Robust Localization of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle: A
Comparative Study
Spandan Roy, Sambhunath Nandy, Member, IEEE, Sankar Nath Shome, Member, IEEE, Ranjit Ray,
Member, IEEE
Abstract— The highly non-linear and coupled dynamics of
AUVs, added with modeling errors, parametric uncertainty
and payload variations depending on application requirements
challenge efficient control of AUV. Environmental hazards
such as ocean currents sometimes dominate and make the
control of underwater systems even more complicated. The
proposed control technique addresses the design of a robust
controller for AUVs incorporating the effects of above
uncertain paradigms within known bounds. Noise present in
practical navigational sensors degrades the performance of the
controller. Sensor fusion technique is adopted to limit this
performance degradation. Performance of the controller is
verified using the real-life parameters of an operational AUV,
developed at CSIR-CMERI considering a few uncertainties.
I. INTRODUCTION
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles are unmanned robotic
system with on-board power source and necessary
intelligence to perform need based survey applications. With
scientific and technological advancement, AUVs have
attracted attention of scientific community over last two
decades to a host of issues including design, control,
communication and autonomy etc.
Due to inherent highly non-linear and time-varying
coupled dynamics of AUV, modeling difficulties for
uncertain hydrodynamic parameters, variation of center of
mass (COM) for addition of payloads for different
applications, uncertain operating condition and external
disturbances (such as ocean currents) make AUV controller
design highly challenging. These complexities restrict the
satisfactory performance of AUVs with controllers based on
linear control theory. Implementing feedback linearization
based control law is quite difficult as it requires exact
knowledge of the hardware parameters of the system such as
mass, inertia, centre of mass, center of buoyancy etc. Real
life physical systems like AUVs always possess bounded
uncertainty in parameters to some extent, causing inexact
cancellation of nonlinearities.
To tackle the controlling difficulties of AUVs two
commonly practiced advanced control strategies are adaptive
Spandan Roy is engaged as Scientist Trainee at Robotics & Automation
Lab., CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur,
India (phone: +918981467353; e-mail: sroy002@gmail.com).
Sambhunath Nandy is engaged as Principal Scientist at Robotics &
Automation Lab., CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute,
Durgapur, India (e-mail: snandy@cmeri.res.in).
Sankar Nath Shome is engaged as Chief Scientist & Head at Robotics &
Automation Lab., CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute,
Durgapur, India (e-mail: shomecmeri@gmail.com).
Ranjit Ray is engaged as Senior Scientist at Robotics & Automation
Lab., CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur,
India (e-mail: ranjitray@cmeri.res.in).
control and robust control. Cristi and Healey [1] proposed a
model based adaptive controller assuming the vehicle is
almost linear within the operating region. A recursive least
square method for parameter estimation and pole placement
technique for controller development are used. Fossen and
Sagatun [2] used adaptive control with online estimation of
uncertain parameters. Choi &Yuh [3] developed and
implemented a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) adaptive
controller with bounded estimation. Antonelli et al. [4]
proposed an adaptive control law considering the effect of
hydrodynamic parameters on the tracking performance.
Though adaptive control has the advantage over robust
control techniques due to the fact that it can work efficiently
with little or without any prior knowledge on the bounds of
the uncertainty but the calculation of the unknown parameters
online is computationally very intensive.
Considering the above scenario it is therefore needed to
apply some robust control techniques with the prior
knowledge of the bound in uncertainties. One of the most
powerful robust control techniques that many researchers
have adopted is the sliding mode control. Yoerger and Slotine
[5] designed a sliding mode control neglecting the cross
coupling terms to provide robustness against the uncertainties
caused by hydrodynamic coefficients. Healey and Lienard [6]
proposed a sliding mode control where the sliding surfaces
have been designed using state variable errors rather than
output errors, separating the whole system into non-
interacting or lightly interacting subsystems for designing
separate autopilots for separate subsystems. Cristi et al. [7]
proposed adaptive sliding mode control based on the
linearized dynamics of AUV around the operating condition
citing linear model as a good approximation of non-linear
dynamics at constant speed. Lee et al. [8] proposed a discrete
time quasi sliding mode control where sampling time is large
and claimed for betterment in performance when sampling
time grows larger. One disadvantage of sliding mode
approach is the increase of chattering effect due to increase in
switching gain. Chattering may give rise to high frequency
unmodelled dynamics. Also higher bound estimation again
requires higher control inputs, thus creates the possibility of
actuator saturation. Time delay control technique does not
require the bound estimation. Kumar et al. [9] exploited this
control methodology for trajectory tracking of AUV where
knowledge of coriolis and centripetal matrix, hydrodynamic
coefficients are not required for the controller. The controller
directly estimates the uncertainties from the time delay
technique. But in this case the error dynamics exponentially
converges to the estimation error. This control approach is
unable to eliminate this approximation error.
 In this article, a robust control and time delay control positive stability of the vehicle. 3D modeling helped in
methodology has been used for trajectory tracking of AUV. evaluating various parameters at the very outset of the design
This robust control methodology takes care of the parameter process. Thrusters and navigational / payload sensors and
uncertainties, payload variation (sensor system for various other devices were judiciously mounted on AUV-150 so that
applications), and variation in hardware parameters (inertia, centre of gravity always remained below the centre of
center of mass etc.) within a predefined bound. This control buoyancy. The evaluated difference of more than D/10 in the
methodology cancels the estimated error using switching vertical plane ensured static stability of the vehicle. Even in
control logic. The robust control methodology is further practice, AUV-150 remained highly stable against roll
augmented with sensor fusion to achieve better positional disturbances when subjected to high ocean currents during
estimation leading to efficient localization of the AUV. The the sea trials. Salient developmental details are reported by
performance of the controller has been verified through Shome et al. [11-13].
rigorous simulation utilizing the parameters of a developed
AUV for 150m depth.
The chronology of the paper is as follows: Section II
presents brief design and dynamics of the AUV-150 and
subsequent conversions of dynamics for the proposed
controller. Section III presents mathematical aspects of time
delay and robust control methodology in the perspective of
AUV. Simulation results and analysis is presented in section
IV with comparison between various methodologies and
Section V concludes the paper with a few interesting
remarks.
II. BRIEF DESIGN ASPECTS AND DYNAMICS OF AUV-150
As a mechatronic system, an AUV consists of many types
of interconnected mechanical/electrical/electronic Figure 1. Modular AUV-150 with Coordinate frames
components and devices. A holistic approach based on
simultaneous or concurrent design for electromechanical Kinematic and dynamic modeling of the system was
systems is followed in the present design process. Due to its carried out considering all the acting forces while the AUV
autonomous behavior, an AUV operates underwater without operated under water. The equation of motion of six degrees
human intervention. The resident software codes together of freedom autonomous underwater vehicle in body
with necessary algorithms makes the vehicle smart enough to coordinate frame as reported by [14].
take its own decisions even if obstacles are encountered
while operating under water. Pressure hulls are designed to Mν + C( ν ) ν + D( ν ) ν + g( η) = τ (1)
house on-board energy, electronic and electrical devices in
designated protected dry space with arrangement for charging where,
the power system without disassembling.
M  66 = M RB  M A , C( ν )  66 = CRB ( ν ) + CA ( ν ),
Keeping reconfigurable modular structure in mind, AUV-
150, as shown in Fig.1 was divided into six modules – i) D( ν )  66 = DL ( ν) + DQ ( ν ), η  61 = [ x y z    ]T ,
Nose module, ii) Thrust module-1, iii) Power module, iv)
Thrust module-2, v) Computation module and vi) Tail ν  61 = [u  w p q r ]T .
Module. The modularity in mechanical design provided
& represent the rigid body and added mass matrices
scope of easy accessibility of the internal items, and to that
extent simplified the maintenance requirements. The modular respectively. & are the rigid body and added coriolis
design also introduced a good degree of flexibility of and centripetal matrices respectively. & represent the
reconfiguring the system rapidly depending on the task linear and quadratic drag matrices. The gravity and buoyancy
requirement, as addition or replacement of payloads could be force vector is represented by g ( η) and vector τ represents
executed rapidly with due dexterity. the input forces and moments. The linear positions and Euler
In addition to sensor based data collection, AUV-150 was angles expressed in inertial reference frame are denoted by η ,
supposed to perform seabed mapping and data collection, while ν represents the linear and angular velocity vector
which in turn demanded repeated hovering of AUV-150 at expressed in body coordinate frame. Linear and angular
specific operational depths. The complexity involved in velocities represented in both the frames are correlated by the
actuation with fins or control-planes was obviated through kinematic transformation of the form:
the use of tunnel thrusters, which provided effective control
of the AUV owing to their reversible thrust characteristics. η = J(η)ν , (2)
Four tunnel thrusters were used for the purpose to provide
sway, heave, pitch and yaw motions, while the main thruster where, J(η) = diag{J 1 (η), J 2 (η)} is the Jacobian matrix.
provided the surge motion in the forward direction. Differentiation of (2) gives,
Therefore, control was implemented for the said five degrees
of freedom while roll motion was prevented by ensuring the
 η = Jν  J ν,
 ε(t )  H1 (t )  H1 (t  td ). 13)
(3)
 - J ν).
 ν = J 1 (η Let us define the error vectors such that
e1 (t ) = η (t )  η d (t ), (14)
The dynamic equation given by (1) is expressed in inertial e 2 (t ) = η (t )  η (t ),
d
(15)
frame utilizing (2) and (3) as follows: d
M(η)η  + C(ν , η)η + D(ν, η)η + g(η) = τ , (4) here, η (t ) represents the reference trajectory which is to be
where, tracked. The auxiliary control input u is selected as:
 1 , M = J T MJ 1 , D = J T DJ 1 , u (t )  
η d  K 1e 1  K 2 e 2 , (16)
C = J T [C  MJ 1 J]J
where,
g = J T g, τ = J T τ. K 1  diag {12 ,  22 ,  , 62 } and K 2  diag {21 , 2 2 ,  , 26 }.
Equation (4) can be compactly written in the following form: The gain matrix = [ ] determines the exponential
M(η)η  + H ( ν , η) = τ , (5) error convergence. The natural frequency ′s for i  1, , 6
with, determines the rate at which the tracking error decreases.
H ( ν , η)  C(ν , η)η + D(ν , η)η + g(η). Considering = [ ] as state vector equations, from (9),
H( ν, η) represents the nonlinear function associated with the (11) and (16) we get,
nonlinearities due to coriolis, centripetal and damping  ˆ ˆ )  Mˆ 1
e  K e  K e  M 1 (H  H
1 1 2 2 1 1 ε. (17)
forces. Rewriting (5) in a modified form as follows: From (17) it is evident that the error dynamics exponentially
  + β(η)τ ,
η = f(η, η) (6)
approaches towards the approximation error ε(t ) . So, the
where, β(η)  M 1 (η), and f(ν, η)
  β(η)H( ν, η ). error dynamics gets affected by the approximation error.
III. CONTROLLER DESIGN B. Design of Robust Outer Loop Control (ROC)
A. Time Delay Control Design Considering the transformed dynamics of the AUV given
in (6), a robust control method based on the Second Method
Time delay control (TDC) [10] is one of the efficient non of Lyapunov [15] is adopted. The control law is designed
linear control methods that cancel the unknown dynamics and choosing the form of the input torque vector as follows:
unexpected disturbances of the system by direct estimation of
a function that represents the combined effect of all the ˆ η)
τ = bˆ 1 (η)(u + f(η,  ), (18)
uncertain terms using observed information of immediately
past state information and current control inputs. The here, bˆ , fˆ represents the nominal values of the matrices b, f
uncertainties due to modeling error, external disturbances as respectively.
well as parameter variations due to inclusion of various The bounds are chosen from the known bound of the
payloads to the AUV-150 are assumed to be bounded and parameters and model uncertainty. Considering the nonlinear
reflected through control law given by (18), the system described by (6) is
transformed into the following form:
ˆ (7)
M : M( η)  M( η),  ˆ f.
η  bbˆ 1 (u + f) (19)
H : H(q,q )  Hˆ (q,q ). (8) ˆ η)
Substituting f(η,   b(η)H
ˆ ˆ ( η, η ) into (19) with some
ˆ manipulation it is obtained:
M and Ĥ are the nominal values of M and H respectively.
M and H represent the perturbation terms. For TDC η  u + (bbˆ 1  I)u + b(H
 ˆ  H)
added mass terms are included in M [9]. The AUV  u + (bbˆ 1  I)u + bΔH
dynamics in (5) can be written in the following manner:
 η  u  ξ, (20)
Mˆ ( η)   H ( ν, η) = τ
η  Mη  1
(9) where, ξ  Γu  bH with Γ  (bb  I).
ˆ ( η)
M η  H1 ( ν, η) = τ , The uncertainty vector ξ(η, η , u) depends on bounds on the
where, mass matrix, coriolis, centripetal, and drag matrices,
H 1 ( ν , η)  H ( ν , η)   M . (10) evolution of the states and the input to the system.
The control input is selected as Equations (14) and (15) are written in the following state-
ˆ (t )u  H ˆ (t ). space form
τ (t )  M 1 (11)
where, u is the vector of auxiliary control input and
e = Ae  B{u  ξ  
ηd }, (21)
ˆ (t )  H (t  t ) for delay time t . With a very small time where,
H
e 
1 1 d d
0 I  0
delay the following approximation can be made, A=  , B =   , e   1  . (22)
H1 (t  t d )  H1 (t ), (12) 0 0 I  e 2 
Infinite sampling frequency can make approximation To ensure stability and to obtain robust performance, it is
error to zero. But practically an approximation error will essential to feed additional control input into the system. The
always persist. Let the approximation error be
following structure of the control law is selected to track the  (BT Pe)
 (e, t ) T if BT Pe  0
desired trajectories ηd (t ) : u   (B Pe) , (29)
u  
ηd  K1e1  K 2 e2  u, (23) 
0 T
if B Pe  0

The extra corrective term u is chosen to overcome the
where, P is the unique positive-definite symmetric matrix
effects of uncertainty caused by the parameter variations.
which is the solution of the Lyapunov equation:
Substituting the control law given by (23) into (21), the error
dynamics takes the following form: AT P  PA  Q,
e = Ae  B{u  ξ}, (24) with Q is a symmetric positive-definite matrix.
It is assumed that, a time bounded continuous function
where, ξ  (u   ηd  Ke)  bH , A  A  BK and A is  (e, t ) satisfies the following two inequalities,
Hurwitz.
u   (e, t ), (30)
The key feature of this control formulation lies in the
elimination of the parameter ξ from the knowledge of the ξ   (e, t ). (31)
‘worst case’ bounds on parameter variations with the help of Using the assumptions and the above inequalities the value
the term from the available information. Following of  (e, t ) is constructed accordingly:
assumptions are made to estimate the worst case bounds on
ξ   ( u  
ηd  Ke)  b H
the function ξ(η, η , u) .
Assumption-1. As time propagates the desired trajectory   (e, t )     K  e  b γ
ηd (t ) and its derivatives remain bounded and smooth having :  (e, t ),
the properties: with, 0    1 the value of γ is evaluated as:
sup ηd    , (25) 1
t 0  (e, t )  {  K  e  b γ(t )}. (32)
where,  is a known value over the time t. 1 
Assumption-2.It is assumed that the variation in the inertia For (32) to have a solution,   1 condition is needed to be
matrix M is mainly due to the variation in payload, variation satisfied that augments Assumption-2. Establishment of
of the gravity centre and inertia due to higher payload and Assumption-2 also provides the stability of TDC [9].
also due to change in the added mass coefficients by the However, the control law introduced in (29) causes
mass variation. The inertia matrix obeys the following bound chattering due to the presence of discontinuity in the control
law and can excite high frequency unmodelled dynamics.
Γ  bbˆ 1  I    1, for all η  6 . (26)
Introducing an error bandwidth in the control law it is
Assumption-3. Exploring the structure of the individual converted into a continuous domain and as a result the
terms that constitute H and using the above assumptions, a chattering effect is eliminated. The formulation of the
function of the state variables and known values is found modified control law is described below.
such that Theorem- 2: The system given by equation (6) is uniformly
H  γ(t ), (27) ultimately bounded (u.u.b.) (proof is provided in [15])
where γ is bounded in t. using the control law represented by (23) if the additional
control input u is chosen in the following manner:
From Assumption-2 a range of perturbation on the mass
matrix is evaluated given the nominal values of system  (BT Pe)
 (e, t ) if BT Pe  
hardware parameters based on the following derivation.  (BT Pe)
u   . (33)
Let us take, b  bˆ + Δb where, is the perturbation in b̂ .   (e, t ) BT Pe T
 if B Pe  
So, 
bbˆ 1  I  (bˆ + Δb )bˆ 1  I  I  Δbbˆ 1  I  Δbbˆ 1 . The control laws are verified utilizing the parameters of a
From Assumption-2, it can be written real AUV designated as AUV-150 and developed at CSIR-
CMERI, Durgapur as presented in the subsequent section.
  Δbbˆ 1  Δb bˆ 1  1,
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
 Δb  1 / bˆ 1 . (28)
The performance of the proposed control laws are verified
Considering these assumptions corrective term u is chosen while AUV-150 follows specified path/trajectory. Keeping in
to tackle the uncertainties as provided below. mind that the basic application of AUV-150 is to survey
Theorem-1: The system given by (6) is globally attempt has been made to follow a special type of trajectory
asymptotically stable (proof is provided in [15]) using the namely, lawn-mower motion at a certain depth. The control
control law represented by (23) if the additional term Δu is inputs provided through directional thrusters to follow the
chosen in the following manner: paths are in the form of voltage, which are easily perceived.
Voltage requirement for each propeller node is calculated
transforming the torque available from controller into
corresponding thruster voltages from the manufacturer
datasheet. The controller parameters are chosen as
K 1  diag{4, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4} ; K 2  diag{4, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4};
t d  50ms ;   0.425 ;   0.1.
The reason behind choosing the controller gains as above
is to achieve a critically damped performance for the nominal
system. The fourth term of the gain matrices is kept as zero
as there is no active control for roll compensation of AUV-
150.The parametric deviations in payload, inertia and gravity
center are given in Table-II while Table-I reflects the
corresponding nominal values. Nominal values of
hydrodynamic coefficients and knowledge of the uncertainty Figure 3. Desired lawn mower trajectory
bounds are required for ROC but not for TDC. Based on
these parameter variations / uncertainties, the AUV-150 is
directed to move through predefined path and the respective
simulated performances are presented.
To the best knowledge of the author, literature does not
provide any analytical solution till now for a lawn mower
path. Lawn mower trajectory can be thought to be a mixture
of a square wave and a sinusoid wave. But square wave is
discontinuous at the turns and sinusoid wave gets narrower at
the peaks. So, we propose an approximated lawn mower
trajectory with the following definition:
xd (t )  0.2at  a sin(0.2t ), yd (t )  b cos(0.1t ), zd (t )  75, d (t )  0, d (t )  0,
8  sin(n / 4)  sin(3n / 4) Figure 4. Desired heading for lawn mower path
 d (t )  
 n 1,2, n2
sin(0.1nt ),

here, a and b are the two parameters which govern the width
and height of the lawn mower trajectory respectively. For
simulation the value of these two parameters are chosen as
= 2 and = 15.
The variations in parameters are chosen to be sinusoidal
(absolute value)(Fig. 2) e.g., the overall system mass vary
over time from the nominal mass to the varying augmented
mass (nominal mass with sinusoidal varying payload), to
verify the performance of the controller over varying
uncertainties within any value between the maximum and
minimum values of the parametric variation. The initial
position of the AUV-150 is selected as Figure 5. Path error comparison for lawn mower trajectory
η 0  [0 15 75 0 0 0]T . Fig. 3 illustrates the desired lawn
mower path to be followed with a desired heading depicted in
Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows the path error plots under two different
controllers ROC and TDC. The attitude error ( , , ) plots
are demonstrated through Fig. 6 to Fig. 8.

Figure 6. Roll error comparison

From the error plots it is quite evident that ROC performs

Figure 2. Sinusoid (absolute value) payload variation
better than the TDC. Fig. 6 demonstrates that the rolling error
is not fully compensated as AUV-150 does not have any
active control for roll. But as the system is highly coupled,
the rolling motion gets affected and also affects other degrees
of freedom. Better performance of ROC in position, pitch and
heading control helps to lower the rolling error compared to
TDC. Though TDC does not require the knowledge of the
bounds but for designing of controller it has to satisfy the
same parametric deviation bound like ROC given in
Assumption-2. TDC works on the principle that within the
sampling time the parametric variations do not vary rapidly.
The value of limits the performance of TDC as it cannot
be infinitesimally small due to sensor and system delay.
Figure 7. Pitch error comparison
Figure 8. Heading (yaw) error comparison
A. A Note on Practical Issues
It is of particular interest to have accurate knowledge of
the vehicle position while carrying out predefined task.
AUV-150 carries a number of navigational sensors. For
proprioceptive navigational sensors e.g. inertial navigational
sensor (INS) the sensor noise propagates very fast. Thus
controller performance gets deteriorated. So, there is a need
to periodically correct the INS data. For this purpose we take
the help of an exteroceptive sensor e.g. Forward Looking
SONAR (FLS) and use the data of the INS and FLS
synergistically using sensor fusion technique. Let & be
the standard deviation of INS and FLS respectively. If
Φ and Φ be the sensor reading of INS and FLS
respectively then we can have the following estimate using
sensor fusion:
2 the parametric uncertainty and other disturbances within a
ˆ  2  12
  1  2 (34)
 12   22  12   22
With help sensor fusion the effective standard deviation of
the estimated value has the following form
 32  ( 12   22 ) 1 (35)
FLS determines the position of the vehicle from the known
position of some landmarks/beacons kept around the
surveying area a priori. The scenario is shown in Fig. 9,
where the red dots are the landmarks/beacons. For
simulation purpose the standard deviations are chosen as
=0.1 and =0.2. To incorporate the effect of ocean
current a zero mean white Gaussian noise of variance 0.003
was also included in simulation. It is quite clear from (35)
that is lesser than both and . This argument is
proved through Fig. 10 where absence of sensor fusion
degrades the performance of the controller where sensor
noise and effect of ocean current is incorporated. Path error
decreases fairly when ROC is augmented with sensor fusion
even disturbance and noise.
The entire methodology of robust localization of AUV-
150 consisting of ROC with embedded sensor fusion as
discussed above is represented through Fig.11.
Figure 9. Desired lawn mower trajectory with landmarks/beacons
Figure 10. Effect of sensor fusion on path error
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper a robust control strategy has been adopted
for trajectory tracking and localization of the AUV-150 and
compared with time delay control methodology. It is
evidenced that ROC performs better than the TDC. The
switching control law present in the proposed methodology
is responsible for providing the necessary robustness against
predetermined bound. This bound is needed to be satisfied
for the efficient working of the controller. The performance
of the controller has been verified using numerical
simulation with the real life parameters of AUV-150. The
sensor fusion technique is implemented with data from
proprioceptive (INS) and exteroceptive (FLS) sensors. It is
apparent from simulation results that control strategy
augmented with sensor fusion minimizes path error leading
to better localization of the vehicle.
 Figure 11. Schematic representation of robust localization of AUV-150

[6] A. J. Healey, and D. Lienard, “Multivariable sliding mode control

APPENDIX for autonomous diving and steering of unmanned underwater
vehicles,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., vol. 18, 1993, pp. 327-339.
TABLE I. NOMINAL PARAMETER VALUES [7] R. Cristi, F. A. Papoulias, and A. J. Healey, “Adaptive sliding
m mode control of autonomous underwater vehicles in diving
xG yG zG Ix Iy Iz  X u Yv plane,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., vol. 15, 1990, pp. 152-160.
kg kg-m2 kg
m m m kg-m 2
kg-m2 kg [8] P. M. Lee, S. W. Hong, Y. K. Lim, C. M. Lee, B. H. Jeon, and J.
490 0 0 0.012 17.1 632 630 49 836 W. Park, “Discrete time sliding mode control of an autonomous
underwater vehicle,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., vol. 24, 1999, pp.
388-395.
TABLE II. PARAMETER VARIATIONS
[9] R. P. Kumar, A. Dasgupta, and C. S. Kumar, “Robust trajectory
control of underwater vehicles using time-delay control law,”
Parameters Circular trajectory Ocean Eng., vol. 34, 2007, pp. 842-849.
100abs(sin0.2t) [10] T. C. Hsia, and L.S.Gao, “Robot manipulator control using
m
decentralized linear time-invariant time-delayed joint controllers,”
xG 0.4abs(sin0.2t) in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation,vol. 3, 1990,
0.018abs(sin0.2t) pp. 2070-2075.
yG [11] S. N. Shome, S. Nandy, S. K.Das, D. Pal, and B. Mahanty,
zG 0.015abs(sin0.2t) “Autonomous Underwater Vehicle for 150m Depth–Development
Phases and Hurdles Faced,” Trends in Intell. Robotics, Commun.
I x 8abs(sin0.2t) in Computer and Inf. Sci., vol. 103, 2010, 49-56.
[12] S. N. Shome, S. Nandy, D. Pal, S. K. Das, S. R. K. Vadali, J.
I y 20abs(sin0.2t) Basu, and S. Ghosh, “Development of modular shallow water
AUV: Issues & trial results,” J. Inst. Eng. (India): Series C, vol.
I z 35abs(sin0.2t)
93, 2012, pp. 217-228.
X u 3abs(sin0.2t) [13] S. N. Shome, S. Nandy, S. K. Das, D. K. Biswas, and D. Pal,
“AUV for shallow water applications – some design aspects,” Int.
Yv 50abs(sin0.2t) Offshore (Ocean) and Polar Eng. Conf. ISOPE-2008, Vancouver,
BC, Canada, July, 2008.
[14] T. I. Fossen, Guidance and control of Ocean Vehicles. John Wiley
The parameter nomenclature and units are according to [14]. & Sons, 1994.
[15] M. W. Spong and M. Vidyasagar, Robot dynamics and control.
John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Cristi, and A. J. Healey, “Adaptive identification and control of
an autonomous underwater vehicle,” in Proc. 6th Int. Symp.
Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology, 1989, pp. 563-
572.
[2] T. I. Fossen, and S. I. Sagatun, “Adaptive control of nonlinear
under-water robotic systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics
and Automation, Sacramento, California, 1991, pp. 1687-1695.
[3] S. K. Choi, and J. Yuh, “Experimental study on a learning control
system with bound estimation for underwater vehicles,” Int. J.
Autonomous Robots, vol. 3, 1996, pp. 187-194.
[4] G. Antonelli, F. Caccavale, S. Chiaverini, and G. Fusco, “A novel
adaptive control law for underwater vehicles,” IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technology, vol. 11, 2003, pp. 221-232.
[5] D. R. Yoerger, and J-J. E. Slotine, "Robust trajectory control of
underwater vehicle,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., OE-10, pp. 462-470.