2016 IEEE Uttar Pradesh Section International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Electronics Engineering (UPCON)

Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi, India, Dec 9-11, 2016

Depth Control of a High Speed Underwater

Vehicle using Model Predictive Control
M. P. R. Prasad, Student Member, IEEE, 1Email Id: mprp823@gmail.com
Akhilesh Swarup, Senior Member, IEEE, 2Email Id: aswarup@nitkkr.ac.in
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana

Abstract: Super cavitation is an advanced technology that friction reduces and almost becomes zero. The main
makes underwater vehicles to reach high speed. These vehicles problems associated with supercavitating vehicles are
are in general highly complex, nonlinear, multi input multi complex dynamics, instability, nonlinearity and time delay
output, and coupled systems. Modeling and control plays a between vehicle and cavity interaction [20-21].
crucial role in designing the supercavity vehicles. Model
Predictive Control technique has been applied to diving plane
of the vehicle to analyse pitch and depth control of an
underwater vehicle. The supercavitating vehicle has cavitator in the front portion
and four fins at the aft portion. These two places play a
Key Words – Supercavity vehicle, MPC, stability and LQR crucial role to control and stabilize the vehicle. The main
I. INTRODUCTION targets in supercavitating vehicles are a) balancing the
weight of the vehicle b) generation and maintenance of
One of the limitations of the underwater vehicle is limited cavity c) guidance and control d) vehicle stability [8]
speed. Maximum speed limit is around 40 m/s for common
underwater vehicles. The reason behind this is due to the
drag induced by the skin friction. To overcome this
difficulty a concept of super cavitation has been introduced
to improve the speed of the vehicle up to nearly 100 m/s.
Cavitation is defined as the process of formation of the
vapour phase of a liquid when it is subjected to reduced
pressures at constant ambient temperature [3]. The
relationship between velocity and pressure is inversely
proportional as per the Bernoulli’s law. The pressure
decreases when the speed of the vehicle increases.
Cavitation is mainly found at sharp corners of a body where
the velocity is also very high [2].

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of super cavitating vehicle [8]

The supercavitating underwater vehicle/missile is a
technology used in defence applications against underwater
targets [14]. The main parts of supercavity underwater
vehicles are inertial measurement unit (IMU), solid
propellant rocket motor, autopilot, conical tip and an
actuator system. The actuator system helps to drive the
vehicle. These underwater vehicles move through the water
with a speed more than 400 km/hr also [15, 19]. The desired
heading of the vehicle is maintained with the help of inertial
measurement unit (IMU) and autopilot. The IMU and
autopilot are also useful to stabilize the vehicle from ocean
currents, winds and waves. The flexible nose cone of the
vehicle provides steering like as a missile’s fin do. [4].
When the cavity extends beyond the trailing edge of the
hydrofoil, the flow is called as a supercavitating flow. Super
cavitation is an advanced technology and cavitation is used
in engineering application. When a vehicle moves with a
high speed in water, the fluid pressure drops to the water
vapour pressure [6]. The vapour bubble called cavity covers
the entire vehicle except fins and cavitation. Hence the skin
The super cavitation vehicle is as shown in Fig 1. The main
parts of the vehicle are cavitator, cavity bubble, body, fins,
and propulsion. The dynamic modeling of a high speed
super cavitating underwater vehicle is considered to control
the depth level of a vehicle. Guidance, control, stability,
maneuvering are the important aspects of super cavitating
underwater vehicles for following reference trajectory [9,
10].
The dynamics of the supercavitating underwater vehicle in
longitudinal plane is analysed using four degrees of
freedom. When a supercavitating vehicle moves with a
cruise speed, three forces acts on the longitudinal plane [5,
7, 17]. Those forces are planning force, lift force acting on
cavitator, gravitational force acting on the body.
Supercavitating vehicle is highly unstable. Model Predictive
Control has been applied on diving plane of a
supercavitating underwater vehicle. LQR technique is used
to stabilize the vehicle.

978-1-5090-5384-1/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 218

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute. Downloaded on October 21,2022 at 07:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 െ݊ ͹ െ݊ ͳ͹ ͳ͹ ʹ
ܽʹͶ = VTS ቀ‫ͳܥ‬ ൅ ቁ-VTቀ‫ͳܥ‬ ൅ ቁ ‫;ܮ‬
݉ ͻ ݉ ͵͸ ͵͸
Few control techniques have been applied on
supercavitating underwater vehicles. Sliding mode control
has been applied to analyse the dynamics and control of ܽͶʹ =
‫ܸܶ ͳܥ‬
ቀ
ͳ͹
െ
ͳͳ
݊ቁ; ܽͶͶ =
െͳͳ ‫ܣܮܸ݊ܶ ͳܥ‬
* ;
underwater vehicle [6]. Robust control technique is also ݉ ͵͸ ͵͸ ͵͸ ݉

applied for stability analysis of Supercavitating underwater

vehicles [11-12].
‫݊ܶ ʹ ܸ ͳܥ‬ െܵ ͳ͹ ‫ܵܶ ʹ ܸ ͳܥ‬
ܾʹͳ = ቀ ൅ ‫ܮ‬ቁ; ܾʹʹ = - ;
݉ ‫ܮ‬ ͵͸ ݉‫ܮ‬

The structure of this paper is as follows: section-I describes ͳͳ ‫݊ܶ ʹ ܸ ͳܥ‬ ͳ͹ ‫ܶ ʹ ܸ ͳܥ‬
about introduction. Section II is about the modeling of a ܾͶͳ =- * ; ܾͶʹ = * ; ܿʹ =g ;
͵͸ ݉ ͵͸ ݉
vehicle. Control techniques have been developed in section-
III-a & b. Section –IV and Section V highlights the results
ܶ െͳ͹ ܵ ͳͳ ܶ
and conclusion of the paper. ݀ʹ = ቀ ቁ*ቀ ‫ ܮ‬൅ ቁ ; ݀Ͷ = *
݉ ͵͸ ‫ܮ‬ ͵͸ ݉

II Dynamic Model of a supercavitating Vehicle ͳͳ ͳ͵͵ ʹ ͳ

S= ܴʹ + ‫ܮ‬ ;T= ͹ ʹͺͻ ;
͸Ͳ ͶͲͷ ቀ ቁܵെቀ ቁ‫ʹܮ‬
The dynamic model of supercavitating vehicle is considered ͻ ͳʹͻ͸

for the analysis of depth and pitch control. In dive-plane

ͳ ܴ݊ʹ
dynamics, three forces, four state variables and two control ‫ Ͳݔܥ = ݔܥ‬ሺͳ ൅ ߪሻ; ‫ ͳܥ‬ൌ  ‫ݔܥ‬ ;
ʹ ܴʹ
inputs are required. The four states are vertical speed w,
depth z, pitch angleɅ, pitch rate q. The total ouput is the Table-I: Parameters of the vehicle [1]
superposition of lift force, planing force Fp, and gravity
force Fg. The two inputs are stern plane and rudder angle S No Description Parameter Value Units
[3,13]. 1 Mass of the m 2 kg
vehicle
2 Acceleration g 9.81 m/s2
due to
The governing equations of dive plane of super cavitation Gravity
underwater vehicle [1] are 3 Radius of ܴ݊ 0.0191 m
cavitator
‫ݖ‬ሶ = w-Vߠ (1) 4 Radius of R 0.0508 m
ߠሶ = q (2) projectile
݉ͳͳ ݉ͳʹ ‫ݓ‬ሶ 5 Length L 1.8 m
ቂ݉ ݉ʹʹ ቃ ൤ ‫ݍ‬ሶ ൨=0.5‫ Ͳݔܥ‬ሺͳ ൅ 6 speed V 75 m/s
ʹͳ
െͳെ݊ െ݊
‫ݓ‬ 7 Cavitation ߪ 0.03 unit less
ܴ݊ʹ ݉‫ܮ‬ ݉ Ͳ ݊ͳʹ ‫ݓ‬ ܴʹ
ߪሻ ܸ൥ െ݊‫ ܮ‬൩ ቂ ‫ ݍ‬ቃ+V൤Ͳ ൨ ቂ ቃ+0.5‫ Ͳݔܥ‬ሺͳ ൅ ߪሻ ݊ʹ ܸ ʹ ൈ number
ܴ ʹ െ݊ ݊ʹʹ ‫ݍ‬ ܴ
݉ ݉ 8 Fin n 0.5 unit less
െ݊ െͳ
ߜ݁ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ effectiveness
൥݉‫ܮ‬ ݉‫ܮ‬
൩൤ ൨+F +F (3) 9 Cavitator ‫Ͳݔܥ‬ 0.82 unit
െ݊
Ͳ ߜܿ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ g p
݉ drag less
coefficient
Using equations (1), (2) and (3), the state equation of a
depth control of supercavitating underwater vehicle can be After substituting the parameter values in the dynamic
written as model of the super cavitating vehicle. The resulting equation
is
‫ݖ‬ሶ Ͳ ͳ െܸ Ͳ ‫ݖ‬ Ͳ Ͳ ‫ݖ‬ሶ Ͳ ͳ െ͹ͷ Ͳ ‫ݖ‬
‫ݓ‬ሶ Ͳ ܽʹʹ Ͳ ܽʹͶ ‫ݓ‬ ܾʹͳ ܾʹʹ ߜ ‫ݓ‬ሶ Ͳ െͻǤͺͳʹ Ͳ െʹͷʹǤ͸ͶͶ ‫ݓ‬
൦ ሶ൪ൌ൦ ൪*൦ ߠ ൪ ൅  ൦ ൪ ‫ כ‬൤ ݁൨ + ൦ ሶ൪ൌ൦
ߠ
൪*൦ ߠ ൪ ൅
ߠ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ߜܿ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ͳ
‫ݍ‬ሶ Ͳ ܽͶʹ Ͳ ܽͶͶ ‫ݍ‬ ܾͶͳ ܾͶʹ ‫ݍ‬ሶ Ͳ ͳ͵Ǥͷ͸͹ Ͳ െͷǤͺ͵Ͷ ‫ݍ‬
Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
ܿʹ ݀ʹ ʹͲͷǤͻͶͺ െͻͶͳǤͺͶͳ ߜ݁ ͻǤͺͳ
൦ ൪ + ൦ ൪*Fp (4) ൦ ൪‫כ‬൤ ൨ + ൦ ൪ +
Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ߜܿ Ͳ
Ͳ ݀Ͷ െʹͶ͵Ǥ͵ͳͺ ͹ͷʹǤͲ͹͸ Ͳ
Ͳ
‫ܸܶ ͳܥ‬ െͳെ݊ ͳ͹ െͳǤʹʹ͸
Where ܽʹʹ =ቀ ቁ*ቀ ܵ൅ ݊‫ܮ‬ቁ ൦ ൪*fp(w);
݉ ‫ܮ‬ ͵͸ Ͳ
ͳǤͶͶʹ

y= [1 0 0 0;0 0 1 0]x;

219

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute. Downloaded on October 21,2022 at 07:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 State vectors are x = [z w θ q]T The main advantage of quadratic optimal control scheme is
to stabilize the system and its responses are plotted in Fig.2
ߜ
and the input vector u=൤ ݁ ൨
ߜܿ
and its transfer functions for depth and pitch are as follows
ܼሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ʹͲͷ Ǥͻ‫ ʹ ݏ‬൅ͺǤͲͻʹ݁ͲͶ‫ݏ‬െ͵ǤͲͷ݁ͲͶ
=
ߜ ݁ ሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ‫ ݏ‬Ͷ ൅ͳͷǤ͸ͷ‫ ͵ ݏ‬൅͵Ͷͺͷ ‫ʹ ݏ‬

ߠሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ െʹͶ͵ Ǥ͵‫ݏ‬൅ͶͲ͸ Ǥ͸

=
ߜ ݁ ሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ‫ ͵ ݏ‬൅ͳͷǤ͸ͷ‫ ʹ ݏ‬൅͵Ͷͺͷ

ܼሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ െͻͶͳǤͺ‫ ʹ ݏ‬െʹǤͷͳͻ݁Ͳͷ‫ݏ‬൅ͶǤͲͶͻ݁Ͳͷ

=
ߜ ܿ ሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ‫ ݏ‬Ͷ ൅ͳͷǤ͸ͷ‫ ͵ ݏ‬൅͵Ͷͺͷ ‫ʹ ݏ‬

ߠሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ͹ͷʹ Ǥͳ‫ݏ‬െͷ͵ͻͻ

=
ߜ ܿ ሺ‫ݏ‬ሻ ‫ ͵ ݏ‬൅ͳͷǤ͸ͷ‫ ʹ ݏ‬൅͵Ͷͺͷ ‫ݏ‬

Equation (4) can be written as Fig.2 Stabilization of states using LQR technique

‫ݔ‬ሶ =Ax+Bu+C+D‫݌ܨ‬ III-b Model Predictive Control

III-a Control technique
LQR is a linear optimal control law for a linear time
invariant system with quadratic performance index. It has
been developed and widely used in various applications.
Selection of Q and R plays an important role in LQR
method [8].
The standard dynamic model of the system is described by:
‫ݔ‬ሶ =Ax+Bu
y =Cx+Du
The performance index is defined [18] as
λ error vector and it is used to compute the control algorithm
J=‫ ݔܳ ܶ ݔ Ͳ׬‬൅ ‫ݑܴ ܶݑ‬ሻ݀‫ݐ‬
Q=C’*C;R=I
Where Q is a positive definite/semi definite or real
symmetric matrix, and R is the weight matrix. In equation
(5) I denotes identity matrix. The control law is
u=-Kx
K can be found as
K=ܴ െͳ ‫ ܶܤ‬P
K=[0.9867 0.0430 -20.9121 -0.3752;
-0.1627 -0.9919 -0.2221 0.4866]
and P can be determined by solving the continuous time
algebraic Riccati equation [18]:
‫ ܲ ܶܣ‬൅ ܲ‫ ܣ‬െ ܲ‫ ܴܤ‬െͳ ‫ ܲ ܶܤ‬൅ ܳ ൌ Ͳ
Fig.3 shows a block diagram of model predictive control.
MPC technique has been attempted to control the pitch and
depth of supercavitating vehicle. The controlled variables of
vehicle are pitch and depth and the disturbance variables are
ocean current, ocean wave and winds. Controller output is
called as manipulated variables. The Controlled Variable-
CV, Disturbance Variable-DV and Manipulated Variable-
MV are very important while designing a MPC. The three
important components of MPC are 1) A supercavitating
vehicle model which predicts the output in the future up to
the prediction horizon (around 120 scans) 2) A set point
future trajectory for the same number of scans as the
predicted output trajectory. 3) The difference between
predicted output and set point future trajectory generates an
(5) [17, 22].
The vehicle model plays an important role in model
predictive control. The manipulated variable is applied on
vehicle to minimize the disturbances variables (ocean winds
and waves) acting on vehicle. The main aim of MPC is to
maintain pitch and depth control of vehicle in desired
(6) trajectory. If CV’s (pitch and depth) does not follow desired
trajectory then CV is taken as feedback and applied to error
detector to compare with set point reference trajectory. The
error detector output is actuating signal which is applied on
MPC input. The cost function of MPC depends on the
quadratic error between the future control variable and the
future set point reference variable within limited time
horizon. The predicted control algorithm develop outputs to
minimize the sum of the squared errors over the prediction
horizon, taking into account several future manipulated
variables moves
(7)

220

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute. Downloaded on October 21,2022 at 07:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Set Point

Error Vector Manipulated Variable Controlled

Set Point Prediction
Variable

Control Supercavitating
+/- Algorithm Vehicle

Controlled Variable
Prediction

Model output

Distrubance

+/-
Model Output
Correction
Fig 3 Model Predictive Controller of a supercavitating vehicle

in its calculations. MPC can easily handle all constraints on Prediction of x at sample (k+4) where prediction was made
inputs and states and it is also useful for control and at sample k and prediction of y at sample (k+6) where
optimization problems. prediction was made at sample (k+2)
A general expression of the n step ahead prediction is given
Consider the generalised discrete time state space model
as
[22]
x(k+1)=Ax(k)+Bu(k) (8)
x(݇ ൅ ݊ᑻ݊ሻ= ‫ ݊ܣ‬x(k) + ‫݊ܣ‬െͳ Bu(kǀk) +
‫ݕ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൌ ‫ݔܥ‬ሺ݇ሻ ൅ ݀‫ݑ‬ሺ݇ሻ(9)  ݊െʹ
‫ ܣ‬Bu(k+1ǀk)+………..+ABu(k+n-2ǀk)+Bu(k+n-1ǀk)
A general n-th order expression of the n step ahead
(13)
prediction is given as follows
x(k+n)= ‫ ݊ܣ‬x(k)+‫݊ܣ‬െͳ Bu(k)+‫݊ܣ‬െʹ Bu(k+1)+….+ABu(k+n-
y(k+nǀn)=C‫ ݊ܣ‬x(k) +C(‫݊ܣ‬െͳ Bu(kǀk) +
2)+Bu(k+n-1) (10) ݊െʹ
‫ ܣ‬Bu(k+1ǀk)+………..+Bu(k+n-1ǀk))+d(k) (14)
The system output can be determined simply using
The double subscript makes it clear where a value is
y(k+n)=Cx(k+n)+d(k+n); d(k+n)=d(k); (11)
notionally ‘in the future or a predicted value’ as opposed to
known.
substituting eq.no (10) in eq no (11), we get
U= [Δ‫( ܶݑ‬k) ο‫( ܶݑ‬k+1) … ο‫( ܶݑ‬k+Nc-1)]T (15)
y(k+n)= C‫ ݊ܣ‬x(k) x(k)= [‫( ܶ ݔ‬k+1ǀk) ‫( ܶ ݔ‬k+2ǀk) …. ‫( ܶ ݔ‬k+Npǀk)]T (16)
+C(‫݊ܣ‬െͳ Bu(k)+‫݊ܣ‬െʹ Bu(k+1)+…+ABu(k+n-2)+Bu(k+n- The state space model is used to compute the future state
1))+d(k) (12) vectors and output vectors
Y=Fx+‫׎‬u (17)
This prediction mixes up past and future data, so it is ‫ܣܥ‬
‫ې ʹܣܥ ۍ‬
advisable to be more careful with notation and construction ‫ۑ͵ ێ‬
of the predictions [16,17] Where F=‫ ۑ ܣܥ ێ‬and
‫ ێ‬Ǥ ‫ۑ‬
A common notation used in the literature is double subscript ‫ ێ‬Ǥ ‫ۑ‬
[18]. The first term denotes the sample of the prediction ‫ے ݊ܣܥۏ‬
‫ܤܥ‬ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ ǥǤ Ͳ
(how many steps ahead) and the second term denotes the ‫ܤܣܥ ۍ‬ ‫ܤܥ‬ Ͳ Ͳ ǥǤ Ͳ ‫ې‬
sample at which prediction was made (only used for ‫ێ‬ ʹ ‫ۑ‬
prediction and not past) ‫ܤ ܣܥ ێ = ׎‬ ‫ܤܣܥ‬ ‫ܤܥ‬ Ͳ ǥǤ Ͳ ‫ۑ‬
‫ێ‬ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ‫ۑ‬
‫ێ‬ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ‫ۑ‬
‫݊ܣܥۏ‬െͳ ‫݊ܣܥ ܤ‬െʹ ‫ܤ‬ ‫݊ܣܥ‬െ͵ ‫ ܤ‬Ǥ Ǥ ‫݊ܣܥ‬െܰܿ ‫ے ܤ‬
For example x((݇ ൅ Ͷሻᑻ݇ሻ & y(݇ ൅ ͸ᑻ݇ ൅ ʹሻ
Where n=Np
Constraints to be defined as

221

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute. Downloaded on October 21,2022 at 07:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ymin൑yሺ݇ሻ ൑ymax Table-II
Δumin൑ ߂uሺ݇ሻ ൑ ߂umax Parameters used in MPC Controller
umin൑uሺ݇ሻ ൑umax Parameter Value
Control interval 0.2
Prediction horizon 10
Optimization criteria used in MPC is Control horizon 2
Estimator gain 0.35
ܰ
‫݌‬
σ݇ൌͲ ሼܳͳ ሾ݁ͳ ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ ൅ ܳʹ ሾ݁ʹ ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ ൅ ܳ͵ ሾ݁͵ ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ ൅ Input Weight 0.2
Output Weight 1
‫ ݊ܳ ڮ‬ሾ݁݊ ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ ሽ+
ܴͳ ሾ߂‫ ͳݑ‬ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ
σܰܿ
݇ൌͲ ൜ ൠ
൅ܴʹ ሾ߂‫ ʹݑ‬ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿ ൅ ܴ͵ ሾ߂‫ ͵ݑ‬ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ ൅ ‫ ܴ݊ ڮ‬ሾ߂‫ ݊ݑ‬ሺ‫ ݇ݐ‬ሻሿʹ
ʹ
IV Results
(18) All the simulations are carried out in MATLAB
=sum of the future weighted squared control errors + sum of environment.The MPC has been applied to the underwater
the future weighted increments of control variables vehicle taking sinusoidal input in Fig.4. The trajectories of
where Np and Nc are prediction and control horizons. Q and vehicle states are following desired trajectories. Further step
R is the symmetric positive definite matrix. response of vehicle with respect to planning force, depth
and pitch are also analyzed and plotted in Fig.5 and Fig.6.
A convenient orthogonal basis for discrete time system
is

Φ(k)= [0,0,…..,0 ‫ ݉ܫ‬െܰ 0,0…]T (19)

The n-dimensional input is given by

‫ ܰܫ[= ܰݑ‬0] σܰെͳ
݇ൌͲ ‫׎‬ሺ݇ሻ‫ݑ‬ሺ݇ሻ (20)

where u(k) is the control move at sample time k, u(k)ൌ

Ͳ‫׊‬k൒ ܰ, ƒ†‫ ܰݑ‬is the m*N vector of the nonzero inputs in
the horizon.

Tuning of MPC
Model Horizon H: ‘H’ should be more than the open-loop
settling time (defined as 99 or 95% of response). Commonly
25 ≤ H ≤ 75.
Sampling Period
It should be selected to capture important dynamic Fig.4 Sinusoidal trajectory of vehicle states
information.
Prediction and control horizon P & M
Generally, P൐M. Increasing M increases controller
aggressiveness and decreases robustness. A suitable first
guess P Үt60/T (number of samples to reach 60% of open-
loop response).
Weighting Matrices Q and R
Q is the output weighting matrix and R is the input weight
matrix.

The following algorithm used in model predictive Fig.5

calculations Step response of vehicle due to Planing force
1) Enter the system variables-Control variables,
Manipulated variables and Disturbance variables.
2) Update model predictions
3) Calculate control structure
4) Check for errors
5) Calculate set points or targets
6) Perform control calculations
7) Send Manipulated variables to the process

222

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute. Downloaded on October 21,2022 at 07:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig.6 Step response of vehicle states depth and pitch.
V Conclusion
The main contributions of this paper are 1) vehicle model is
stabilized with the help of LQR. 2) Model Predictive
Control is then applied on longitudinal plane to control the
speed, depth, pitch angle and pitch rate. Considering the
model from [1], all the simulations were carried out in
MATLAB. Set point tracking of vehicle was analysed. It has
observed that Vehicle is both controllable and stable. The
future scope of the paper is non minimum portion of
response can be eliminated using smith predictor control
algorithm.
[13] J Dzielski and A Kurdila,“A benchmark control problem for
supercavitating vehicles and an initial investigation of solutions,”
Journal of Vibration and Control, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 791–804, 2003
[14] Ankul Goel. “Robust control of supercavitating vehicles in the
presence of dynamic and uncertain cavity”. Florida:University of
Florida, 2005
[15] Fossen TI. Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles, J.Wiley&
Sons, New York, USA, 1994
[16] Liuping Wang, “Model Predictive Control System Design and
Implementation Using MATLAB”, Springer, Advances in Industrial
control, 2009
[17] Kirschner IN, Kring DC, Stokes AW, Uhlman JS. “Control strategies
for Supercavitating vehicles”. J Vibration and Control 8:219-242,
2002
[18] D Mayne, M Seron, and S Rakovic,“Robust model predictive control
of constrained linear systems with bounded
disturbances,”Automatica, vol. 41, pp. 1136–1142, 2006
[19] Ivan N Kirschner, James S.Uhlman “Overview of High-speed
supercavitating vehicle control”. AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference and Exhibit.21-24 August, Keystone, Colorado,
2006
[20] E Paryshev, “Approximate Mathematical Models in High-Speed
Hydrodynamics,” J. Eng. Math., 55, pp. 41–64, 2006
[21] G Lin, Balachandran, and E Abed, “Nonlinear Dynamics and
Bifurcations of a Supercavitating Vehicle,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.,
Vol.32, pp. 753–761, 2006
[22] Guojian Lin, Balachandran and Eyad H Abed “Nonlinear Dynamics
and Bifurcations of a Supercavitating Vehicle.”[J] IEEE Journal of
Oceanic Engineering, 2007:753-761, 2007

References

[1] Vincent Nguyen and Balakumar Balachandran “Supercavitating

vehicles with Non cylindrical Non symmetric Cavities: Dynamics and
instabilities,” Journal of computational and nonlinear dynamics, Vol.6
October 2011
[2] B Vanker, J Boker, G Balas and G Arndt “ Longitudinal motion
control of a high Speed Supercavitation vehicle,” Journal of vibration
and control, vol 13, No.2, pp.159-184, 2007
[3] B Vanek, “Control methods for high- speed supercavitating vehicles,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Aerospace Engg., Univ. Minnesota,
Minneapolis., MN, USA, 2008
[4] X Mao and Q Wang, “Nonlinear control design for a Supercavitating
vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 17, no. 4, pp.816–
832, 2009
[5] G Balas, R Chiang, A Packard, and M Safonov, “Robust control
toolbox 3: User's guide,” The Math Works, Natick, MA, USA,
Tech.Rep., 2007
[6] R Lv, K. Yu, Y Wei, J Zhang, and J Wang, “Adaptive sliding mode
controller design for a supercavitating vehicle,” in Proc. 3rd Int.
Symp Syst. Control Aeronaut. Astronaut., pp. 885–889, 2010
[7] L Ljung,“System identification toolbox 2012: User's guide,” The
Math Works, Natick, MA, USA, Tech. Rep., 2012
[8] H Fan, Y Zhang, and X Wang, “Longitudinal dynamics modeling and
MPC strategy for high- speed supercavitating vehicles,” in Proc Int.,
Conf. Electr.Inf. Control Eng., pp. 5947–5950, 2011
[9] V Saouma and M Sivaselvan, Hybrid Simulation: Theory,
Implementation and Applications, ser. Balkema Proceedings and
Monographs Engineering, Water, and Earth Sciences. London, U.K.:
Taylor &Francis, ch. 1–4, 2008
[10] M. Bacic, “On hardware-in-the-loop simulation,” in Proc. 44th IEEE
Conf. Decision Control, pp.3194–3198, 2005
[11] X Mao and Q Wang, “Nonlinear Control Design for a Supercavitating
Vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on control systems technology, vol. 17,
no. 4, 2009
[12] J Craig, Introduction to Robotics:Mechanics and Control, ser.
Addison-Wesley series in electrical and computer engineering:
control engineering. Pearson Education, Incorporated, vol.3 2005

223

Authorized licensed use limited to: Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute. Downloaded on October 21,2022 at 07:24:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.