
[15] A. Tiano, R. Sutton, A. Lozowicki, and W. Naeem, “Observer Kalman
filter identification of an autonomous underwater vehicle,” Control Eng.
Pract., vol. 15, pp. 727–739, 2007.
[16] Y. H. Eng, K. M. Teo, M. Chitre, and K. M. Ng, “Online system identi-
fication of an autonomous underwater vehicle via in-field experiments,”
IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–17, Jan. 2016.
[17] Z. Yan, D. Wu, J. Zhou, and L. Hao, “Recursive subspace identification of
AUV dynamic model under general noise assumption,” Math. Problems
Eng., vol. 2014, 2014, Art. no. 547539.
[18] T. I. Fossen, Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Con-
trol. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011.
[19] T. Fossen and A. Ross, “Nonlinear modelling, identification and control
of UUVs,” IEE Control Eng. Ser., vol. 69, 2006, Art. no. 13.
[20] K. Fedyaevsky and G. Sobolev, Control and Stability in Ship Design,
Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1964.
[21] T. T. J. Prestero, “Verification of a six-degree of freedom simulation model
for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle,” M.Sc. thesis, Dept.
Ocean Eng., Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, Dept.
Mech. Eng., Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst., Woods Hole, MA, USA, 2001.
[22] D. Humphreys and K. Watkinson, “Prediction of acceleration hydrody-
namic coefficients for underwater vehicles from geometric parameters,”
Defense Tech. Inf. Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA, DTIC Document
ADA057218, 1978.
[23] R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction prob-
lems,” J. Basic Eng., vol. 82, pp. 35–45, 1960.
[24] R. Bucy, “Nonlinear filtering theory, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-
10, no. 10, pp. 198–198, Apr. 1965.
[25] G. Chowdhary and R. Jategaonkar, “Aerodynamic parameter estimation
from flight data applying extended and unscented Kalman filter,” Aerosp.
Sci. Technol., vol. 14, pp. 106–117, 2010.
467
[26] G. Chowdhary and R. Jategaonkar, “Aerodynamic parameter estimation
from flight data applying extended and unscented Kalman filter,” in Proc.
AIAA Atmos. Flight Mech. Conf., Keystone Colorado, Aug. 21–24, 2006,
18 pages.
[27] S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “Unscented filtering and nonlinear estima-
tion,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 401–422, Mar. 2004.
[28] D. Simon, Optimal State Estimation: Kalman, H Infinity, and Nonlinear
Approaches. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2006.
[29] J. Uhlmann, S. Julier, and H. Durrant-Whyte, “A new method for the non
linear transformation of means and covariances in filters and estimations,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 477–482, Mar. 2000.
[30] I. Arasaratnam, “Cubature Kalman filtering theory & applications,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Dept. Elect. Comput. Eng., Mcmaster Univ., Hamilton, ON,
Canada, 2009.
[31] I. Arasaratnam and S. Haykin, “Cubature Kalman filters,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1254–1269, Jun. 2009.
[32] L. Chang, B. Hu, A. Li, and F. Qin, “Transformed unscented Kalman filter,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 252–257, Jan. 2013.
[33] H. J. Kushner, “Approximations to optimal nonlinear filters,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. AC-12, no. 5, pp. 546–556, Oct. 1967.
[34] I. Arasaratnam, S. Haykin, and T. R. Hurd, “Cubature Kalman filtering for
continuous-discrete systems: theory and simulations,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4977–4993, Oct. 2010.
[35] L. Chang, B. Hu, A. Li, and F. Qin, “Unscented type Kalman filter:
limitation and combination,” IET Signal Process., vol. 7, pp. 167–176,
2013.
Mohammad Taghi Sabet was born in Mahmudabad,
India, in 1988. He received the M.S. degree in me-
chanical engineering from the Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2012. He is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in mechanical en-
gineering at Noshirvani University of Technology,
Babol, Iran.
His research interests include automatic sys-
tems, AUVs, navigation strategies, and system
identification.
Hamidreza Mohammadi Daniali received the
Graduate degree in from Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, in 1986. He received the
M.S. degree in from Tehran University, Tehran, Iran,
in 1989 and the Ph.D. degree in from McGill Univer-
sity, Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1995, all in mechanical
engineering.
He is currently a Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Noshirvani University of
Technology, Babol, Iran. His research interests in-
clude robotics, theoretical kinematics, and parallel
Machine Tools.
Alireza Fathi received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. de-
grees in mechanical engineering from the Sharif Uni-
versity of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 1999, 2001,
and 2006, respectively.
He is currently an Associate Professor in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Noshir-
vani University of Technology, Babol, Iran. His re-
search interests include laser material processing, ap-
plied optimization, system identification, and process
Control.
Ebrahim Alizadeh received the M.S. degree from
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran, in 2006,
and the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from
University of Mazandaran, Babol, Iran, in 2010.
His current research interests focuses on the ocean
engineering and autonomous vehicles.