This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
High-Speed Obstacle Avoidance of a Large-Scale
Underactuated Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
Under a Finite Field of View
Lin Yu , Lei Qiao , Member, IEEE, and Chao Shen , Member, IEEE
Abstract— This paper addresses the problem of high-speed
waypoint tracking and real-time obstacle avoidance for
large-scale underactuated autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs) in the vertical plane. Specifically, a robust nonlinear
model predictive control (RNMPC) scheme is proposed, consid-
ering different types of constraints including the scale of the
AUV, the finite field of view of the sensor, the input saturation,
the physical limits on system state, and the influence of the
vertical underactuated velocity. To navigate in the completely
unknown environment with nonconvex obstacles, a dynamic
sensing and collision avoidance scheme is proposed so that
the collision avoidance can be properly formulated into convex
constraints in the RNMPC optimization problem. Recursive fea-
sibility and closed-loop stability are proved rigorously. Through
the high-fidelity simulations with graph and data visualization
techniques, the proposed algorithm has higher waypoint tracking
accuracy, safer obstacle avoidance ability, and better multiple
constraints handling capability than the existing dynamic virtual
AUV (DVA) technique.
Note to Practitioners—This article was motivated by the
problem of high-speed waypoint tracking and obstacle avoidance
for large-scale underactuated autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs) in an unknown environment. In practical engineering, the
obstacles’ useful information (e.g., shapes and positions) cannot
be directly reflected by the raw data (distance or acoustic image)
of multi-beam sonars. And the multi-beam sonars are also limited
by detection range and angle. Another practical problem is that
such type of AUV suffers from different constraints including
the scale of the vehicle, the physical limits on system poses
and velocities. In addition, the influence of the underactuated
Manuscript received 27 April 2023; revised 22 December 2023;
accepted 23 February 2024. This article was recommended for publication
by Associate Editor L. Cheng and Editor P. Rocco upon evaluation of the
reviewers’ comments. This work was supported in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 52101365, in part by
the LingChuang Research Project of China National Nuclear Corporation,
in part by the Young Talent Project of China National Nuclear Corporation,
in part by the Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST under
Grant 2021QNRC001, in part by the Shanghai Sailing Program under
Grant 21YF1419800, in part by the Oceanic Interdisciplinary Program of
Shanghai Jiao Tong University under Grant SL2021PT107, and in part by the
Shanghai Jiao Tong University 2030 Initiative under Grant WH510363001-6.
(Corresponding author: Lei Qiao.)
Lin Yu and Lei Qiao are with the State Key Laboratory of Ocean
Engineering and the School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engi-
neering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China (e-mail:
yulin258@sjtu.edu.cn; qiaolei@sjtu.edu.cn).
Chao Shen is with the Department of Systems and Computer Engi-
neering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada (e-mail:
shenchao@sce.carleton.ca).
This article has supplementary material provided by the authors and
color versions of one or more figures available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2024.3373607.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TASE.2024.3373607
1545-5955 © 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
velocity cannot be ignored due to the high speed of the vehicle.
Considering the above practical engineering problems, we design
a robust nonlinear model predictive control (RNMPC) scheme
from the kinematic level of the AUV to achieve high-speed way-
point tracking and obstacle avoidance. And then we developed a
dynamic sensing and collision avoidance scheme to formulate
nonconvex collision avoidance into convex constraints in the
RNMPC optimization problem. We demonstrate the effectiveness
of the proposed control method in a high-fidelity simulation
environment with large size terrain and shipwrecks as obsta-
cles. In this environment, the AUV can dynamically read the
distance data from obstacles to the sensor through the virtual
multi-beam sonar equipped in the head of the vehicle, which
can simulate the actual engineering experiment with high-fidelity.
This work could be applied to other underactuated systems,
such as unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles,
etc. In future research, we will consider more complex practical
working cases, such as the presence of dynamic obstacles in an
unknown environment and the disturbance of current.
Index Terms— Dynamic sensing, finite field of view, high-
fidelity simulations, large-scale high-speed underactuated AUV,
obstacle avoidance, robust nonlinear MPC.
I. I NTRODUCTION
U NDERACTUATED autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs) are widely applied in underwater missions due
to the mature technology and the advantages in energy and
cost saving [1], [2], [3], [4]. At present, AUVs are develop-
ing towards large-scale and high speed to meet higher task
requirements (such as large carrying capacity, long range,
etc.). However, the large scale, high speed, underactuation,
multiple constraints, and other complex characteristics of
the vehicle bring huge challenges to underwater autonomous
control design. In particular, a real-time high-speed obstacle
avoidance system is the key enabling technology towards the
full autonomy of the AUV.
At present, real-time obstacle avoidance techniques for
the AUV mainly include rapidly-exploring random trees [5],
artificial potential fields [6], fuzzy algorithms [7], neural
networks [8], dynamic virtual AUV (DVA) principle [9],
reinforcement learning and deep reinforcement learning [10],
model predictive control (MPC) [11], and other algorithms.
Since MPC algorithm has abilities to deal with multiple
constraints and reduce the impact of the large inertia [12],
[13], it is much suitable for the obstacle avoidance problem
of AUVs. In [11], a model predictive control based on particle
swarm optimization and cubic spline interpolation is pro-
posed to realize the path tracking and obstacle avoidance, the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
simulation results show the good performance of the proposed
strategy. Considering the effective detection distance of the
environment sensing sensor, Heshmati-Alamdari et al. [14],
[15] propose nonlinear MPC and robust nonlinear MPC
(RNMPC) schemes for autonomous navigation of the under-
actuated AUV operating with multiple constraints including
static obstacles, workspace boundaries, and state and input
constraints. To further reduce the conservatism of the approach
in [15], a tube-based MPC is instead proposed in [16], where
a tube is designed around the nominal trajectory of the system,
and is a priori guaranteed that the system will evolve in
real-time in a tube that is dependent on the disturbance. Con-
sidering that the detection distance of the sensor is practically
short, a receding horizon optimization scheme combining path
planning algorithm and MPC is proposed in [17] and [18].
The simulation work based on the real dynamic model of
the Falcon AUV demonstrates the effectiveness of the pro-
posed control algorithm. To further optimize the performance
evaluation, the authors in [19] present a conditional-scenario
based MPC, allowing certain constraints to be violated with a
guaranteed probability according to the actual scenario. Then
the original non-convex optimization problem for obstacle
constraint is transformed into multiple convex subproblems by
introducing a novel concept of candidate paths. The optimal
candidate path decides the input of the system. Simulation
results show that the proposed algorithm can successfully
avoid obstacles with the probability of satisfying the priority
constraint.
To our best knowledge, no study related to high-speed
obstacle avoidance of large-scale underactuated AUVs has
been publicly reported, but the excellent work related to
high-speed obstacle avoidance of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) [20], [21], [22], [23] has been continuously published.
UAVs can sense the environment through optical sensors such
as lidar [20] and cameras [21], with fast information update
rate and long detection distance. In addition, the high mobility
of UAVs also makes it possible to achieve high-speed obstacle
avoidance. However, unlike UAVs, large-scale underactuated
AUVs do not have the long sensing range, fast information
update rate, and high maneuverability. Therefore, it is a big
difficulty to ensure the safety of large-scale underactuated
AUVs in the process of high-speed navigation.
The above studies about AUVs only consider that the
perceptual area of the system is a circular region with a
radius of the detectable distance, and assume that the obstacle
information (such as complete shape and position, etc.) can
be obtained directly when there are obstacles in the perceptual
range. The algorithm to properly formulate the needed sensing
information from raw data is missing. Another practical issue
is that the sensor’s field of view is a fan area instead of
a perfect circular area as assumed in most literature. The
underactuated AUV considered in [17] and [18] is with a
very low speed, such that the underactuated speed can be
approximately zero. However, for a high-speed AUV, the
vertical underactuated velocity cannot be ignored due to the
imbalance between the gravity and buoyancy, lift force, and
other reasons. If the influence of underactuated velocity is
not considered, the obstacle avoidance tends to fail in reality.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
In addition, the large scale, high speed, and large inertia of the
AUV are also difficult problems to achieve obstacle avoidance
with real-time performance and security.
Motivated by the aforementioned considerations, this paper
designs an RNMPC controller for the large-scale underac-
tuated AUV to deal with the problem of waypoint tracking
and high-speed obstacle avoidance. Through the high-fidelity
simulation, the effectiveness and advantage of the proposed
method are verified. The main contributions are as follows.
1) An RNMPC scheme is designed for a large-scale AUV
to realize high-speed waypoint tracking and real-time obstacle
avoidance in the vertical plane, respecting the state and input
constraints and considering the influence of underactuated
velocity. The recursive feasibility and closed-loop stability are
rigorously proved.
2) Aiming at the problem that the detection distance and
range of real sensors are limited and the whole picture
of large-scale obstacles cannot be completely and directly
detected by sensors, a dynamic environment sensing and
approximate convex collision avoidance scheme is developed
to construct the obstacle avoidance constraints in the RNMPC
optimization problem.
3) Compared with the obstacle avoidance algorithm based
on the DVA principle proposed in [9], the RNMPC scheme
offers a safer obstacle avoidance capability, higher waypoint
tracking accuracy, and better constraint processing ability
than the DVA obstacle avoidance algorithm for high-speed
navigation of the large-scale underactuated AUV.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
In Section II, the problem formulation is presented. Section III
introduces the proposed control method with a rigorous
analysis of recursive feasibility and closed-loop stability.
In Section IV, the effectiveness and advantage of the pro-
posed algorithm are verified through high-fidelity simulations.
Conclusive remarks are provided in Section V.
Notation: Throughout the paper, Rn denotes an
n-dimensional real space and R≥0 denotes a non-negative real
space. Vectors are represented in lowercase bold italics, such
as x, matrices are shown in capital bold italics, such as A, and
scalars are represented in fine italics, such as m. For a given
√
vector x, ẋ denotes its first-order derivative, ∥x∥2 = x T x,
∥x∥2A = x T Ax, and x T is its own transpose. The maximum
and minimum eigenvalues of matrix Q are denoted by λ Q
and λ Q , respectively. For two given sets A, B ⊆ Rn , A ∼
B := {x ∈ Rn : x + y ∈ A,L∀ y ∈ B} denotes the Pontryagin
difference of sets. And A B := {x + y : x ∈ A, y ∈ B}
represents Minkowski sum set. Moreover, B(c, r ) :=

x ∈ R2 : ∥x − c∥2 ≤ r, c ∈ R2 , r > 0 stands for a circle
with center c and radius r .
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
A. Mathematical Modeling
As seen in Fig. 1, the pose vector of the AUV with respect
to (w. r. t.) the
T inertial frame O E − X E Z E is  defined
T by
x = x z θ , including the position vector x z and
orientation θ. The velocity w. r. t. the body-fixed frame
T
O B − X B Z B is denoted by v = u w q , including linear
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

YU et al.: HIGH-SPEED OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE OF A LARGE-SCALE UNDERACTUATED AUV 3

T
where J (x, u) = u cos θ −u sin θ q

is regarded as the
T
actuated term and K (x, w) = w sin θ w cos θ 0 the under-

 T
actuated one, and u = u q is the input of the system.
Discretize equation (3) by difference, we can get
x k+1 = x k + J (x k , uk )1t + K (x k , wk )1t, (4)
where 1t is a sampling period, x k ∈ X ⊂ R and uk ∈ 3

U ⊂ R2 respectively represent the state and input at time k,

Fig. 1. The problem of waypoint tracking and high-speed obstacle avoidance
for a large-scale underactuated AUV. Pl−1 and Pl are the previous and current
waypoints respectively. And θl denotes the target pitch attitude.
T
velocity vector u w and angular velocity q. In the current

X is a closed set and U a compact set, both of them containing
the origin. K (x k , wk )1t ∈ W⊂R3 indicates a bounded under-
actuated term, in which W := w ∈ R3 : ∥w∥2 ≤ w1t = γ
is a compact set containing the origin.
The actuated model of the system is defined as
x̃ k+1 = x̃ k + J x̃ k , uk 1t = f x̃ k , uk .



(5)

tracking task, Pl−1 is the previous waypoint with coordinates Define the vector x̂(k + i|k) as the predicted state of the
(xl−1 , zl−1 ) and Pl is the current one with the coordinates system at sample time k + i according to the actual sys-
(xl , zl ), where l (l = 1, 2, · · · , L) respects lth waypoint, tem state x k at time k applying a control sequence uk =
and L represents the total number of waypoints. The attitude {u(k|k), u(k + 1|k), · · · , u(k + i − 1|k)} using the actuated
of the line between the two points can be expressed in the model. Hence,
inertial frame as

  x̂(k + i|k) = f x̂(k + i − 1|k), u(k + i − 1|k) (6)
zl − zl−1
θl = −arctan . (1) with x̂(k|k) = x k .
xl − xl−1
Property 1: The actuated model f (x, u) of the system is
When the AUV enters the red circle with radius Rd , it is locally Lipschitz in X , that is, for every u ∈ U, such that
considered as reaching the current waypoint, and then it can
continue to track the next one. ∥ f (x 1 , u) − f (x 2 , u)∥2 ≤ L f ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 (7)
The kinematic equations of the AUV in the vertical plane
with L f = 1 + u1t and u > 0 is the upper bound of u.
can be given as [24] Proof: Assuming that x 1 , x 2 ∈ X , then

 ẋ = u cos θ + w sin θ
 ∥ f (x 1 , u) − f (x 2 , u)∥2
ż = −u sin θ + w cos θ (2) 
x1 − x2
 
u cos θ1 1t − u cos θ2 1t

θ̇ = q.

≤  z 1 − z 2  +  −u sin θ1 1t + u sin θ2 1t 


In this paper, we consider a common type of underactuated θ1 − θ2 2

0 2
AUV with a single body. The velocity u is driven by the θ1 − θ2
= ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 + 2u1t sin
tail thruster, and the angular velocity q can be adjusted 2
by changing the horizontal rudder. It means that this type ≤ ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 + u1t|θ1 − θ2 |
of AUV is underactuated along the Z B axis. In practical ≤ (1 + u1t) ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 .
engineering, the appearance of underactuated velocity w is
inevitable due to the imbalance between gravity and buoyancy Let L f = 1 + u1t, equation (7) can be satisfied.
and the influence of lift force. Particularly, when a large-scale Lemma 1: Under the same control sequence, the difference
AUV moves at a high speed, the underactuated velocity between the predicted state and the actual state at the same
is relatively high. Therefore, the influence of underactuated time is upper bounded by
velocity on high-speed obstacle avoidance should be consid- Lfi −1
ered for the large-scale AUV when designing a velocity level x̂(k + i|k) − x k+i 2
≤ γ. (8)
controller. Lf −1
Assumption 1 [25]: The underactuated velocity w is pas- The proof of Lemma 1 is proved in [26].
sive bounded in the sense that |w| ≤ w with w > 0.
Remark 1: According to [25], since there is no input force
B. Objective Design
in the heave direction, the hydrodynamic damping force is
dominant in this direction, w is damped out by the force. Thus, The objective of this work is to design a velocity level
it is reasonable and common to assume that the underactuated controller for the large-scale AUV to autonomously and safely
velocity w is passive bounded. track a set of preset waypoints with high speed in the vertical
To better describe the kinematic model (2), we rewrite it as plane. Meanwhile, the control process is supposed to guarantee
follows. the following specifications.
1) Respect the state (pitch attitude) and input (velocity)
ẋ = J (x, u) + K (x, w), (3) constraints of the system.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

2) Handle the effects of underactuated velocity to improve

the robustness of the velocity level planner.
3) Respect the practical capability of the environmental
sensing system, namely, the sensing angle and distance of
multi-beam sonar.
4) Avoid collisions in unknown environments in real time
without prior information on the full view of seamounts and
obstacles.
Remark 2: The purpose of this work is to deal with engi-
neering constraints such as obstacle avoidance, position and
velocity of the vehicle, and environment sensing range, and
to provide actuated reference velocity signals for dynamic
controller of the large-scale high-speed underactuated AUV.
The problem of reference velocity tracking will not be dis-
cussed in this work, because many mature algorithms such as
Fig. 2. Cases of the AUV’s perception of the environment. The circle
proportional-integral-differential (PID) control, feedback lin- enclosed by the yellow dashed line is the collision model of the vehicle,
earization control, active disturbance rejection control, sliding the circle enclosed by the red dashed line is the convex approximate collision
mode control, and other controllers can be easily reproduced model of obstacles, the green sector is the sensor perception area, and the
area between the two black lines is the effective data area of the sensor.
and used to solve this problem.
the desired pose while the AUV is tracking the lth waypoint.
III. M ETHODOLOGY
Q i , Ri and P are positive definite symmetric matrices with
To achieve the design objective, firstly, an RNMPC method λ Qi < λ P i . In this paper, we design Q i = diag{qi1 , qi2 , qi3 },
is proposed to handle the state and input constraints of the
Ri = diag{ri1 , ri2 }, and P = diag{ pi1 , pi2 , pi3 }. Xi is the
large-scale AUV and the influence of the underactuated veloc-
running state constraint, U is the input constraint, and Xteminal
ity, and achieve the high-speed obstacle avoidance. Secondly,
is the terminal constraint. Consider that the optimal solution
a dynamic environment sensing and approximate convex colli-
to the optimization problem u∗k only depends on x k . For MPC,
sion avoidance scheme is provided for the obstacle avoidance
the control law is given by
constraints construction in the RNMPC optimization problem.
uck = K M PC (x k ) = u∗ (k|k). (11)
A. RNMPC Design
Remark 3 [26]: Xi in equation (9d) is a tightened state
The velocity planning problem with obstacle avoidance can
constraint for the actuated model (5), which ensures that the
be formulated as the following optimization problem.
evolution of the actual system (4) will satisfy the real state
constraint for all time. Specifically, if the states of the actuated
min JN (x k , uk ) model satisfy the constraint Xi , then the states of the actual
uk
system definitely satisfy the constraint X . From Lemma 1,
N −1
X we know that the state error between the actuated system and
L x̂(k +i|k), u(k +i|k) +V x̂(k + N |k) ,



= min the actual one is bounded. Thus, given X for actual system,
uk
i=0
Xi = nX ∼ Bi for actuated system can be defined, where
(9a) o
L f i −1
Bi := x ∈ R3 : ∥x∥2 ≤ γ .
s.t. : x̂(k|k) = x k , (9b) L f −1

x̂(k + i + 1|k) B. Constraints Design

= f x̂(k + i|k), u(k + i|k) ∀i = 0, 1, · · · , N − 1,


From Remark 3, if the constraint X is confirmed, the
(9c) constraint Xi can be obtained. The collision model of the
T
x̂(k + i|k) ∈ Xi ∀i = 1, · · · , N − 1,

(9d) large-scale AUV is defined as B( p, R), in which p = x z
u(k + i|k) ∈ U ∀i = 0, 1, · · · , N − 1, (9e) represents the position of the vehicle w. r. t. the inertial frame
and R is the maximum distance from the origin O B of the
x̂(N |k) ∈ Xteminal , (9f) body-fixed frame to the AUV’s contour, as shown in Fig. 2.
where There are M obstacles in the detection range of
the sensor,

2
and their collision models are built as B pom , rom , where m
L x̂(k + i|k), u(k + i|k) = x̂(k + i|k) − x l Qi (m = 1, 2, · · · , M) represents the mth detected obstacle.
+ ∥u(k + i|k)∥2Ri ,
(10a) The obstacles we consider in the subsea environment do not
2 intersect with each other and with the sea level. In this way,
V x̂(k + N |k) = x̂(k + N |k) − x l P , (10b)


the entire volume of the AUV can pass through the free space
and L x̂(k + i|k),

between them. In consequence, there exists a feasible and safe

u(k + i|k) is the running cost function, trajectory p for the AUV such that
V x̂(k + N |k) represents the terminal cost function. N is
T
defined as the prediction horizon. x l = xl zl θl B( p, R) ∩ B pom , rom = ∅ m = 1, · · · , M.


denotes (12)

Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

YU et al.: HIGH-SPEED OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE OF A LARGE-SCALE UNDERACTUATED AUV 5

And the obstacles on the seafloor should not be too high to Similarly, equation (16) can be proved by
exceed the AUV’s maximum obstacle avoidance capacity in
such a way that there exists a feasible solution of optimization ∥V (x 1 ) − V (x 2 )∥2 ≤ 2ελ P ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2
problem under the constraints of pitch and its velocity. Based = L v ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 .
on the above considerations, the state constraint set X and Assumption 3 There exists a local controller uck = κ(x) ∈
velocity constraint set U can be given by U, and for ∀x k ∈ 8, the following stability condition is
X := x ∈ R3 : (12), |θ| ≤ θ ,

(13) satisfied

and V ( f (x k , uck )) − V (x k ) + L(x k , uck ) ≤ 0. (17)

U := u ∈ R2 : 0 ≤ u ≤ u, |q| ≤ q ,

(14) Now, we will design the terminal constraint set to
satisfy Assumption 3. Let u∗ (k − 1) be the feasible optimal
where θ̄ is the upper bound of θ with 0 < θ < π/2, q > 0 control sequence obtained by the optimization problem in
is the upper bound of the pitch velocity q. It is worth noting equation (9a)-(9f) at time k − 1. Next, the feasible control
that 0 < θ < π/2 could ensure that the kinematics described sequence of the optimization problem at time k will be
by Eular angles are nonsingular. defined as
The design of the terminal constraint will directly affect the
(
u∗ (k + i | k − 1) i = 0, · · · , N − 2
stability of the system. To ensure the stability of the system, ũ(k + i | k) =
some assumptions should be made as follows. κ(x) i = N − 1.
Assumption 2 For an actuated system (5),  there exists an (18)
admissible positively invariant set 8 := x ∈ R3 : x −
x l 2 ≤ ε, ε > 0 ⊂ X , such that the terminal constraint Let
Xteminal ⊂ 8. κ(x) = K (x − x l ), (19)
Lemma 2 The running cost function satisfies L(x l , 0) = 0,
and there exists a positive parameter c > 0, such that where
L(x, u) ≥ c∥x − x l ∥22 . L(x, u) is Lipschitz continuous in X ,
 
k1 0 0
i.e. for all x 1 , x 2 ∈ X and all u ∈ U, K=
0 0 k2
∥L(x 1 , u) − L(x 2 , u)∥2 ≤ L c ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 . (15) with k1 , k2 < 0, and P = diag{0.5, 0.5, 0.5}, then we
calculate the following
And the terminal cost function V (x) is also Lipschitz contin-
uous in 8, i.e. for all x 1 , x 2 ∈ 8, V ( f (x k , uck ))−V (x k ) + L(x k , uck )
 
1 2 2
∥V (x 1 ) − V (x 2 )∥2 ≤ L v ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 . (16) = k1 △t + q1 + r1 k1 2 + cos θ △ tk1 (xk − xl )2
2
Proof:
 
1 2 2
+ k2 △t + q3 + r2 k2 + △tk2 (θk − θl )2
2

L(x, u) = (x − x l )T Q(x − x l ) + uT Ru. 2

− sin θk1 △ t(xk − xl )(z k − zl )
Obviously, L(x l , 0) = 0.
+ q2 (z k − zl )2 . (20)
L(x, u) = (x − x l ) Q(x − x l ) + u Ru
T T
We select these parameters satisfying
≥ λ Q ∥x − x l ∥22
1 2 2
= c∥x − x l ∥22 . k1 △t + q1 + r1 k1 2 + cos θ △ tk1 + q2 ≤ 0,
2
Next, we will prove (15). Let us consider x 1 , x 2 ∈ X and 1 2 2
k2 △t + q3 + r2 k2 2 + △tk2 ≤ 0, (21)
u ∈ U, then 2
and the terminal constraint satisfying
∥L(x 1 , u) − L(x 2 , u)∥2
= (x 1 − x l )T Q(x 1 − x l ) − (x 2 − x l )T Q(x 2 − x l ) 2 |z − zl |
≤ 1,
= (x 1 − x l )T Q(x 1 − x l ) − (x 1 − x l )T Q(x 2 − x l ) |x − xl |
+(x 1 − x l )T Q(x 2 − x l ) − (x 2 − x l )T Q(x 2 − x l ) 2 −θ(z − zl ) ≤ 0,
≤ ∥x 1 − x l ∥2 λ Q ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 + ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 λ Q ∥x 2 − x l ∥2 x − xl ≤ 0,
π
≤ (∥x 1 − x l ∥2 + ∥x 2 − x l ∥2 )λ Q ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 . |θ| ≤ . (22)
4
Since the real ocean space is finite, the state error x i − x l is Then the equation (20) can satisfy the Assumption 3.
bounded, namely, ∥x i − x l ∥2 ≤ µ, i = 1, 2, where µ > 0 is Theorem 1 For an actuated system (5), if x k ∈ 8, under the
the unknown upper bound of the state error. Therefore, action of a local controller κ(x), x k+1 = f (x k , uk ) ∈ Xteminal .
And the terminal constraint set is given by
∥L(x 1 , u) − L(x 2 , u)∥2 ≤ 2µλ Q ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2
= L c ∥x 1 − x 2 ∥2 . Xter minal := Xsubter minal ∩ x ∈ R3 : (22) ,

(23)

Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

where pose of the ith valid beam in AUV’s body-fixed frame is

defined as
Xsubter minal
n   o βi = β − 1βi ∀i = a, · · · , a + b − 1, (24a)
:= x ∈ R3 : V (x) ≤ ε f , λ P − c ε2 ≤ ε ≤ λ P ε2 .
di cos βi
     
f xiB l
= + B ∀i = a, · · · , a + b − 1,
z iB −di sin βi 0
Next, we will prove Xsubter minal .
Proof: Let x k ∈ 8, according to Assumption 3, we can (24b)
obtain  T
where l B 0 is the installation position of the sensor relative
(x k+1 − x l )T P(x k+1 − x l ) to the body-fixed frame of the AUV. The position of the
obstacle detected by ith valid beam relative to the inertial
≤ (x k − x l )T P(x k − x l ) − c∥x k − x l ∥22
frame is
≤ λ P ∥x k − x l ∥22 − c∥x k − x l ∥22    B
x x
pi = i = J(θ ) iB + p ∀i = a, · · · , a + b − 1.
 
≤ λ P − c ε2 , zi zi
(25)
where 0 < c < λP . Since Xteminal ⊂ 8, we can select ε f
such that λ P − c ε2 ≤ ε f ≤ λ P ε2 . For any x k ∈ 8, x k+1 Since the whole picture of the obstacle may not be detected,
and the shape of the detectable part may be non-convex, it is
will enter the terminal constraint set under the action of the necessary to conduct approximately convex processing while
local controller. establishing the collision model, and fully cover the detectable
part into the collision model. Here, the safe collision avoidance
C. Environment Sensing and Collision Avoidance Scheme space enclosing the obstacle is approximated as circular space,
so the center and radius of the circular space will be found
At present, most studies assume that the obstacle informa- next.
tion (e.g. position, complete shape, etc) is known. However, The center of the circle is calculated based on the position
for most acoustic sensors, i.e. multi-beam sonar system, the of the obstacle detected by the ath and (a + b − 1)th beams.
detection field of view is limited, making the acquisition of As shown in Fig. 2a, when z a = z a+b−1 , the center of the
complete obstacle information impractical. For example, the circle is
shape drawn by the obstacle information detected by the sensor    xa +xa+b−1 
x
may be non-complete, leading to that the obstacle avoidance po = o = 2 . (26)
method based on complete obstacle shape information may zo za
not work anymore. Moreover, the obstacle shape may be non- As shown in Fig. 2b, (c) and (d), when z a ̸= z a+b−1 ,
convex, which will cause a heavy computational burden in
z a < z a+b−1

a,
solving the optimization problem. To deal with the above xo = xi , i = . (27)
problems, here, we will introduce an environment sensing and a + b − 1, z a > z a+b−1
approximate convex collision avoidance scheme under a finite Then, z o is calculated as follows.
field of view.
We select multi-beam sonar installed in the head of the AUV (xo − xa )2 + (z o − z a )2 = (xo − xa+b−1 )2 + (z o − z a+b−1 )2 .
as the environment sensing sensor. Considering the limited (28)
field of view constraint of the sonar, its main parameters are
as follows. The selection of the radius is the key to ensuring that the
1) Scan range is ±β degrees. detected part of the obstacle is completely covered in the
2) The angle difference between adjacent beams is 1β circle. Specifically, within the range detected by multi-beam
degrees. sonar, the maximum distance from the center of the circle to
3) The maximum detection distance of the all valid beam points is taken as the radius, that is,

beam is R.
4) The sensor returns a set of 2β/1β + 1 dimensional
ro = max po − pi 2 = r ∀i = a, · · · , a + b − 1. (29)


distance data. r
Fig. 2 shows different cases of the AUV’s perception of the The collision model of the detected obstacle is defined as
environment. B po , ro . Then the distance between the AUV and obstacles


The data
 returned by theTmultibeam sonar sensor is denoted is
by d := d0 , · · · , d(2β/1β) ∈ R(2β/1β)+1 , and the beam order
dist B( p, R), B po , ro



is defined as 0 to 2β/1β from top to bottom. Data with a  M \ 
detection distance less than R are considered valid. B po , ro = ∅ . (30)


:= min B( p, R) r
There may be multiple obstacles in the sensor detection field r

at the same time. Next, an obstacle is taken as an example to Based on the above, the position constraints of the AUV
establish its collision model. Assuming that the sensor returns can be designed in detail as
b ≥ 2 valid data, the index value of the effective starting
dist B( p, R), B po , ro ≥ dmin ,



beam is a, that is, the valid data is {da , · · · , da+b−1 }. The (31)

Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

YU et al.: HIGH-SPEED OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE OF A LARGE-SCALE UNDERACTUATED AUV 7

where dmin > 0 is the safe distance, which can further ensure
the security of the AUV during high-speed movement. In this
case, the state constraint can be summarized as follows.
X = x ∈ R3 : dist B( p, R), B pom , rom


≥ dmin , |θ| ≤ θ, m = 1, · · · , M . (32)

Considering that the detection range of multi-beam sonar is
limited, the prediction horizon N should be set as Fig. 3. The curve for underactuated velocity w.
R
N≤p . (33)
u 2 + w2 1t From Lemma 2 and Assumption 3, we can get
L f N −1 − 1
 
D. Stability Analysis 1J ≤ L c + Lv L f N −1
γ
To guarantee the closed-loop system stability, first we prove Lf −1
that the feasible initial solution can guarantee the feasibility of −c∥x(k − 1) − x l ∥22 .
the subsequent solution. Based on this, we prove that the state
error will still converge to a bounded set under the influence Hence, according to [27], JN∗ (•) is an ISS-Lyapunov function
of underactuated velocity. of the closed-loop system and the closed-loop system is ISS.
Theorem 2 Supposing that there is a feasible solution for Finally, the state of the AUV can converge to the region D.
the optimization problem in (9a)-(9f) at the initial time, then Remark 4 From the proof of Theorem 3, it can be seen
the optimization problem is recursively feasible if that the optimal solution for the optimization problem is not
necessary to ensure the stability of the closed-loop system.
λ P ε2 − ε f In other words, we could compute a feasible suboptimal
γ ≤ . (34)
L v L f N −1 solution at a lower cost than the optimal one, to realize
The proof of the recursively feasible for Theorem 2 can be waypoint tracking and high-speed obstacle avoidance.
seen in [26].
Theorem 3 With the proposed RNMPC, the closed-loop IV. R ESULTS
system is input-to-state stable (ISS). And the state error will In this section, the effectiveness and advantage of the
converge to a region D around the waypoint. The region D is proposed algorithm are verified on the high-fidelity visual
given by simulation platform. The platform environment was devel-
D : = x ∈ R3 : ∥x − x l ∥22
 oped based on the robot operating system (ROS) [28] and
UWSim [29]. The obstacles in the environment are mainly
γ L f N −1 − 1
 
≤ Lc + Lv L f N −1
. (35) composed of shipwrecks and 10km by 10km seabed terrain
c Lf −1 (modeled by 3DMAX). And a virtual multi-beam sonar is
Proof: Firstly, let JN∗ (k − 1) be the optimal cost function equipped on the head of the AUV to sense unknown obstacles.
at step k − 1, J˜ N (k) be the cost function under the action To illustrate the success of obstacle avoidance, we also create
of feasible control sequence at step k, and let JN∗ (k) be the a virtual sonar altimeter to measure the distance between the
optimal cost function at step k. Define AUV and the obstacles directly below it.
The AUV used for simulation is 13.96m in length, 2m
1J = JN∗ (k) − JN∗ (k − 1). (36) in diameter and up to 20m/s in maximum speed. We set
Then four waypoints in our  virtual ocean
 environment,T namely,
 T
pd1 = 1600m 1300m , pd2 = 2100m 1350m , pd3 =
1J ≤ J˜ N (k) − JN∗ (k − 1)  T 
3800m 1250m , and pd4 = 4000m 1300m . Seamounts
T
i=N
X−2 and shipwrecks are  located randomly. The initial pose of the
L x̂(k + i|k), u∗ (k + i|k − 1)


= T
AUV is x 0 = 0m 1300m 0◦ and initial feasible input
i=0  T
−L x̂(k + i|k − 1), u∗ (k + i|k − 1)


u0 = 20m/s 0◦ . The radius of the circle around the
+ L x̂(k + N − 1|k), κ x̂(k + N − 1|k)


waypoint is Rd = 5m (0.36 times the body length). The
main parameters of the virtual multi-beam sonar are selected
−L x̂(k − 1|k − 1), u∗ (k − 1|k − 1)




according to a real one [30], namely, β = 71.54◦ , 1β = 0.28◦ ,
+ V x̂(k + N |k) − V x̂(k + N − 1|k − 1) R = 120m, and the update rate is 5 Hz. The underactuated
i=N
X−2 velocity w is obtained through dynamic deduction. That is,
≤ Lc L f i γ
we use the dynamic model of the AUV, set its forward speed
i=0
as 20m/s, and give a set of random rudder angles that satisfy
−L x̂(k − 1|k − 1), u∗ (k − 1|k − 1)


the rudder’s physical constraint, through numerical simulation,
+ L x̂(k + N − 1|k), κ x̂(k + N − 1|k)





we obtain the curve of w as shown in Fig. 3.
+ V x̂(k + N |k) − V x̂(k + N − 1|k) To better verify the effectiveness and advantage of the
+ V x̂(k + N − 1|k) − V x̂(k + N − 1|k − 1) .



proposed approach, we compare it with the obstacle avoidance

Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

Fig. 4. The visualized simulation results of the obstacle avoidance process. Figures (left to right, top to bottom) show the results at 49.8s (a), 82.4s (b),
107.9s (c), 154.7s (d), 167.9s (e) and 207s (f), respectively. The green fan on the head of the vehicle is a visualization of the multi-beam sonar. The green
line along the Z B -axis of the body-fixed frame is the visualization of the sonar altimeter. The green circle represents the circular neighborhood with a radius
of 5 meters around the waypoint.

guidance algorithm based on DVA principle proposed in [9].

The design of the DVA guidance law is as follows. When the
vehicle is in waypoint tracking mode, the guidance law θd is
designed as
 
zl − z
θd = −arctan . (37)
xl − x
When the vehicle is in obstacle avoidance mode, the guidance
Fig. 5. The actual trajectories of the waypoint tracking and obstacle avoidance
law is switched to process. The upper and lower subfigures are enlarged parts of the vehicle
π e reaching the second and fourth waypoints, respectively.
θd = γ + − arctan( ). (38)
2 l s R0
To solve the problem that the guidance law is not smooth when To clearly illustrate the obstacle avoidance process of the
it is switched, a transition function is introduced as follows. AUV in the unknown environment, the comparison results of
1 1 π(t − tc ) π virtual simulation at different times are presented in Fig. 4.
δ(t) = + sin( − ). (39) Fig. 4a shows that the AUV is running at a high speed and
2 2 ts 2
starts to avoid the first top of the seamount. From Fig. 4b,
The guidance law can be finally given by we can visually see that the vehicle successfully reaches the
(
(1 − δ(t))θd1 + δ(t)θd2 , tc ≤ t < tc + ts first waypoint at about 82s after avoiding the first seamount.
θd = . (40) Fig. 4c shows the whole tracking process of the AUV from
θd2 , t ≥ tc + ts
the second waypoint to the third one, during which there
The specific meanings of symbols in equations (38)-(40) can is no obstacle. The AUV successfully crosses the second
be found in literature [9]. seamount with a sinking ship in Fig. 4e, while the detail of
Based on the desired guidance law, a velocity level control the sinking ship avoidance is illustrated in Fig. 4d. At last,
law is designed as as can be seen in Fig. 4f, the AUV reaches the last waypoint
accurately. From Fig. 4, it is obtained that under the action of
q = k1 (θ − θd ). (41)
both algorithms, the AUV can accomplish high-speed obstacle
where k1 > 0 is the control gain. avoidance and waypoints tracking tasks. Fig. 5 shows the
The parameters of the RNMPC selected in this paper need actual trajectory of the AUV driven by DVA and RNMPC
to satisfy equation (21), which are as follows. 1t = 1s, N = 5, in the process of waypoint tracking and obstacle avoidance.
Q i = diag{0.06, 0.06, 0.06}, Ri = diag{0.0001, 0.0001}, From the comparison results in Fig. 4b and Fig. 5, RNMPC
k1 = −1, k2 = −1, l B = 5.2m, R = 8.76m, dmin = 7m, has a higher precision of waypoints tracking. Fig. 6 intuitively
θ = 45◦ , w = 2m/s, u = 20m/s, q = 5◦ /s, u is chosen to shows that the height of the AUV controlled by RNMPC from
be 0m/s when the AUV gets near the last point, otherwise, the obstacle directly below it never violates the preset safe
u is chosen to be 20m/s. The parameters of DVA are tuned to distance dmin , but the height of the AUV controlled by DVA
the best we can. In our simulations, the RNMPC optimization from the obstacle directly below it does, showing that the
problem is solved by the CasADi framework [31]. RNMPC can guarantee a safer obstacle avoidance than the

Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
YU et al.: HIGH-SPEED OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE OF A LARGE-SCALE UNDERACTUATED AUV
Fig. 6. The height of the AUV from the obstacle directly below it. The green
dashed line indicates the preset safe distance dmin .
Fig. 7. The pitch angle of the AUV and its constraints. The dashed green
lines are the constraints of the pitch angle θ .
Fig. 8. The pitch velocity of the AUV with the constraints. The dashed green
lines are the constraints of q.
DVA in the complex and unknown environment. From Fig. 7,
it is observed that under both algorithms the pitch attitude
constraints are not violated. However, it does not mean the
DVA can deal with the constraint. This can be verified in the
control input curves presented in Fig. 8, in which the pitch
velocity produced by RNMPC can well satisfy its constraint
the whole time, whereas DVA does not. This is mainly because
the DVA does not have the capability to handle the constraint
problem.
Video: A video demonstrating the simulation scenarios of
this section can be found in the following links: https://sjtu-
mirus.github.io/MIRUS.github.io/research/2024-02-29-xlauv1
or https://www.bilibili.com/video/2024-02-29-xlauv1.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we propose an RNMPC method for a
large-scale underactuated AUV to solve the problem of
high-speed waypoint tracking and real-time obstacle avoidance
in a vertical plane, considering different types of constraints
including the state physical limitation, input saturation, and
the influence of underactuated velocity. Under a finite field of
view of multi-beam sonar, a dynamic sensing and collision
avoidance scheme is developed to formulate the collision
avoidance into convex constraints in the RNMPC optimiza-
tion problem. From the high-fidelity simulation results, it is
shown that the proposed control method can provide higher
Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9
waypoint tracking accuracy, safer obstacle avoidance, and
better constraint processing ability for a large-scale high-speed
underactuated AUV compared with the DVA algorithm [9].
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Yuh, “Design and control of autonomous underwater robots:
A survey,” Auton. Robots, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7–24, 2000.
[2] F. Zhang, G. Marani, R. N. Smith, and H. T. Choi, “Future trends in
marine robotics,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 14–122,
Mar. 2015.
[3] Y. Shi, C. Shen, H. Fang, and H. Li, “Advanced control in marine
mechatronic systems: A survey,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1121–1131, Jun. 2017.
[4] M. Cai, Y. Wang, S. Wang, R. Wang, Y. Ren, and M. Tan, “Grasp-
ing marine products with hybrid-driven underwater vehicle-manipulator
system,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1443–1454,
Jul. 2020.
[5] E. Taheri, M. H. Ferdowsi, and M. Danesh, “Closed-loop randomized
kinodynamic path planning for an autonomous underwater vehicle,”
Appl. Ocean Res., vol. 83, pp. 48–64, Feb. 2019.
[6] Y. Noguchi and T. Maki, “Path planning method based on artificial
potential field and reinforcement learning for intervention AUVs,” in
Proc. IEEE Underwater Technol. (UT), Kaohsiung, Taiwan, May 2019,
pp. 1–6.
[7] M. Fang, S. Wang, M. Wu, and Y. Lin, “Applying the self-tuning fuzzy
control with the image detection technique on the obstacle-avoidance
for autonomous underwater vehicles,” Ocean Eng., vol. 93, pp. 11–24,
Sep. 2015.
[8] X. Cao and J. Peng, “A potential field bio-inspired neural network
control algorithm for AUV path planning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Inf. Autom. (ICIA), Wuyishan, China, Aug. 2018, pp. 1427–1432.
[9] J. Liu, M. Zhao, and L. Qiao, “Adaptive barrier Lyapunov function-
based obstacle avoidance control for an autonomous underwater vehicle
with multiple static and moving obstacles,” Ocean Eng., vol. 243,
pp. 110303–110318, Jan. 2022.
[10] C. Zhang, P. Cheng, B. Du, B. Dong, and W. Zhang, “AUV path
tracking with real-time obstacle avoidance via reinforcement learning
under adaptive constraints,” Ocean Eng., vol. 256, pp. 111453–111463,
Jan. 2022.
[11] X. Wang, X. Yao, and L. Zhang, “Path planning under constraints
and path following control of autonomous underwater vehicle with
dynamical uncertainties and wave disturbances,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst.,
vol. 99, nos. 3–4, pp. 891–908, Sep. 2020.
[12] S. Kong, J. Sun, C. Qiu, Z. Wu, and J. Yu, “Extended state observer-
based controller with model predictive governor for 3-D trajectory
tracking of underactuated underwater vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Infor-
mat., vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 6114–6124, Sep. 2021.
[13] J. Wang, Z. Wu, M. Tan, and J. Yu, “Model predictive control-
based depth control in gliding motion of a gliding robotic dolphin,”
IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Syst., vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 5466–5477,
Dec. 2021.
[14] S. Heshmati-Alamdari, G. C. Karras, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos,
“A predictive control approach for cooperative transportation by multiple
underwater vehicle manipulator systems,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 917–930, May 2022.
[15] S. H. Alamdari, G. C. Karras, P. Marantos, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos,
“A robust predictive control approach for underwater robotic vehicles,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2352–2363,
Nov. 2020.
[16] S. Heshmati-Alamdari, A. Nikou, and D. V. Dimarogonas, “Robust
trajectory tracking control for underactuated autonomous underwater
vehicles in uncertain environments,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng.,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1288–1301, Jul. 2021.
[17] C. Shen, Y. Shi, and B. Buckham, “Model predictive control for an
AUV with dynamic path planning,” in Proc. 54th Annu. Conf. Soc.
Instrum. Control Engineers Jpn. (SICE), Hangzhou, China, Jul. 2015,
pp. 475–480.
[18] C. Shen, Y. Shi, and B. Buckham, “Integrated path planning and tracking
control of an AUV: A unified receding horizon optimization approach,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1163–1173,
Jun. 2017.
[19] X. Shang, J. Chen, S. Zhuang, and Y. Shi, “Scenario-based model
predictive control for path planning and obstacle avoidance,” in Proc. 4th
IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Cyber-Phys. Syst. (ICPS), May 2021, pp. 446–451.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
[20] F. Kong, W. Xu, Y. Cai, and F. Zhang, “Avoiding dynamic small
obstacles with onboard sensing and computation on aerial robots,” IEEE
Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7869–7876, Oct. 2021.
[21] Z. Ma, C. Wang, Y. Niu, X. Wang, and L. Shen, “A saliency-based
reinforcement learning approach for a UAV to avoid flying obstacles,”
Robot. Auto. Syst., vol. 100, pp. 108–118, Feb. 2018.
[22] D. Wang, T. Fan, T. Han, and J. Pan, “A two-stage reinforcement learning
approach for multi-UAV collision avoidance under imperfect sensing,”
IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3098–3105, Apr. 2020.
[23] D. Huo, L. Dai, R. Xue, and Y. Xia, “Collision-free model predictive
trajectory tracking control for UAVs in obstacle environment,” IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 5466–5477, Dec. 2022,
doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3221702.
[24] T. I. Fossen, Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion
Control. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011.
[25] O. Elhaki and K. Shojaei, “Neural network-based target tracking control
of underactuated autonomous underwater vehicles with a prescribed
performance,” Ocean Eng., vol. 167, pp. 239–256, Nov. 2018.
[26] D. L. Marruedo, T. Alamo, and E. F. Camacho, “Input-to-state stable
MPC for constrained discrete-time nonlinear systems with bounded addi-
tive uncertainties,” in Proc. 41st IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, Jun. 2002,
pp. 4619–4624.
[27] Z.-P. Jiang and Y. Wang, “Input-to-state stability for discrete-time
nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 857–869, 2001.
[28] M. Quigley, “ROS: An open-source robot operating system,” in Proc.
ICRA Workshop Open Source Softw., 2009.
[29] M. Prats, J. Pérez, J. J. Fernández, and P. J. Sanz, “An open source
tool for simulation and supervision of underwater intervention mis-
sions,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., Oct. 2012,
pp. 2577–2582.
[30] MS400U All-in-One Multibeam Echo Sounder. Accessed: Apr. 27, 2023.
[Online]. Available: http://www.hydro-tech.cn/en/ms400u.html
[31] J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl,
“CasADi: A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal
control,” Math. Program. Comput., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, Mar. 2019.
Lin Yu received the B.E. degree in automation from
Shandong University, Shandong, China, in 2018,
and the M.Sc. degree in control science and engi-
neering from Tianjin University, Tianjin, China,
in 2021. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree
in naval architecture and ocean engineering with
the State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
His research interests include path planning, con-
trol theory, and their applications in unmanned
autonomous systems, such as autonomous underwa-
ter vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomous ground vehicles.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 14:21:24 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Lei Qiao (Member, IEEE) received the B.S. degree
in automation and the M.Eng. degree in control
engineering from the College of Automation, Harbin
Engineering University, Harbin, China, in 2012 and
2014, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in con-
trol science and engineering from the Department
of Automation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai, China, in 2020.
From September 2017 to September 2018, he was
a Visiting Research Scholar with the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH, USA. He is currently an Assistant Professor
with the School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering and the
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
His research interests include navigation, control, coordination and games of
marine robotics, and autonomous systems.
Dr. Qiao received the 2019 Premium Award for Best Paper in IET Control
Theory and Applications as the first author and the Young Scientist Award
of 2022 International Conference on Automation, Control, and Robotics
Engineering. He was named in Stanford University List of Top 2% Scientists
Worldwide in 2023.
Chao Shen (Member, IEEE) received the B.E.
degree in automation engineering and the M.Sc.
degree in control science and engineering from
Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
China, in 2009 and 2012, respectively, and the
Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from
the University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada,
in 2018.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with the
Department of Systems and Computer Engineering,
Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Before
joining Carleton University, he was a Post-Doctoral Researcher with
the Real-Time Adaptive Control Engineering Laboratory, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. His research interests include control
theory, machine learning, and optimization, and their applications in robotics
systems, mechatronics systems, and industrial processes. He was a recipient
of the 2018 IEEE SMCS Thesis Grant Initiative for the Ph.D. thesis on
model predictive control for underwater robotics and the Natural Science
and Engineering Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship in
2020. He is also an Associate Editor of IEEE/ASME T RANSACTIONS ON
M ECHATRONICS and IEEE C ANADIAN J OURNAL OF E LECTRICAL AND
C OMPUTER E NGINEERING.