PDF

NO9205 250
SVEIN IVAR SAGATUN NEI-NO--;
MODELING AND CONTROL OF

UNDERWATER VEHICLES:
A LAGRANGIAN APPROACH
NTH
DOKTOR INGENI0RAVHANDLING 1992:18
INSTITUTT FOR TEKNISK KYBERNETIKK
TRONDHEIM
UNIVERSITETET I TRONDHEIM
NORGES TEKNISKE H0GSKOLE ITK-rapport 1992:28-W
MSTMMTI8M tf INK DOCiiMiNI IS WUWTtl
mm nan nmm
DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
NEI-NO-302
DE93 752999
Modeling and Control of Underwater

Vehicles :
A Lagrangian Approach
by
Svein Ivar Sagatun

Division of Engineering Cybernetics
Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
The Norwegian Institute of Technology
Diploma Engineer from the Division of Marine Systems Design,

Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian Institute of Technology (March 1988).
Submitted to
the Division of Engineering Cybernetics, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, Norwegian Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Dr.Ing. degree in Engineering Cybernetics
at the
Norwegian Institute of Technology
(March 1992)
MASTER
ktmniiw * ims mmxi is mmm
wm sales nmm i?£>
Denne avhandlingen er dedikert til min
mor, far og kjaeresten min
Berit.
n
This page is intentionally left blank

Summary
This thesis contains an extensive study of modeling and control of underwater vehicles.
The main results of this thesis are or will be published in international journals and con
ferences.
The thesis concludes that there will be an emerging demand for more optimal and ad
vanced nonlinear controllers for underwater vehicles. Minimum control effort controllers
will be especially needed.
Lagrangian dynamics has successfully been employed to derive the equations of motion
for underwater vehicles.The Lagrangian approach in modeling exposes the properties of
the underwater vehicles’ equation of motion in a way that the more traditional Newtonian
approach does not. The expressions for energy and work used in the Lagrangian mechan
ics are also useful in control system design when stability and optimality are proved by
using nonlinear stability theory. The equations of motion are derived in both an inertial
reference-frame and a vehicle-fixed coordinate system.
Results from open-water tests of the Norwegian Experimental Remotely Operated Ve
hicle’s (NEROV) thruster system are presented. These test-results show the nonlinear
relation between the vehicle’s velocity and thrust. Test results from free-decay tests of
the NEROV are also presented. These results show how the vehicles added inertia and
damping coefficients vary as a function of the Keulegan-Carpenter number. These param
eters’ dependencies of frequency and a perturbed vehicle geometry are also investigated.
These tests clearly show that the model parameters of underwater vehicles are time-
varying.
Two optimal and near-optimal nonlinear controllers are derived in minute detail. Both
controllers are optimal in the sense that they minimize the generalized forces that cor
respond to the vehicle’s kinetic energy and the energy which dissipate from the vehicle.
Adaptive versions of the controllers are also presented. Lyapunov theory and Barbalat’s
lemma are used to prove stability. The expressions for energy and work derived in the mod
IV
eling chapter will be particularly useful in these proofs. This thesis shows how favourable
it is to first derive the controllers in an inertial reference frame for then transforming the
control scheme to a vehicle-fixed representation before implementation.
Contents
Summary iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xiii
Nomenclature xv
Preface xxii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation for this Research .............................................. 1
1.2 Optimal Path Planning, TrajectoryGeneration and Tracking....................... 3
1.3 Why Lagrangian Mechanics............................................................................ 5
1.4 Contributions of this Thesis............................................................................ 5
1.5 A Brief Tour through this Thesis................................................................... 7
2 Kinematics 11
2.1 Kinematics ....................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Coordinate Systems........................................................................................... 11
2.3 Euler Angle Representation............................................................................ 12
2.3.1 The rotation matrix Ji(x£) ......................................................... 13
2.3.2 The angular velocity transformation matrix ^(x#) ........................ 14
2.3.3 The complete transformationmatrix J(xe)......................................... 14
2.3.4 Quasi coordinates....................................... 15
2.4 Euler Parameters.............................................................................................. 15
2.5 Euler Parameters to Euler Angles Transformation........................................ 16
3 Modeling of Underwater Vehicles 19

3.1 Advantages with the Lagrangian Formulation .............................................. 19
v
VI CONTENTS
3.1.1 The Lagrangian versus the Newtonian approach.................................. 20

3.1.2 The Lagrangian versus the Hamiltonian approach............................... 20
3.2 Lagrangian Formulation......................................................................................21
3.3 Rigid Body Moving through a Liquid.................................................................22
3.3.1 Conditions on the velocity potential........................................................23
3.3.2 Kinetic energy of the fluid.......................................................................23
3.3.3 Kinetic energy of the rigid body..............................................................25
3.3.4 Rate of change of angular and linear impulses ina moving origin . . 26
3.3.5 Kirchhoff’s equations in vector form, Kirchhoff (1869)..................... 27
3.4 Rigid Body Equations of Motion..........................................................................27
3.5 Added Inertia.................................................................................................... 31
3.5.1 Symmetry properties of the mass matrix.............................................. 34
3.6 Dissipative Forces.................................................................................................. 35
3.6.1 Forces and moments from an umbilical................................................. 39
3.7 Restoring Forces and Moments.............................................................................40
3.8 Propulsion and Control Forces and Moments.................................................... 42
3.8.1 Thruster hydrodynamics..........................................................................43
3.8.2 The b(q,u) vector ...................................................................................45
3.8.3 The NEROV thruster system.................................................................45
3.8.4 Open water test of the NEROV thrusters.............................................. 47
3.9 Wave and Current Forces and Moments ...........................................................48
3.9.1 Wave models in the frequency domain ................................................. 49
3.9.2 State-space representations of sea waves.............................................. 51
3.9.3 Linear potential theory.............................................................................53
3.9.4 Morrison’s equation...................................................................................55
3.9.5 Current ................................................................................................. 55
3.9.6 State-space representation of sea current.............................................. 55
3.10 Underwater Vehicles - Nonlinear Equations of Motion................................. 57
3.10.1 Alternate representation..........................................................................57
3.10.2 Hydrodynamical and hydrostatistical stability analysis...................... 58
3.11 Equations of Motion Formulated in the Inertial Reference Frame................... 58
3.12 Model Properties................................................................................................ 60
3.12.1 Properties of the q-frame formulation.................................................... 60
3.12.2 Properties of the x-frame formulation.................................................... 63
3.13 Experimental Determination of Added Inertia and Damping..................... 65
3.13.1 Experimental setup...................................................................................65
3.13.2 Theory........................................................................................................ 66
3.13.3 Added mass and damping as a function of frequency ......................... 68
3.13.4 Added mass and damping as a function of the KC number................69
CONTENTS vii
3.13.5 Off-diagonal coupling terms................................................................ 70

3.14 Linearized Equations of Motion...................................................................... 70
3.14.1 Linearization about constant velocity q = q0..................................... 70
3.14.2 Linearization about zero velocity </=0................................................. 71
3.14.3 A state space model ............................................................................ 72
3.14.4 Properties of the NEROV state-space model..................................... 74
3.14.5 Eigenvalue analysis............................................................................... 74
3.15 Summary of Chapter 3........................................................................................ 76
4 Optimal Control Algorithms for Underwater Vehicles 79

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 79
4.2 Problem Statement............................................................................................ 79
4.2.1 Small underwater vehicles - a special case ........................................ 80
4.3 A Brief Review of Existing Systems................................................................ 81
4.3.1 Dynamic positioning systems ............................................................. 81
4.3.2 Autopilots............................................................................................... 83
4.4 Design Requirements........................................................................................ 84
4.5 Optimalization with Respect to Minimum Control Effort................................85
4.5.1 Minimum fuel......................................................................................... 86
4.5.2 Minimum energy...................................................................................... 87
4.5.3 Other minimum control effort criteria................................................. 87
4.6 Basic Assumptions............................................................................................ 90
4.7 The NOpAC Control scheme................................................................................ 91
4.7.1 State-space representation................................................................... 92
4.7.2 The control objective................................................................................ 92
4.7.3 Optimality and stability...................................................................... 93
4.7.4 The control law..................................................................................... 98
4.7.5 The adaptive control algorithm.......................................................... 99
4.7.6 Some critical remarks...............................................................................101
4.7.7 A simulation study..................................................................................101
4.7.8 Implementation of the NOpAC control scheme.................................... 102
4.7.9 Comments to the NOpAC control scheme............................................. 102
4.8 The OpAC Control Scheme ...............................................................................105
4.8.1 State-space representation..................................................................... 105
4.8.2 The control objective...............................................................................105
4.8.3 Optimality and stability.........................................................................106
4.8.4 The control law........................................................................................109
4.8.5 The adaptive control algorithm............................................................ 112
4.8.6 A simulation study..................................................................................115
viii CONTENTS
4.8.7 Implementation of the OpAC algorithm................................................116

4.8.8 Comments to the OpAC control scheme................................................116
4.9 Implementational Remarks................................................................................. 119
4.9.1 Selection of parameters to adapt............................................................ 119
4.9.2 Saturation handling................................................................................. 120
4.9.3 Integral action.......................................................................................... 123
4.9.4 Modified parameter update laws............................................................125
4.10 Summary of Chapter 4..........................................................................................126
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 127

5.1 Summary and Conclusions................................................................................. 127
5.2 Recommendations for Future Work..................................................................128
A Proofs 131
A.l Proof of Lemma 4.3............................................................................................ 131
A.2 Proof of Comment 4.1 ...................................................................................... 133
A.3 Alternative proof of Theorem 4.5.................................................................... 134
B Fluid Mechanics and Hydrodynamics 135

B.l Basic fluidmechanics and hydrodynamics........................................................ 135
B.2 Linear wave theory............................................................................................ 137
B.3 Nonlinear effects - Stoke’s drift ....................................................................... 139
C The NEROV 141

C.l NEROV.............................................................................................................. 141
C.2 Background........................................................................................................ 142
C.3 Program Goals and Objectives.......................................................................... 142
C.4 General Arrangement......................................................................................... 143
C.5 Propulsion System ............................................................................................ 143
C.6 The Sensor System............................................................................................ 143
C.7 The Computer System...................................................................................... 144
D Results from the Free Decay Test 149
E A Complete Mathematical Model 153

E.l Complete Equations of Motion.......................................................................... 153
E.2 NEROV Model Data......................................................................................... 155
References 156
Index 166
List of Tables
1.1 Subsea completions on the Norwegian continental shelf. The list is not
complete. Fields as Gullfaks Spr, Gullfaks Gamma, Mikkel, Sleipner Vest,
Tyrihans Nord, Smprbukk 0st and Balder may be completed subsea before
year 2000. We can not rule out the possibility that existing fields will be
expanded subsea............................................................................................ 8
1.2 A comparison between underwater and space robotics........................... 9
3.1 Nondimensional added mass coefficients and linear and quadratic damping
terms for the NEROV for an oscillation period of ^ 11 6 and KC ~ 1. . . 70
3.2 The open-loop eigenvalues for surge, sway, and heave motion for KC ~ 1 . 75
3.3 Estimated open-loop eigenvalues for roll, pitch and yaw motion for KC ~ 1 75
B.l Equations derived from <j> Faltinsen (1990a) T = Wave period, to — -y,
A =Wavelenght, k = , (a =Wave amplitude, g = Acceleration of gravity,
z positive upwards, h = waterdepth, total pressure in fluid: pp — pgz + p0 . 138
E.l NEROV masses and inertias........................................................................ 156
ix
X LIST OF TABLES
List of Figures
1.1 Hierarchical optimal trajectory planning and tracking............................. 4
2.1 Coordinate systems used in this thesis........................................................ 12
3.1 Rate of change of impulses in a moving origin with respect to a fixed refer
ence frame....................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Steady state resistance components, Clayton and Bishop(1982) p. 200. . . 36
3.3 Streamlines, boundary layer and wake........................................................ 37
3.4 Drag coefficient Co for a cylinder as a function of theReynoldsnumber . . 38
3.5 Restoring forces and moments..................................................................... 41
3.6 A typical plot of Kj, Kq and t)0 against positive J0,................................ 44
3.7 A schematic drawing of the NEROV thruster Sagatunand Fossen (1991a). 46
3.8 The analog inner feedback loop...................................................................... 47
3.9 (a) Measured thruster force T as a function of propeller revolutions n for
different speeds of advance V^fb) Non-dimensional thrust characteristics
Kt versus the advance coefficient J0 for the NEROV.................................. 48
3.10 (c) Nondimensional thrust characteristics Ktx (o marked) and Kty (x
marked) in the x- and y-direction respectively as a function of the advanced
coefficient J0 and angle a = 0° (dashed) and 90° (solid) between thruster
and vehicle speed................................................................................................. 49
3.11 Measured time serie from the North Sea with its corresponding power den
sity plot................................................................................................................. 51
3.12 The JONSWAP spectrum (solid) (3.39) and the Pierson-Moskowitz spec
trum (dashed) (3.38)........................................................................................ 52
3.13 A comparison between the JONSWAP spectrum (3.39) and a measured
spectrum................................................................................................................. 53
3.14 H is the wave height, D is a characteristic diameter and A is the wave length. 56
3.15 A typical decay................................................................................................. 66
3.16 Experimental setup.............................................................................................. 67
xi
xii LIST OF FIGURES
3.17 The total linear damping coefficient per unit mass p = pj + plotted
as a function of the equivalent velocity ....................................................68
3.18 The two geometrical perturbation objects............................................................ 69
3.19 The equivalent quadratic damping coefficient Odd and the added mass co
efficient Ca (both in x-direction) plotted as a function of the Keulegan-
Carpenter number, KC = where X is the amplitude of oscillation
and D is a characteristic dimension for the vehicle........................................ 71
3.20 Ca versus Cdd for a KC value between 1 and 0.1....................................... 72
3.21 Quasi-linearization of the quadratic damping terms............................................73
3.22 The eigenvalues of the NEROV in surge sway and heave plotted as functions
of the KC number............................................................................................... 74
3.23 Open-loop poles for the NEROV vehicle for high KC values........................... 76
4.1 Block diagram showing the Kalman filter based DP system o/Balchen et al.
(1980a)................................................................................................................ 82
4.2 An underwater vehicle in transit exposed for disturbances............................... 96
4.3 The block diagram for the NOpAC control scheme........................................... 99
4.4 NOpAC simulation study....................................................................................104
4.5 The block diagram for the OpAC control scheme.............................................114
4.6 OpAC simulation study .................................................................................... 118
4.7 The overall block diagram for the saturation handlingscheme......................... 121
4.8 Generation of the desired reference trajectory...................................................121
4.9 Generation of the modified desired state Amerongen(1982)............................ 122
C.l The NEROV vehicle - general arrangement..................................................... 141

C.2 The NEROV computer system.......................................................................... 145
C.3 Schematic drawing of the sensor system............................................................ 146
C. 4 Experimentally obtained sensor data with and without Kalman filter Fossen
and Sagatun (199lb).............................................................................................147
D. l Nondimensional free decay test-results for the x-direction. The upper left
frame contains the dimensionless linear damping coefficient , upper right
frame contains the quadratic damping coefficient in dimensionless form,
while the bottom left frame shows the added mass coefficients (made dimen
sionless such that mA = CapV ), solid = unperturbed geometry, dashed =
small perturbation and dashdot = large perturbation...................................... 150
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
D.2 Nondimensional free decay test-results for the y-direction . The upper left
sionless such that mA = CapV ), solid = unperturbed geometry, dashed =
small perturbation and dashdot = large perturbation.......................................151
D.3 Nondimensional free decay test-results for the z-direction . The upper left
sionless such that mA = Cap^J ), solid = unperturbed geometry, dashed =
small perturbation and dashdot — large perturbation.......................................152
xiv LIST OF FIGURES
N omenclat ur e
Vectors and Matrices
Bold type is used exclusively to denote vectors and matrices. Bold uppercase denotes
matrices and lowercase vectors.
Symbols
Symbol Definition
A Area, projected or characteristic area

A System matrix
A{ Wave amplitude
B Buoyancy force
Bt Input matrix, thruster configuration matrix
B Input matrix
BG Distance between CG and CB
BM Distance between the vehicle’s metacentre and CB
Bf Generalized inverse of B
b Vector containing nonlinear control forces and moments
C Matrix of Coriolis and centrifugal terms
Cam Matrix of Coriolis and centrifugal terms due to hydrodynamic added mass
CB Centre of buoyancy
Cd Drag coefficient
CG Centre of gravity
Cij Rotation matrix describing a rotation j about the i-axis
Ca Inertia coefficient
xv
XVI LIST OF FIGURES
Cdd Equivalent quadratic drag coefficient

CP Centre of pressure
Cf nondimensional skin-friction coefficient
Crb Matrix of Coriolis and centrifugal terms due to rigid body forces
c Positive damping coefficient
dq Vector of quadratic damping terms due to skin friction and drag
dq Quadratic drag coefficient
di Linear drag coefficient
D Diameter
D Matrix of dissipative (damping) terms
Dl Matrix of linear damping terms due to skin friction and drag
Dq Matrix of quadratic damping terms due to skin friction and drag
Du Damping matrix due to umbilical
e Euler parameter vector, prediction error vector
e,- Euler parameter i (i=1..3)
E Energy, angular velocity to the time derivative of Euler parameters transformation matr
f Force vector
fid Damping farce
E Power function for dissipative forces
g Acceleration of gravity
g Vector of gravitational and buoyancy forces
GM Distance between the vehicle’s metacentre and CG
h Transfer function
H Hamiltonian
H Transfer function matrix, wave height
Hi Significant wave height
k Wave number
KG Distance between the vehicle’s CG and keel line
Inxn n x n Identity matrix
I Inertia tensor referred to the vehicle-fixed coordinate system
Ix Moment of inertia about x-axis
Iy Moment of inertia about y-axis
Iz Moment of inertia about z-axis
Ixy Product of inertia about x- and y-axes
IXz Product of inertia about x- and z-axes
Iv* Product of inertia about y- and z-axes
J Cost function
J0 Open water advance coefficient
J Linear and Angular velocity transformation matrix
J\ Linear velocity transformation matrix
Ji Angular velocity transformation matrix
K Hydrodynamic moment component about x-axis (rolling moment)
K Solution to the Riccati equation
LIST OF FIGURES xvn
KC Keulegan-Carpenter’s number
KG Distance between the vehicle’s CG and keel line
Kd Regulator gain matrix, derivate action
Kp Regulator gain matrix, proportional action
Kg Adaption gain matrix
Kp Non-dimensional thrust coefficient
Kq Non-dimensional torque coefficient
L Lagrangian
l, Thruster moment arm about axis j
m Mass of the vehicle
m Mass of the vehicle’s displaced fluid
M Hydrodynamic moment component about y-axis (pitching moment)
M Inertia matrix
Mam Added mass matrix
Mpk Froude-Kriloff inertia matrix
Mrs Rigid body inertia matrix
Mw Wave-force inertia matrix
n Propeller revolution
n Propeller revolution vector, vehicle-fixed unit outward normal vector
N Hydrodynamic moment component about z-axis (yawing moment), integer
N Matrix representing workless forces
p Angular velocity component of q about x-axis (roll), pressure
p Linear and angular impulse vector
Pd Dynamic pressure
p0 Atmospheric pressure on the water surface
q Angular velocity component of q about y-axis (pitch)
q Vehicle-fixed vector of linear and angular velocities components
q Vehicle-fixed quasi-vector
qd Steady state desired velocity vector
qj Fluid velocity vector referred to the vehicle-fixed coordinate system
qT Relative fluid velocity vector referred to the vehicle-fixed coordinate system, reference
q Velocity tracking error vector
Q Propeller torque
Q Positive weighting matrix
Qi Generalized force
r Angular velocity component of q about z-axis (yaw)
r Position vector in the vehicle-fixed coordinate system X0Y0Z0
tq Position vector in the local coordinate system XoY0Zo to CG
R Positive weighting matrix
Re Reynold’s number
S Wave spectrum
s Measure of tracking
t Time
xviii LIST OF FIGURES
T Kinetic energy, time constant, wave period, propeller thrust

T0 Optimization criterion weighting matrix
TP Towing point
u Linear velocity component of q in x-direction (surge)
u Control input vector
V Potential energy
Uf Fluid motion velocity component in the x-direction
ur Relative fluid motion velocity component in the x-direction
v Linear velocity component of q in y-direction (sway)
v Vehicle-fixed linear velocity vector
Vf Fluid motion velocity component in the y-direction
vr Relative fluid motion velocity component in the y-direction
V Volume, vehicle speed, noise covariance matrix, Lyapunov function
Va Advance velocity at the propeller
w Linear velocity component of q in z-direction (heave), wake fraction number
w Wave forces
Wf Fluid motion velocity component in the z-direction
wT Relative fluid motion velocity component in the z-direction
W Weight, work
x Surge position referred to the earth-fixed reference frame
xb The x-coordinate of CB
xq The x-coordinate of CG
xp The x-coordinate of CP
xc Inertial fixed current vector
x Earth-fixed vector of position and Euler angle components
Xd Desired state vector
xp Roll, pitch, yaw, Euler angles
xq Euler parameters
X Hydrodynamic force component along x-axis
XYZ Earth-fixed coordinate system
X0Y0Z0 Vehicle-fixed coordinate system
y Sway position referred to the earth-fixed reference frame
y Measurement vector, state vector for the NOpAC controller
ys The y-coordinate of CB
ya The y-coordinate of CG
xp The y-coordinate of CP
V Hydrodynamic force component along y-axis
z Heave position (depth) referred to the earth-fixed reference frame
z State vector
zb The z-coordinate of CB
zq The z-coordinate of CG
zp The z-coordinate of CP
Z Hydrodynamic force component along z-axis
LIST OF FIGURES XIX
Greek Symbols
e Permutation symbol
6 Kroenecker delta function, a Dirac pulse
( Wave elevation, damping ration
(a Wave amplitude
($ Damping ration in pitch
(4 Damping ratio in roll
r]M Mechanical efficiency
rjo Thruster open-water efficiency in undisturbed water
rja Relative rotative efficiency
9 Angle of pitch, Euler angle
0 Parameter vector
A Wave length, closed loop bandwidth, eigenvalue, forgetting factor
A Unit vector
p Density
a Standard deviation
r Force and moment vector
Tu Force and moment vector due to umbilical forces
<f> Angle of roll, Euler angle, velocity potential, power spectral density
<f>7 Scattering potential
<f>0 Incident regular wave velocity potential
<f>j Radiation potential
•P Power spectral density matrix, regressor matrix
xj) Angle of yaw, Euler angle
xp Regressor matrix
lj Circular frequency, propeller angular velocity
u;e Frequency of encounter
u)p Modal or peak frequency
w„ Vehicle-fixed frequency
ug Natural frequency in pitch
uty Natural frequency in roll
V Volume of the displaced fluid
Hydrodynamic Coefficients
The hydrodynamic forces and moments are written in accordance with the SNAME (1950)
notation; e.g. the hydrodynamic added mass force Za along the z-axis due to a linear
acceleration v in the y-direction is written as:
XX LIST OF FIGURES
dZ
Za = Zyii where Zy = ——
ov
Similarly the damping in roll Kd due to a linear velocity u in the x-direction can be
expressed as:
dK
Kd = Kuu where Ku = —
ou
Sub- and superscripts

Subscripts
aq The term
te a is formulated in the vehicle-fixed reference frame
ax The term a is formulated in an inertial reference frame
Superscripts
* optimal term
L Liquid, the vehicle’s ambient fluid
S Solid, the vehicle
d desired or drag term
The q and x subscripts are omitted when it is clear from the text which reference frame
the equations are expressed in.
Miscellaneous
The term diag(-) denotes a diagonal matrix with the terms (•) on the diagonal.
The term [a:x] denotes the skew-symmetric matrix formed by the 3x3 vector x.
(•), (■) and (■) denote the error (•) — (•),-, the estimated value of (•) and the time derivative
of (•) respectively.
Preface
I am very grateful to my supervisor Professor Jens G. Balchen at Division of Engineering

Cybernetics who gave me a scholarship when I really needed one, who has been a great
inspirator and supervisor and whose knowledge and creativity have been invaluable in
motivating me throughout the writing of this thesis.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my friend and colleague dr.ing., Thor Inge
Fossen with whom I have been working since my early undergraduate years. His en
couragement, support, and friendship throughout these years are very appreciated. I am
particularly grateful for our discussions, our cooperation building the NEROV, the arti
cles we have written together, the parties and squash matches we have had.
I am indebted to managing director D. Richard Blidberg and his staff at the Marine
Systems Engineering Laboratory at University of New Hampshire for giving me the op
portunity toi work with them for one year. It was a very instructive and inspiring stay. I
would also like to thank Professor David Limbert at the Department of Mechanical Engi
neering at UNH for teaching me more control theory in one semester than I thought was
possible. I am also thankful to my good friends Barry Wythoff, Paul Franz and the rest
of the students at Babcock graduate dormitory for making my year in New Hampshire
most enjoyable.
I would like to express my gratitude to my friends and colleagues Sverre Hendseth, Stefano
Bertelli and the rest of the people at the Center of Robotic Research and on the M0-
BATEL program at the Division of Engineering Cybernetics. The help from the ROV’91
group was also appreciated. I offer special thanks to 0rnulf R0dsth for invaluable help
with C programming and making things work on my SUN . Also I wish to thank Professor
Olav Egeland for helpful comments and discussions.
Assistant Professor Bj0rn Sortland and Erik Lehn at the Center of Marine Research has
been very helpful during the design and testing of various components of the NEROV.
xxi
xxn LIST OF FIGURES
Thanks are also due to Asgeir S0rensen and Thor Inge Fossen for helping me reading
through this thesis and correcting numerous errors.
Many thanks to Bjprn, Gaute and Helge for many inspiring discussions, their friendship
and for throwing some great parties during the years.
Finally, I am very grateful for the financial support from the Fulbright Foundation, the
Norwegian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the British Petroleum Nor
way.
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation for this Research

Oil and gas exploration and production offshore moves towards increasingly deeper wa
ters. The cost of building, maintaining, inspecting, and installing structures increases
drastically as the depth of operation increases. If some of the equipment can be placed
wet, that is on the seafloor or in the water column, substantial costs can be saved. This is
mainly due to the reduced steel weight of the structures. For that reason, more production
equipment is moved under water, see Table l.l1.
These underwater installations need periodical inspection and maintenance.
As an example, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate’s regulation states that primary

and secondary structures have to be inspected annually , OD (1982). The annual in
spection includes visual inspection of selected areas, potential measurements, determining
the extent of corrosion attack, dimensional measurements of selected anodes and visual
inspection for mapping type of marine growth. In addition, there are requirements to per
form non-destructive testing of critical steelmembers and areas where cracks or corrosion
may be expected.
The conventional method of inspecting underwater installations, e.g. bottom templates,

pipe-lines and risers, is by utilizing divers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). Divers
are much more flexible than ROVs with respect to various work tasks which they can be
set to do. Divers are also inherently more adaptive to unexpected changes of the sur
rounding conditions. This is because humans have flexible manipulators ,i.e. the human
arms and legs, and sensor system ,e.g. eyes, touch, hearing and the sense of distance,
motion and orientation. The state-of-the-art work-ROV is usually equipped with two ma-
1 These data were provided by Managing Director Harry Vagseth, Racal Survey Norge A/S
1
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
nipulators , typically Slingsby or Shilling, with 4 to 8 degrees of freedom (DOFs) Sagatun

and Fossen (1990a). The human being on the other hand, is equipped with two arms with
approximately 30 dofs each Morecki et al. (1984). It is, however, desirable to limit the
use of divers in water depths more than 200 m. This is due to physiological, economical,
and political reasons.
There are a number of possible application areas for underwater robots. We have, for a
number of years used underwater robots (ROVs) for visual inspection, light maintenance
and repair in the North Sea and other areas. On the other hand, the relatively easy
and repetitive task of performing nondestructive testing of nodal welds on underwater
structures has been mostly performed by divers. It is believed that this is mainly due
to limitations of the underwater vehicle’s and its manipulator’s performance. This has
also been recognized by the oil companies and underwater contractors, e.g. Oceaneering
(1988). This is a motivation for developing more advanced, optimal, and user-friendly
underwater robots.
We will like to add that oil- and gas-related applications of underwater robotics are only
one of many areas were underwater robots are favorable compared to the use of divers.
Other areas are:
• observation and inspection related to:
— pipelines
— cables
— geology
— pollution
• location and identification of underwater objects.

• diver assistance
• installation and retrieval of underwater systems

• maintenance
• drilling support
• scientific research
• military applications
and
1.2. OPTIMAL PATH PLANNING, TRAJECTORY GENERATION AND TRACKING 3
• underwater search and identification

• under ice mapping
• long distance and deep sea underwater inspection, survey and mapping
• bottom photography and sampling

• testing of underwater technology
• mapping marine population
• long distance and long term pollution and water quality studies
• military applications
where the former list is mainly oriented to the use of ROVs, while the latter one favors
the use of Autonomous Underwater vehicles (AUV).
This wide range of application areas for underwater robotics is the major motivation
for this research. But what is underwater robotics ? What does the term “underwater
robotics” mean ? Underwater robotics is a multidisiplinary research field. An easy way of
defining it is ti differentiate it it from space robotics, a better known and, in many ways,
similar research area. Table 1.2 points out the main differences between autonomous
underwater robots (which can be considered to be the purest form of underwater robots)
and space robots.
1.2 Optimal Path Planning, Trajectory Generation

and Tracking
Trajectory planning and tracking may take place at several abstraction levels in an au
tonomous robot, Blidberg and Chappell (1986) and Albus et al. (1987), see also Fig.
1.1. We have, at the highest level task planning which plans which tasks the vehicle shall
perform and the sequencing of those. Blackboard-based planning Haues-Roth (1985) has
been successfully applied to perform task planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,
Chappell (1987). All planning at this level is performed on a symbolic level, often im
plemented in LISP or PROLOG. Sagatun (1989) contains a situation assessment system
which performs symbolic assessment and (reactive) planning at the level below. At a
lower level, way-point planning takes place. This planning is more algorithmic in the
sense that it is usually performed on basis on a mathematical optimization algorithm
like the A* search, e.g. Sagatun (1988). The level below the way-point planner may
Figure 1.1: Hierarchical optimal trajectory planning and tracking
again consist of an optimal planner with respect to the trajectory. This trajectory plan
ner may be a minimum-control-effort planner which optimizes an effort criterion like
J = f uTu dt. Spangelo and Egeland (1992) contains an optimal minimum control effort
trajectory planner for an underwater vehicle with electric thrusters. Minimum-effort con
trollers are almost always open-loop methods which are calculated off-line. The vehicle’s
actual trajectory will always deviate from the nominal trajectory without control feedback
since disturbances and model errors are always present. The principle of optimality then
states: Lee and Markus (1967) p. 424.
An optimal-control policy has the property that, whatever the initial state and
initial control policy, the remaining control policy (that is, the policy after a
short lapse of time) must constitute an optimal policy with regard to the state
that results from use of the initial policy during the short lapse of time.
This basically states that the optimal control strategy depends only on the present state
t0 and the goal state and not on any states at t < t0. Deviations from the planned
trajectory must be taken care of by optimal trajectory following algorithm, since it require
too much computation to be practical to perform the whole planning process when there is
a deviation from the nominal trajectory. This family of control algorithms is, for instance
1.3. WHY LAGRANGIAN MECHANICS 5
optimal with respect to trajectory errors and control effort, like LQ-based methods. This
thesis focuses on optimization criteria which minimize tracking errors as well as the forces
which contribute to the kinetic energy and the energy which will dissipate from the vehicle.
Potential energy due to gravity is neglected, since potential energy is end-point dependent
only. These optimization criteria are specially useful since they not only minimize tracking
errors, they also include a minimum control effort term which has an obvious physical
interpretation. The presented algorithms result in feedback laws which are made adaptive
to correct for errors in the model, albeit only parameter errors.
1.3 Why Lagrangian Mechanics

The primary contribution of this thesis is that modeling and control of underwater vehi
cles are done by means of Lagrangian mechanics in a compiled and systematic fashion.
Although Lagrangian mechanics has been known for almost 200 years, the systematic
approach of using energy and work as the primary terms in modeling and control has
not been done before for underwater vehicles. This thesis shows that the Lagrangian ap
proach in modeling exposes the properties of the underwater vehicles’ equations of motion
in a way where the more traditional Newtonian approach is less well suited. Lagrangian
mechanics attack the mechanics from a more analytical point of view than the more ge
ometrical approach used by the Newtonian method. The energy and work terms are
also useful in control system design when stability and optimality are proved by using
nonlinear stability theory.
1.4 Contributions of this Thesis

This thesis contains both theoretical and experimental contributions. The theoretical
contributions are partly found in the modeling chapter (Chapter 3) and the control chapter
(Chapter 4). The experimental results are from the work carried out during the design
and the process of building the Norwegian Experimentally Remotely Operated Vehicle
(NEROV). NEROV and its subsystems are described more closely in Appendix C and in
the following reports:
• overall vehicle design , Sagatun and Fossen (1990b)
• propulsion system, Sagatun and Fossen (1991a)
• sensor system, Fossen and Sagatun (1991b)
• computer system, Sagatun and Fossen (1991b)

• mathematical model, Fossen and Sagatun (1991c)

• reports from the free decay tests, Sagatun and Fossen (I991d)
The different contributions in this thesis are presented in:
Chapter 3. This chapter contains the derivation of the complete equations of motion for
an underwater vehicle from a Lagrangian point of view. The Lagrangian mechanics
is well known, but the compiled work is a contribution as such.
Section 3.8.4 contains results from open water tests of the NEROV. The tests reveal
that the mapping from propeller angular revolution to thrust is nonlinear. The
section presents the complete nonlinear thrust vector for the NEROV. Results are
published in Sagatun and Fossen (1991c) and Fossen and Sagatun (l991d).
Section 3.11 derives the equations of motion expressed in an inertial-fixed reference
frame directly from the kinetic energy also expressed in the inertial-fixed reference
frame, instead of going through the vehicle-fixed frame formulation.
Section 3.12 Lagrangian mechanics is used to discover the most important properties of
the equations of motion for an underwater vehicle. All proofs are original contribu
tions, except when stated otherwise. We will specially like to point to property 3.2.
with remarks and property 3.7. as specially useful. This work has been published
in Sagatun and Fossen (l991f).
Section 3.13 presents the results from free-decay tests on the NEROV. Of special im
portance are the results presented in 3.13.4. where the added inertia and damping is
plotted as a function of the Keulegan-Carpenter number (KC number). The results
are published in Sagatun and Fossen (l991e)
Section 3.14.5 shows how the eigenvalues of a linearized model of the NEROV varies
as a function of the KC number.
Section 4.7 A near-optimal adaptive controller (NOpAC) is derived in this section. The
proof of near-optimality and the solution to the Hamilon-Jacobi equation are espe
cially interesting. This work will be published in Sagatun (1992).
Section 4.8 An optimal adaptive controller (OpAC) is derived in this section. Especially
noteworthy are the control objective in section 4.8.2, the optimal feedback law in
lemma 4.3, the stability proof in theorem 4.4, the modified optimal feedback law
in lemma 4.4 and the adaption law in theorem 4.5. The transformation from the
inertial-fixed generalized coordinates to vehicle fixed quasi coordinates in lemma 4.5
is also original work. This work is presented in Sagatun and Johansson (1992).
1.5. A BRIEF TOUR THROUGH THIS THESIS 7
1.5 A Brief Tour through this Thesis

This thesis is aimed at a control engineer with some knowledge in mathematical modeling
and especially dynamics and hydrodynamics. The remaining chapters and appendices
contain the following:
Chapter 2. “Kinematics” contains a background in kinematics for modeling under
water vehicles. Both Euler parameters (quaternions) as well as Euler angles are
discussed.
Chapter 3. “Modeling of Underwater Vehicles” derives the complete equations of
motion for an underwater vehicle from a Lagrangian dynamics point of view. Both
theoretical as well as experimental work are reported. The equations of motion are
derived in both a vehicle-fixed as well as inertial reference frame. Model properties
of both the nonlinear equations and a linearized model are derived.
Chapter 4. “Optimal Control Algorithms for Underwater Vehicles” starts by giv
ing a problem statement of the underwater vehicle control problem. A review of
existing systems is presented before design requirements and optimization criteria
are discussed. The basic assumptions for the control schemes are presented before
the two near-optimal and optimal adaptive controllers NOpAC and OpAC are de
rived in minute detail. The Lagrangian formalism used in the previous chapter is
sucessfully employed here to construct optimization criteria and in proofs of stability
and optimality.
Chapter 5. “Conclusions and Recommendation” contains what the title says, the
conclusion and some recommendation for future work.
Appendix A. “Proofs” contains proofs of lemmas, a theorem and a comment from
Chapter 4.
Appendix B. “Fluid mechanics and Hydrodynamics” gives the reader the neces
sary background in fluid mechanics and hydrodynamics to follow the derivations of
Chapter 3.
Appendix C. “The NEROV” describes the Norwegian Experimental Remotely Op
erated Vehicle more closely.
Appendix D. “Results from the free decay test” presents results from the free de
cay test described in Section 3.13.1.
Appendix E. “A Complete Mathematical model” contains a complete mathemat
ical model of the NEROV with the estimated parameters.
field operator year number of

subsea wells
Troll 2 Hydro 1991 1
Oseberg Gamma Hydro 1991 1
Sleipner Theta Statoil 1993 3
Liille Frigg EH 1993 3
Embla Phillips 1993 2-3
Draugen Shell 1993-96 9
Tordis Saga 1994 7
Mime Hydro 1994 2
15-5 Hydro 1994 2
Statfjord Satelite Statoil 1994 24
Huldra Statoil 1994 6
Troll Olje Hydro 1995 6
Njord Hydro 1995 3
Heidrun Conoco 1995 8
25-5-3 EH 1995 3
Njord Hydro 1996 7
Visund Hydro 1996 6
Mjplner Hydro 1996 6
Hild Hydro 1996 6
Smprbukk Sor Statoil 1996 12
Snphvit Statoil 1996-97 8
Askeladden Statoil 1997 8
Njord Hydro 1997 7
Visund Hydro 1997 4
Hild Hydro 1997 4
Trestakk Statoil 1997 6
Njord Hydro 1998 23
Visund Hydro 1998 3
Total 216
Table 1.1: Subsea completions on the Norwegian continental shelf. The list is not complete.
Fields as Gullfaks Spr, Gullfaks Gamma, Mikkel, Sleipner Vest, Tyrihans Nord, Smprbukk
0st and Balder may be completed subsea before year 2000. We can not rule out the
possibility that existing fields will be expanded subsea.
1.5. A BRIEF TOUR THROUGH THIS THESIS 9
under water in space
• data transmission very noisy environment with respect close to perfect for optical,
to RF, optical and acoustic data very good for RF and
transmission impossible for acoustic data
• data transmission < 1 kbaud (acoustic) > 10 Mbaud (optical and RF)
bandwidth
• data transmission <10 km, typical < 1 km > 1000 km
range
• time delay < 10s Is to hours
• navigation and No commercial underwater GPS GPS with an accuracy better
positioning system system is available than 1 m (in earth orbit)
• disturbances waves, current and animals solar wind, meteorites
nominal operation and high energy particles
o
A
< io-4 [&]
• launch loads low frequency < Q.3Hz high frequency 3 — 500/?z

loads < 2g loads 1 — Gg
• structure mostly rigid mostly flexible
flexibility
• pressure Ap typical 300 atm. 1 atm.
• visibility < 25 m > 1000 km
• temperature ~ 4°C ~ 2-4K
• research funding < than 1 x 109 ECU > 1 x IO10 ECU
Table 1.2: A comparison between underwater and space robotics

Chapter 2
Kinematics
This section contains the necessary kinematics for reading the rest of this thesis.
2.1 Kinematics
It is straightforward to show that a rigid body in space needs six independent or general
ized coordinates to specify its configuration, i.e. orientation and position. We will in this
thesis only use the Cartesian coordinate system such that three independent coordinates
are used to specify position and three independent coordinates are left to specify orienta
tion. Euler showed already in 1776 ,Euler (1776) that a set of three angles are adequate
to specify the relative orientation of two orthogonal coordinate systems. This chapter will
discuss Euler angles and Euler parameters (quaternions) as a way of representing the con
figuration of a rigid body in space. The former method is a three-parameter description,
while the latter uses four parameters. Goldstein (1980) and Kane et al. (1983) contain
several other ways of specifying a rigid body’s configuration.
2.2 Coordinate Systems

This thesis uses an earth-fixed coordinate system and a vehicle-fixed system. The earth-
fixed coordinate system will also be called the inertial-system or the x-frame, while the
vehicle-fixed system will also be denoted the q-frame, see Fig. 2.1. Notice that the 0—axis
point down. This orientation of axis corresponds to the SNAME convention, SNAME
(1950).
Throughout this thesis earth-fixed coordinates will be denoted x 6 while we will only
deal with vehicle-fixed velocities and accelerations denoted q (z $tn and q G 3Jn. n is the
number of degrees of freedom (dofs) the vehicle is expressed in.
11
12 CHAPTER 2. KINEMATICS
Figure 2.1: Coordinate systems used in this thesis
2.3 Euler Angle Representation

The transformation from one Cartesian coordinate system to another can be performed
by means of three successive rotations in a sequence. The Euler angles, denoted xg are
defined as the three successive angles of rotation, Goldstein (1980). While there are several
different ways of specifying the three successive rotations, this thesis will only use the so
called “roll, pitch, yaw” convention, “X-Y-Z fixed angle” convention or “Tait-Bryant”
convention. Craig (1989) contains a complete set of the Euler angle conventions. We find
the new the orientation of the rotated frame B as follows:
Start with the B frame coincident with the known reference frame A. Rotate
B about A’s x-axis an angle (j), then rotate the new frame an angle 9 about
the new frame’s y-axis, and then rotate the resulting frame an angle about
the resulting frame’s z-axis.
For an underwater vehicle the angle <f> is the angle of roll, the angle 9 is the angle of trim
and the angle t/> is the angle of yaw.
Wampler (1986) p. 94 points out that any set of three orientation parameters, such as
Euler angles are either discontinuous or singular. This singularity can be avoided by using
the the coordinate transformation matrix.
A vector in system A can be transformed from system A to system B by premultiplying

the vector Ax with the transformation matrix ^C(xe) such that Bx — bC(xe)ax. The
2.3. EULER ANGLE REPRESENTATION 13
sub- and superscripts are explained in the nomenclature.
Notice that the vector itself is unchanged; only its representation has changedsince it is
formulated in two different coordinate systems. Despite this, we will write that a vector
is transformed from one coordinate system to another even when we actually mean that
the vector’s representation is transformed and not the vector itself.
2.3.1 The rotation matrix Ji(x£)

The matrix ^C(xe) transforms a vector from a fixed coordinate system A to a rotated
coordinate system B. However, we also want an expression for the transformation from
the rotated system (e.g. a underwater vehicle) to the fixed system (e.g. the earth fixed
system) denoted Ji(xe)- We will first derive the %C(xe) matrix and then invert the
resulting matrix to obtain the Ji(xe) matrix. In the following a transformation matrix
which performs a rotation 7 around the axis j is denoted Ojn. cos(^), sin(0) and tan(<ji) is
denoted c(j>, s<f> and t<f> respectively. The following three matrices rotate a system around
the z—, y— and z—axes respectively.
exp sxp 0 ‘ cQ 0 —sO ' 1 0 0 ‘
—sxp exp cp sp
II
II
0
H
Cr.tA — 0 0 1 0
0
0 0 1 sO 0 c6 0 —sp cp
The elements of the transformation done by the three Euler angle rotations in the previous
paragraph can be obtained by writing the matrix ^C(xe) as the triplet product of the
separate rotations, each of which have the form of the matrices in (2.1). Hence, the
transformation matrix ^C(xe) which transforms a vector from frame A to frame B
can be found by performing the successive multiplication ®C(<£, fl,^) =
Remember that J\{xe) — ((f),6,ip)'1 which yields
cipcO —stpcp + cipsOsp sipsp + cipapsd

Ji(xe) = sxpcO apap + spsOsip —cxpsp + sOsipcp (2.2)
~sB cOsp cOcp

Notice that coordinate transformation follows the rules of matrix multiplications, such
that coordinate transformations are associative but not commutative. A coordinate
transformation matrix A is orthogonal, that is A-1 = AT and orthonormal, that is
< et, ej >— 1 if i = j and 0 otherwise, e,- and ej are column and row vectors of A.
The transformation matrix ^C(xe) can also be defined in an other way. Consider two
orthogonal coordinate systems defined respectively by the following two sets of unit vec
tors: ai, a2, 03 and b\, b2, 63. Then the transformation matrix %C(xe) consists of the
elements defined as c,7 = 6, • aj, Craig (1989).
2.3.2 The angular velocity transformation matrix ^(x#)

We derived in the previous paragraph a transformation matrix J\{xe) which transformed
a vector from one orthogonal space (the vehicle-fixed coordinate system) to another (the
earth-fixed coordinate system). We also need a transformation matrix which transform
the vehicle’s angular velocities = [p, g, r]T to the time derivative of the Euler angles
= [<f>,’/,]r such that xe = */2(s£)w.
An easy approach to derive the J2{xe) transformation matrix is to first find the ^(ê)-1
matrix and then perform the matrix inversion. The vector [p, q, r]T is recognized as
1
■ ■ ' '
____
’ p' 0 0
9 — + cl* + Cl,Cle
0
$ 0
r . 0 . . 0 . .^ .
Hence, we obtain the following kinematic differential equation after some rearranging
’ p" ' 4 '

9 = J2(x£) 1 0
r . .
a> = J2(xe) 'xe
where
! S<j)S$ c4>s9
c0 c6
J^xe) 0 c<t> —s<f> (2.3)
0 $4> c±
cd c6
Notice that J2(*e) is singular for 6 = which correspond to a pitch angle of 90 degrees.
2.3.3 The complete transformation matrix J(x^)

The vehicle-fixed velocity vector q = [u, u, tn, p, <7, r]T can now be transformed to earth-
fixed velocities and rate of change of Euler angles x = [x,y,z,4>,0,xj)]T by using the
following transformation:
x = J{xE)q
where the transformation matrix J{xe), also called the Jacobian, is found to be
J(xE) = diagtJ^XE), J2(X£;))

2.4. EULER PARAMETERS 15
Hence, the transformation from the q-frame to the x-frame can be performed by employing
the following relations:
q — J 1(xE)x
q = J^ê) (x - j(xE)J-1(xE)x) (2.4)
for a nonsingular J{xE) matrix.
2.3.4 Quasi coordinates

The transformation of angular velocities expressed in the vehicle-fixed reference frame to
an inertial coordinate system is necessary because the components of the angular velocity
vector u> cannot be integrated to obtain actual angular coordinates. The vector « is
described as a nonholonomic vector by Goldstein (1980). The vector q is not the time
derivative of generalized coordinates, but sometimes referred to as the time derivative
of the quasi coordinates q e.g. Meirovitch (1990). Remark that q has no immediate
physical interpretation. On the other hand, the vector x = [x,t/,2, 0, represents
proper generalized coordinates excluding 6 — ±^. This leads to a notational conflict since
the velocity vector q is not the time derivative of any proper (meaningful) vector. The
dot above the q is therefore misleading. We will, however, use this notation throughout
this thesis, since it is conceptually easier to relate velocities and accelerations with (•) and
(•) than (•) and (•) even though it is mathematically erroneous.
2.4 Euler Parameters

While the Euler angle representation and the angular velocity transformation matrix
J2{xE) matrix have singularities, a representation with Euler parameters are not. The
Euler parameters, also known as Cayley-Klein parameters or unit quaternions, is a four-
parameter description of a rigid body’s configuration based on simple rotations. Euler’s
theorem of rotation states that
every change in the relative orientation of two rigid bodies or reference frames
A and B can be produced by means of a simple rotation of B in A.
The unit vector which B is rotated about is denoted A and the angle which is the amount
frame B is rotated about A is denoted 6. The four Euler parameters xq consists of the
Euler vector e and the scalar e4 such that Xq = [eT, e4J. e is defined as e = A sin | and
e4 = cos|. The four parameters are obviously not independent of each other and the
Euler parameters have to satisfy ej + + e| + = 1. The coordinate transformation

matrix J\{xe) can be written as a function of the Euler parameters Kane et al. (1983)
e\ — e\ — e.\ 2(eie2 — 6364) 2(e3Cj + 6364)

Ji{xQ) 2(eie2 + 6364) —ej + 62 — 63 + 64 2(6363 — 6164) (2.5)
2(6361 — 6364) 2(6263 + 6164) —ej — 62 + e§ +
Ji(xQ) can be written in compact form as Ji(*Q),j = ^(ej—eiei)+2e,ej+2eijieiei where

Einstein’s summation convention has been employed, and etJk is the permutation symbol1
Goldstein (1980).The differential equation for the integration of absolute orientation can
be found to be xq — Êu>, where E is defined as
64 -63 62
63 64 61
-62 6l 64
. “Cl -62 -63
Notice that ETE — /sxs-
2.5 Euler Parameters to Euler Angles Transforma

tion
The transformation from Euler parameters to Euler angles are for the roll-pitch-yaw
convention, Egeland (1985).
Ji(xq)2i\
^ = atari Ji(xQ)uJ
Ji(jcg)3i
6 = atan2
+ sin(ip)J1(xQ)2i
cos(4’)Ji(xq)u
Sm(V))Ji(xQ)i3 - COS(0)Ji(xg)23N\
<t> = atan2 Sm(l/>)Ji(XQ)i2 + C0s(iI>)Ji(Xq)22 ) 26
( . )
The rotation matrix J\{xe) can be expressed as a function of the Euler parameters such
that, Salcudean (1991):
J\(xe) — ^3x3 + 2e4 (ex) + 2(ex)2

bijt is zero if any two of the indices are equal and ±1 otherwise. The sign is dependent of if the ijk
is even or odd permutation of 1, 2, 3.
2.5. EULER PARAMETERS TO EULER ANGLES TRANSFORMATION 17
or the other way around (for e > 0):

1
ex = (ji(xe) — J\{xe)}
2(1 + trace (J^xe)))1
Chapter 3
Modeling of Underwater Vehicles
We will in this chapter derive in detail the equations of motion for an underwater vehicle
in six degrees of freedom.
The equations of motion for underwater vehicles can be written as follows:
M,9 + C,(9)g + r>,(qr)9+flr(a;) = w((j>) + bq(q,n)
x = J(x)q (3-1)
where q € 9?6 defined as q = [u,u,tn,p, 9,r]T. As the time derivative of w is not a
physically meaningful vector, the vector q is termed a quasi vector, q is not used in the
following, only the time derivatives q and q. x € Sfc6 defined as x = [z, y, z, rf), 6, tjj]T is
a vector of generalized coordinates containing earth-fixed positions and Euler angles, see
also subsection 2.3.4. Mq = > 0 is the inertia matrix including the hydrodynamic
virtual inertia (added mass), Cq(q)q contains the nonlinear forces and moments due to
centripetal and Corolis forces and Dq(q) > 0 is the vehicle’s damping matrix. We assume
that the potential damping and the viscous effects are lumped together in the Dq{q)
matrix. g{x) is a vector containing the restoring terms formed by the vehicle’s buoyancy
and gravitational terms. w{<f>) is the wave and current disturbance vector and fc,(q, n) is a
vector containing the vehicle’s propulsion and control forces and moments. The vector n
represents the thruster propellers’ angular revolution. J{x) is a velocity transformation
matrix which transforms velocities in the vehicle-fixed (the q-frame) to the earth-fixed
reference frame (the x-frame). Each of the elements in (3.1) will be derived in the coming
chapters. The SNAME notation, SNAME (1950) is used when appropriate.
3.1 Advantages with the Lagrangian Formulation

We have used a Lagrangian approach to the derivation of the equations of motion. The
Lagrangian approach involves three basic steps. First, we need to formulate a suitable ex-
19
20 CHAPTER 3. MODELING OF UNDERWATER VEHICLES
pression for the vehicle’s kinetic and potential energy, denoted T(q, q) and V(q, q) respec
tively, where q are generalized coordinates. Then, we want to calculate the Lagrangian
denoted L(q,q) = T(q,q) — ^(9,7). Lastly,, we apply the n 2nd. order differential
equations given by the Euler-Lagrange equation:
dL dL
i = 1..TZ (3.2)
din dq,
to obtain the dynamic equations. Qi is a generalized force and n denotes the system’s
degrees of freedom. It is important to note that the Euler-Lagrange equation is only
valid for generalized coordinates. The Lagrangian mechanics describes the system’s dy
namics in terms of energy and work, and the equations of motion may be derived almost
straightforwardly when L is given. The Lagrangian approach in modeling and control
of underwater vehicles has several distinc advantages over the Newtonian, the Hamilto
nian, and the Euler methods of rigid body dynamics approach found in most textbooks,
e.g. ref. Fossen (1991b), Roskam (1982), Allmendinger (1990) and Clayton and Bishop
(1982). The Euler-Lagrange equation is valid regardless of the number of masses con
sidered, the type of coordinates employed, the number of holonomic contstraints on the
system, and whether or not the constraints and frame of reference are in motion. Hence
the Lagrangian approach replaces a large set of special methods which have to be utilized
for other methods. The Euler-Lagrange equation is also valid in any coordinate system,
inertial or not as long as generalized coordinates are used.
3.1.1 The Lagrangian versus the Newtonian approach

First, in the Lagrangian formulation one has only to deal with the two scalar functions
T(q,q) and V(q,q). The Newtonian approach is vector oriented since everything is
derived from Newton’s second law. This leads to a more cumbersome derivation of the
equations of motion. See, for instance, how elegantly the equations of motion for a rigid
body are derived in section 3.4. Second, the derivation of the added inertia elements and
the vehicle’s rigid body’s equations of motion are done in a common framework. The
added inertia is given a clear and physical meaning when we attack the “vehicle-ambient
water system” from an energy point of view instead of a force-moment point of view,
see also section 3.3. Third, properties of the mass matrix and the C(q) matrix are more
easily seen when using Lagrangian mechanics instead of Newtonian mechanics, see section
3.12.2.
3.1.2 The Lagrangian versus the Hamiltonian approach

The Hamiltonian equations of motion constitute another way of expressing dynamic equa
tions of motion of a rigid body. The Hamiltonian equations are 2n n-th order differential
3.2. LAGRANGIAN FORMULATION 21
equations, the Hamilton’s canonical equations, while the Lagrangian approach involves
the use of n 2nd. order differential equation. The Hamiltonian point of view uses the
Hamiltonian function H defined as:
Ti = pTq - L
where p is the generalized momentum p = Mq. By taking the differential of Ti and
comparing terms we arrive to the 2n Hamilton’s canonical equations:
dTi
P' dqi
dTi . ,
9; = -a- *=
dpi
Having a time-varying system, we also get the equation:
dH _ _dL
dt dt
Notice that if we have energy conservation for our system, that is no dissipative forces
are present, then this last equation can be written as:
This equation is sometimes referred to as Jacobi’s integral. We observe that as a mean

of treating rigid bodies the Hamiltonian method is less convenient than the Lagrangian.
There are, however, some cases were the Hamiltonian point of view is favorable e.g. ce
lestial, quantum and statistical mechanics, Wells (1967).
Effects like restoring forces, viscous damping and wave load, which are not conveniently
derived in the Lagrangian framework are explained in the Lagrangian framework before
they are derived in the Newtonian framework.
3.2 Lagrangian Formulation

In the following, we will derive the equations of motion of a rigid body (e.g. an underwater
vehicle) moving in an ideal homogeneous unbounded fluid of infinite extent. Expressions
for both the rigid body’s as well as the ambient water’s kinetic energy are derived.
A rigid body moving in an unbounded fluid is holonomic by the definition of a rigid body
and the unboundness and the infinite extent of the fluid. A rigid body moving without
constraints in six degrees of freedom is an ordinary Lagrangian system, i.e. a holonomic

system. The infinite degrees of freedom system formed by the ambient water particles
can not from a rigorous standpoint be considered to be holonomic. A line of reasoning
used in Milne-Thomson (1968), pp. 99-101 will be used as an argument for this. Assume
that a solid forms a holonomic system and that all the motion of the ambient water is
due to the solid’s movements and that it would instantly cease when the solid is brought
to rest. The motion of the water will then be irrotational and acyclic. The ambient water
particles should end up in their original position if the solid were moved through a cycle of
movements such that it returned to its original position. This is, however, not necessarily
the case, and the ambient water particles do not meet the definition of holonomic. It is,
however, common in the literature, Lamb (1932) and Birkhoff (i960), to also consider the
system formed by the surrounding water particles as an Lagrangian system having six
degrees of freedom. The proof that the system formed by the vehicle together with its
ambient water is a Lagrangian system and that Qi is the generalized force on the water
particles is rather complicated. This proof is made difficult by the fact that the total mass
of the water is infinite and that the configuration space of the water particles has infinite
dimension, that is the number of degrees of freedom of the ambient water is infinite. A
complete proof of this was first presented in Lamb (1932) and later in Birkhoff (i960).
It is desirable to express the vehicle’s equation of motion in the vehicle-fixed reference
frame, that is with the time derivative q of the quasi coordinate vector q. This leads
to one important problem, since the Euler-Lagrange equation is only valid for proper
generalized coordinates. This problem can be avoided in two ways. Derive the equations
of motion in the inertial reference frame (expressed with the generalized coordinates x =
[x, y, z, <f), 6, xJj]t, see section (3.11) and then transform the resulting expression into the
vehicle-fixed frame with the transformations given in (2.4). Another and more convenient
approach is to use q and Kirchhoff’s equations in vector form, Kirchhoff (1869) where
vehicle-fixed velocities are employed. This approach is used in this thesis.
3.3 Rigid Body Moving through a Liquid

We will in the coming discussion assume, if nothing else is stated, an ideal homogeneous
fluid. This section will, in detail, derive Kirchhoff’s equations, Kirchhoff (1869), which
will prove to be very useful in the derivation of a rigid body’s equations of motion and
expressions for added inertia.
This section will use a similar approach as the ones in Milne-Thomson (1968) and Lamb
(1932) in the derivation of the expressions of kinetic energy for a system of a rigid body
moving through a fluid.
3.3. RIGID BODY MOVING THRO UGHALIQ UID 23
3.3.1 Conditions on the velocity potential

The restrictions on the fluid motion presented in section 3.2 imply that the fluid’s motion
have to be irrotational (B.4) and incompressible (B.5). The fluid’s velocity potential
must satisfy Vcf> = 0 at infinity, which implies that a finite motion of the water particles
generated by the solid, contains finite energy. This is often called the radiation condition.
The motion of the fluid particles also has to be the same as the motion of the surface on
the body, such that
- ^ = nT(v +uj x r) (3.3)
where r is a vector from the vehicle-fixed coordinate system to the vehicle’s surface, n
is the unit outward normal vector of the vehicle and u> = [p,q, r]T and v = [u, v, w]T are
the vehicle’s angular and linear velocity components along and about the vehicle-fixed
coordinate axis. denotes the velocity of the water particles at the point r on the
boundary of the solid. It can be shown that the following velocity potential satisfies the
boundary condition in (3.3).
(f> = vTtp -|- u>Tx (3-4)
where cp and x are vectors of fluid velocities along the cartesian axis which meet the
conditions mentioned in the beginning of this section on the motion of the fluid particles.
Notice that <p and x have to satisfy
dtp dx
—— — n and =r xn (3.5)
on dn
Since cp and x must depend solely on the vehicle’s shape and not its motion.
3.3.2 Kinetic energy of the fluid

When a rigid body moves in an ideal homogeneous fluid at rest, the ambient water par
ticles will undergo an acceleration and a transformation of energy takes place.
The kinetic energy of the fluid Ti can be written as:
Tl = \J J J
T‘ = -W^dS
Tl = J J {vT<P + uTx) {nT (v + io x r)) dS (3.6)

where the first transition uses Green’s first identity1 and the incompressibility condition,
and the second is obtained by using (3.3) and (3.4) and assuming that the fluid density
is constant.
We observe that (3.6) is a homogeneous equation of second degree of the vectors v and
w. Therefore, by applying Euler’s theorem on homogeneous functions 2 on (3.6), we get:
(3'7)
We will now derive some expressions which will be useful in the discussion of added inertia
in section 3.5. We find that
9
-U-\ ^
= -n* + v-
by using (3.3) and (3.4). Therefore
Tsr-W/"*‘S-W/*K<S
by remembering that ip satisfies Laplace’s equation, Green's second identity3 can be used
to rewrite the last integral in the previous expression to
-y 1J ,'T„dS=-y J J 4^dS=nil n4‘dS

(3.3) is also used in the last transition. Expressions for and can now easily be
found.
~P JJ ^ an<^ ~P JJ {r x n)<t> dS (3.8)
The last equation in the equality is found by a similar argument as above.
Notice further that the kinetic energy of the water particles generated by a moving solid
can be written as
6
= ^2 Mam%} qxq3 (3.9)
'Greens’s first identity states: J J JVfVg dV — — f J/|^ dS — J f J fV2g dV

2Euler’s theorem on homogeneous functions states that if /(ii, ...,xn) is a homogeneous function of
degree n, then xi^£- + •••• + xn-§T = kf.
3Greens second identity states that J f d>%£dS = f J + /// (^V2^ — t/’V2^) dV.
3.3. RIGID BODY MOVING THROUGH A LIQUID 25
where Mam,, are components of the matrix formed by the elements

Mam,, = 11 f pVfa-VtfrjdV, Newman (1977) pp. 141-142. Hence, the total kinetic energy
of the water particles is expressed in matrix notation
Tl = qT M am<1 (3.10)
REMARK 3.1. The matrix Mam is symmetric, that is Mam = since / / p<j>i ^tdS =
//p<j>j^dS, see also Property 3.1 in section 3.12.2.
REMARK 3.2. The matrix Mam is positive definite , that is Mam > 0, since the
water particle’s kinetic energy Tl = qTMam<I always is greater than zero Vqr > 0.
It important to notice that the fluid’s kinetic energy, due to the acceleration of the body,
is a function of the body’s velocity q = [u,v,w,p,q,r]T and not the velocity of the water
particles 9/ = [u/,u/, u;/,0,0,0]7’. Notice also that the fluid particles have no angular
velocity since we have assumed an irrotational fluid, (B.4).
3.3.3 Kinetic energy of the rigid body

The kinetic energy of a rigid body in motion Ts can be written as
Ts = ^JJJp(v + (uix r))T (v + (u> x r)) dV
1 ,T
Ts = -q MRBq (3.11)
This can be rewritten to

T dTg j dTs
2Ts = v (3.12)
dv du>
by using a similar line of reasoning as in the previous section. The expressions for
and are found by comparing: (3.11) and (3.12)
7ST = J J Jffv + ^x^dv

= J j j p{r x (v+ {u x r)))dV (3.13)
and denote the linear and angular impulses respectively.

3.3.4 Rate of change of angular and linear impulses in a mov

ing origin
We recognize from (3.12) and (3.7) that ^ and have units and correspond
ing to the linear and angular impulse, respectively.
Remember that the motion of the fluid is due solely to the motion of the solid. The mo
tion of the fluid can be considered to be instantaneously generated from rest by applying
suitable impulses to the solid. The impulse on the solid is the impulse of the system at
that instant.
We know that the time differentiated of impulse are force and moment, so let us find an
expression of how linear and angular impulses, denoted $ and A respectively, change with
respect to time in a coordinate system which is undergoing an infinitesimal rotation 6tu>
and translation Stv. Notice that £ and A are constant in the solid-fixed coordinate system
and that the rates of change are observed from an earth-fixed coordinate system.
translation
Figure 3.1: Rate of change of impulses in a moving origin with respect to a fixed reference
frame.
The expressions
dt d£
dt
dX d\
— + ux\ + vxt (3.14)
dt dt
are found by inspection of Fig. 3.1. Let us first ignore the rotation uht and only look
on the effect of the translation vSt. The body-fixed linear momentum £ is only moved
parallel to itself and undergoes no change. The angular moment A is increased by the new
3.4. RIGID BODY EQUATIONS OF MOTION 27
moment about the origin with the vector formed by the cross product vSt x £. Hence, the
effect of translation of the origin is that A is increased by vSt x The other two terms
in (3.14), that is the effect of rotation, are found by using the identity:
do d±)
+ w X (•)
dt inertial dt vehicle
d£ j-\
Remember that -gf and ^ are the forces and moments applied to the solid.
3.3.5 Kirchhoff’s equations in vector form, Kirchhoff (1869)

We are now ready to express the equations of motion for the vehicle - fluid system in terms
of kiootir onprav Thp following spl. of pnnationc ic formprl hv cnKnfifnfinor for
These equations are known as Kirchhoff’s equation in vector form, Kirchhoff (1869), Lamb
(1932). The left side of the equations contains the rigid body’s equations of motion. Ti..6
is a vector containing the generalized forces and moments acting on the rigid body, while
the rest of the terms on the right side of the equations are forces and moments exerted on
the rigid body by the fluid pressure. Kirchhoff’s equations will prove to be very useful in
the derivation of the added inertia elements and the equations of motion for a rigid body.
Note from the derivation of Kirchhoff’s equation that we first use kinetic energy as our
leading term. Then we use the time rate of change of the impulse vectors given by (3.14)
to take the rotational u> and translational effects into account.
A modified version of Kirchhoff’s equations is found in Meirovitch (1990) p. 42:

dL -r. , dL
+ u x Ifo ~ Ji Tl .3 (3.16)
dt dx
£ dL jT (
+ U) X +» X -J*{xE)di T4..6
dt du> dv
3.4 Rigid Body Equations of Motion

We now have the necessary tools to derive the equations of motion for a rigid body. If
we combine the elements in Kirchhoff’s equations which correspond to the rigid body
(the solid) with (3.13), the general equations of motion for a rigid body expressed in
vehicle-fixed velocities become:
3.4. RIGID BODY EQUATIONS OF MOTION 29
T1..3 = ^
= />(» +(u> x r))^^+u» x J p(v + (uxr))dV
■n.,3 = m(v + u> x » + u> x re+ 1*; x (u> x re))
and
T4..6 = (^J P*" x (« + (“ x r)) + id x J (pr x (t) + (id x r))) dK + x J p (t) + (id x r)) dV
T4..6 = m (re x t> + re x (id x u)) + Jid + id x Jid (3.17)
where
/id = / pr x (d} x r)t
)dV
Jv
Id X /id = Id x / p (r x (id x r)) dK
Jv
m(re x (id x t»)) = id x / p(r x ®)dK + « x / p{uxr)dV
Jv Jv
The last equality is found by employing the equation:
a x (b x c) = (ac) b — (ab) c
fv denotes the triple integral, and the vector Tj..6 = [Nr, Yr, Zr, Kr, Mr, Nr]t
is defined according to the SNAME notation. / is the inertia tensor defined as It] =
Jv p(r ■ rS{j — r,r;) dV where <5,j is the Kroenecker delta function, ^ Jv Pr dV —
[xc, ya, zqY is the vector from the vehicle-fixed coordinate system to the centre of gravity
and m — Jv pdV is the rigid body’s mass. We have assumed that Jv prdV = 0, i.e. the
vehicle’s center of gravity (CG) does not change with respect to time.
Notice how Kirchhoff’s equations allow us to elegantly and compactly derive the general
equations of motion for a rigid body moving relatively to a fixed coordinate system.
(3.17) written out yields:
Xr = m[u - vr+ wq - xG(q2+ r2)+ yG{pq - r) + zG{pr + qj\

Yr - Tn[v -wp + ur- }/G(r2 + p2) + zG(qr - p) + xc(qp + r)]
ZR = m \w - uq + vp - zg{p2 + q2) + xG{rp - q) + yoirq + p)]
Kr = Ixxp + (Iz - Iy)qr - (r + pq)IX2 + (r2 - q2)Iyz + (pr - q)Ixy +

m [2/g(u> — uq + vp) — zG(v — wp + ur)]
Mr = Iyq+(lx-Iz)rp-(i> + qr)lxy + (p2-r2)Izx + (qp-r)Iyz +

m [zG(u — vr + wq) — xG(w — ug + vp)]
Nr = Izr + (Iy-Ix)pq-(q + rp)Iyz + (q2-p2)Ixy + (rq-p)Izx +

m [xg(u — wp + ur) — yG(u — vr + tvg)] (3.18)
We are now ready to express the rigid body’s mass matrix which consists of the elements
which are multiplied with the acceleration terms in (3.18)
m 0 0 0 mzG -myG '

0 m 0 -mzG 0 —mxG
0 0 m myG mxG 0
Mrs =
0 —mzG myG /« ~hy
mzG 0 —mxG ly -ly*
. -myG mxG 0 -hz -h* h J
The lower right 3 by 3 matrix is recognized as the inertia tensor. The Mrs matrix is
the rigid body’s contribution to the M matrix in (3.1). The remaining terms in (3.18)
form the rigid body’s contribution to the C(q)q vector. Where the Crb((i) matrix may
be written as
C Rs(q) =
"»(l/G'J + *Gr) -m(xGq - ti/)
+ xGp)
-m(*Gr + v)
0 -m(yGP + «#) -m(zGq + u) “m(VGr “ «)
-m(yG<? + 2Gr) "*(VGP + u’)
0
m(zGp - t>)
-(miGp - v)
0 -lyzq — *xzP + ^rr m(xGP + ya?)
IyZr + ISyV - lyq
"»(*G9
m(*Gr+“ u;)
*) -m(«Gr + XGP) + “) lyzl + IxzP — Iz* 0 -lxtT — lxy<! + IxP
"»(>Gr ~ u) •m(xGP + »G?) — lyzr — JxyP + Iy<l Ixzr + — IxP 0
(3.20)
Notice that the CRR(q) matrix is not unique. See section 3.12.2.
3.5. ADDED INERTIA 31
3.5 Added Inertia

Almost everyone has experienced the phenomenon of added inertia. For example, dip
your outstretched hand into still water and then suddenly give it a rapid acceleration
broadside. The apparent inertia of your hand will be felt as it was greatly increased. This
increased inertia due to the acceleration of the hand’s ambient water particles is called
added mass or added inertia.
Section 3.3 arguments for that a solid moving in an ideal homogeneous fluid causes an
increase in the fluid’s kinetic energy. Kirchhoff’s equations prove that this effect can be
represented by an addition to the inertia (an added mass) of the solid. This section is
going to derive the expressions for these added inertia elements.
Written out the expression for the fluid’s kinetic energy, (3.10) becomes, Lamb (1932),
2Ti = —Xû2 — Yi,v2 — Z^v2 — 2Y^,vw — 2XyjWu — 2Xi,uv — (3-21)
ATpP2 - Mgq2 - N+r2 - 2Mfqr - 2Kipr - 2K,pq -
2p{Xj,u + Yj,v + Zj,w) — 2q(Xg\i + Y^v + Z^w) — 2r(XrU + Y+v + Z+w)
where the twenty-one parameters in (3.22) are certain constants determined by the velocity
potential in (3.4) and the solid’s shape. Thus, for example,
-Xu = p JJ ifx'^-dS = P JJ Vxdydz
—Xp = p JJ (px^-dS - p JJ ipxy dxdy ~ P Jj V*2 dzdx
where ^ denotes the normal velocity component of the solid under unit velocity along
or around the j—axis. The added mass parameters are defined according to the SNAME
conversion such that Xu, denotes a force in the x—direction caused by a unit acceleration
from rest in the z—direction. Notice that the added inertia elements are, by conver
sion, defined negative. We observe from Kirchhoff’s equations (3.16), that the forces and
moments exerted on the moving solid by the fluid pressure are written as
d_ fdTA dTL drL

XA dt \ du J dv ^ dw
d fdTA dTl _ dll
Ya dt \ dv J ^ dw r du
d fdTL \ dTL dTL
Za dt y dw J ^ du P dv
d (dTA
Up] ^ dTl dTi , dTi dTi
Ka = ’v dw
dt dv dq
d fdrL\ ,
UJ dTL dTL . dTi dTi
Ma = W du +par -~r dP
dt
d Ur) ,
fdTA dTl dTi , dTi dTi
Na = U dv + ^-
dt
(3.22) combined with (3.22) gives the resulting expressions for the forces and moments
on the solid by the fluid pressure, i.e. the added inertia terms
Xa = Xîi + X*(w + uq) + Xgq + Z^wq + Z^q2

+Xi,v + Xpj) + X+r - Yi,vr - Yj,rp - Yfr2
—XiW— Y^wr
+YvVq + Zj,pq - (Yg - Zi)qr
Ya = XiU + Y^w + Ygq
+Yii) + YpP + Yrf + Xyvr - Y„vp + Xfr2 + (Xp — Zf)rp — Zpp2
—Xu,(up — wr) + Xûr — Z^,wp
-Zgpq + Xjqr
Za = Xti(u — wq) + Z^w + Zgq — Xûq — Xgq2
+Y^v + Zpp + Zfr + Yyvp + Y+rp + Ypp2
+Xiup + Y^wp
-Xi,vq - (Xfi - Yj)pq - X+qr
Ka = X,;M + ZpW + Kgq - Xi,wu + Xruq — Y^w2 - (Yg — Z+)wq + Mfq2
+y-n + Kpp + Ktr + Y*v2 - (Yg - Zf)vr + ZpVp - M+r2 - K^rp
+Xu,uv — (Yi — Z^)vw - (V) + Zg)wr — Ypwp — Xgur
+(?) + Zg)vq + Kfpq - (Mg - Nr)qr
Ma = X$(u-\-wq)-^-Zg(w — uq) + Mgq - Xw(u2 - w2) — (Zu - Xu)wu
+Ygi + Kgj> + M+r + Ypvr - Y^vp - Kr(p2 - r2) + (Kj, — Nj)rp

—Yûv + Xi,vw — (Xr + Zp)(up — wr) + (X^ — Zr)(wp + ur)
-Mrpq + K$qr
Na — Xfii + ZfW + Mfq + Xf,u2 + Y^wu — (Xp — Yg)uq — Z^wq — Kgq2
+yrri’ + KfP + Nff — Xi,v2 - Xfvr — (Xp - Yg)vp + Mfrp + Kgp2
—(Xu — Yi,)uv — X^jvw + (Xg + Yp)up + Yfur + Zgwp
—(Xg + Yp)vq - (Xp - MJpq - Kfqr (3.23)
3.5. ADDED INERTIA 33
The added inertia elements are grouped as in Imlay (1961), where the first row for each
degree of freedom contains longitudinal components of motion. The second line contains
lateral components of motion, while the third row contains mixed term involving u or
w. The fourth row contains coupling terms of such magnitude that they usually can be
neglected in most cases.
Notice how easily the added inertia elements are derived by using the Lagrangian ap
proach.
We are now ready to regroup the terms in (3.23) into one added inertia matrix which
correspond to the rigid body’s mass matrix (3.19) and one matrix corresponding to the
rigid body’s nonlinear matrix C(c[)am, (3.20).
' Xi X, x<, x? Xi Xr '

Xi n Y«, Yp Yi Yr
Zw Z* Zi Zr
(3.24)
X, Zj, Kp Xi Xr
Xi Yi Zi Xi Mi Mi
L Xt Yi Zr Kr Mr Nr
This matrix is the same matrix as the one defined in section 3.3.2. Triantafyllou and
Amzallag (1984) contains a discussion of how to calculate the various elements in Mam
for different geometrical bodies.
The complete Cam(q) matrix is rather complex and, for brevity, is not included in the
text. If the off-diagonal coupling terms are neglected, the simplified Cam{<i) matrix is
0 0 0 0 Z^w -Yiv '
0 0 0 -Z^w 0 Xû
0 0 0 YiV Xû 0
Cam{q) - (3.25)
0 ZwW -Yiv 0 N+r -Miq
—Z^w 0 X{,u —N+r 0 XpP
Yiv -XuU 0 M4q -XpP 0
We notice that the Cam{<i) matrix is skew-symmetric. It is, however, possible to show
that the complete Cam(q) matrix also has this property, see section 3.12.2.
It is important to notice that the Mam and the Cam{q) matrices are formulated on the
right side of Kirhhoff’s equations while the Mrs and the CRg(q) matrices are formulated
on the left-hand side of the equations.
3.5.1 Symmetry properties of the mass matrix

The total mass matrix M = Mrb — Mam, which is symmetric, consists in general of
21 inertial coefficients. This can be reduced to 15 coefficients by an appropriate choice of
coordinate axes such that the matrix is simplified to the following form .
' mu 0 0 mi4 mis mie
0 m22 0 mis m25 m26
0 0 m33 mie m26 77736
mj 4 mis mie m44 m4s 77746
mis m25 m26 77145 mss mse
. mi6 m26 mse m46 mse m66
This matrix can be reduced further if the solid has any plane of symmetry.
xy-plane symmetry xz-plane symmetry
' mn mi 2 0 0 0 mie ' ' mil 0 777 1 3 0 mis 0 '

777 l2 77722 0 0 0 m26 0 77722 0 77724 0 77726
0 0 m33 m34 mss 0 mis 0 77733 0 mss 0
M
0 0 m34 7Tl4< 77745 0 XZ —
0 77724 0 77144 0 77746
0 0 m35 m45 mss 0 mis 0 77135 0 mss 0
. mi6 m26 0 0 0 mee . 0 77726 0 77146 0 77766 .
yz- plane symmetry
' mn 0 0 0 mis 77716 '

0 77722 m23 m24 0 0
0 m23 m33 77134 0 0
Myz
= 0 m24 77734 77144 0 0
mis 0 0 0 mss 77756
. mi6 0 0 0 mse 777-66 .
If two or more symmetry planes exist the resulting mass matrix is formed by the inter
section of the corresponding symmetry matrices. An example is if a vehicle is both yz-
and zz-symmetric. The resulting mass matrix Myz^xz is then formed by the intersection
Af Vzaxz = Myz D Mxz of the two matrices.
REMARK 3.3. Notice the special case when the vehicle is symmetric in three perpen
dicular axes. The mass matrix is then the diagonal matrix formed by diag(m„) i — 1..6.
REMARK 3.4. Notice that m14, m2s and m36 is zero when there is any plane of
symmetry.
3.6. DISSIPATIVE FORCES 35
3.6 Dissipative Forces

Thus far in this chapter, we have only discussed a solid moving in a nonviscous fluid.
D’Alambert’s paradox states that no hydrodynamic forces act on a solid moving com
pletely submerged with constant velocity in a nonviscous fluid. In a viscous fluid, fric
tional forces are present such that the system is not conservative with respect to energy.
Frictional forces can from a Lagrangian point of view be derived from a scalar dissipa
tive function ^ defined such that the rate of energy dissipating from the system can be
expressed as:
dE
dt
were Ti is a power function, Ti has dimension of power. The force Ti works against the
motion of the solid and is in general a function of the velocity. We can let
in+l
where c is a positive damping coefficient, Irgens (1990) and a; is a vector containing

the generalized coordinates. Ti for n = 1 is sometimes known as Rayleigh’s dissipation
function. We then notice that the generalized damping force becomes:
Qi, = --jrr- = -Ci | ii p-1 ii

OXi
Notice that ti = 0 corresponds to dry friction or Coulomb damping, n = 1 corresponds to
linear viscous friction or Newtonian damping and n = 2 gives the expression for quadratic
damping. The n 2nd order Euler-Lagrange equations for the vehicle can now be written
as:
d_ (dT\ dT dTd
dt l dx,) dx, dx, (3.26)
We see from (3.26) that the dissipative forces represented by give a larger Qi to main
tain the same level of kinetic energy T. It is, however, easier to determine ^ directly
rather than first find the power function and next perform the differentiation. This leads
to the Newtonian discussion which the rest of this section will contain.
Steady motion is an ideal case which cannot be achieved in practice even for an ideal
fluid when the propulsion is from propellers, Clayton and Bishop (1982). It is, however,
realistic to assume steady motion when the motion of a solid can be expressed by a sum
of a time average component v and a fluctuation component v such that v = v v and
v v.
Two main types of forces are exerted by the fluid on a neutrally buoyant vehicle when the
vehicle moves with a constant speed relative to the fluid, denoted qr = (ur,vr, wr,p, q, r)T.
First, we have those forces which are distributed over the complete wetted surface of the
vehicle, often called drag forces, and second, we have the propulsion and control forces
from e.g. propellers and rudders. This section will discuss the former type of forces, while
the latter ones are dealt with in a later section.
Total resistance Ry.
i
Pressure resistance Rp Skin friction
£ resistance Rp
8.
I Wave-making Viscous pressure
resistance Rw resistance RPV
I
Viscous resistance Rv
Energy in wave pattern

S well away from vehicle
Energy in wake
t
B
8
Total energy loss
Figure 3.2: Steady state resistance components, Clayton and Bishop (1982) p. 200.
We observe from Fig. 3.2 that the total resistance can be broken down to three compo
nents. One component Rp, arises from the presence of shear stress between the solid’s
surface and the ambient fluid. This shear stress takes place inside the boundary layer on
the solid’s surface, see Fig. 3.3. A second component, the pressure resistance Rpr, is
cause by the boundary layer. The boundary layer prevents a complete pressure recovery
at the aft of the solid. The energy loss due to these two viscous effects can be observed
as a wake behind the solid. Both these forces are, in general, frequency and Keulegan-
Carpenter number dependent. A third effect, the wave-making resistance Rw, arises if
the solid is moving close to the surface. A wave pattern will be generated on the surface
of the fluid if the solid moves sufficiently close to the surface. The energy loss due to this
effect is the energy contained in this wave pattern. This last effect can be looked upon
as a potential damping, since it generates a wave pattern with a corresponding wave po
tential. A similar effect is introduced if a large underwater vehicle is in the wave-affected
zone. The wave potential will then be altered as it moves over the vehicle. This change
in the wave potential corresponds to a loss or gain of energy for the vehicle. Large is, in
this context a relative term which describes the ratio of the wavelength A to the vehicle’s
characteristic dimension d. A ratio of less than approx. 5 denotes a large vehicle. A
fourth effect, not shown in Fig. 3.2, may occur if the solid moves sufficiently close to a
solid boundary such as the sea floor. This effect can be observed when a vessel is moving
in shallow water. Seaweed on the seafloor will then be given a motion which can be looked
upon as a loss of energy for the vessel. The rest of this section will group together the
bounded fluid component, the wave-making and the wave-changing component, and with
the pressure resistance, since they are difficult to determine separately, both experimen
tally and analytically. The total resistance force will be denoted drag force in coming
discussion.
streamline
Figure 3.3: Streamlines, boundary layer and wake
The point on the vehicle on which the drag forces act is called the center of pressure, de
noted CP = [xp, yp, zp]T . This center of pressure is a function of the vehicle’s geometry,
velocities, the sign of the velocities and the vehicle’s angle of attack and drift.
The drag force in x—direction due to a surge motion can be calculated as follows:
Aa = ~^pCdA |u | u
where Co is a dimensionless resistance coefficient defined such that Co = Cpp -|- Cp and
A is a characteristic area of the solid, e.g. the wetted surface of the body or the projected
area in the x—direction. The above equation can be derived by using Bernoulli’s equation,
Faltinsen (1990a). Cp can usually be neglected for bluff body’s since Cpp Cp for this
set of geometries. This is because the boundary-layer separation produces a large wake
behind bluff bodies. The wake indicates that most of the energy dissipation is due to
the pressure resistance. The Cp is, however, significant for large streamlined bodies, e.g.
military submarines. The following expression suggests one way of calculating the Cp
coefficient Sarpkaya (1981)
0.075
Cp =
(log10 Re - 2)2
Fig. 3.4 shows in principle the Co coefficient for a circular cylinder as a function of the
Reynold’s number 71] = ETl where u is the kinematic viscosity.
100
ci
\
\
10 .... ,.v.
1 .—r
;
0.1 ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ i

io° n? i<? n? io4 k? iof io7
Re
Figure 3.4: Drag coefficient Co for a cylinder as a function of the Reynolds number
It is common engineering practice to assume a linear and quadratic damping term such
that the total damping for the x—is modeled as
fud = —dû — dq \ u\ u (3.27)

where the damping coefficients dp and dq are found from free decay tests, Sagatun and
Fossen (l991d) or parameter identification experiments, Zhou (1987). (3.27) can in its
most general form be written in matrix notation as
fd = ~DLqr - dQ{qr) - h.o.t.
where Dp is a 6 x 6 positive definite matrix, and the dQ(q) vector is on the form
[qJXq |<7r|, qjYq |gr|, ... ,qjNq |9r|]r. The matrices Xq,...,Nq are all positive
definite 6x6 matrices and | (jrr | is defined as the absolute value of each element in
the qr = q — qj vector. The qj vector denotes the fluid particle’s velocities such that
q j = [it/, Vf,wj, 0,0,0]T. This expression is unnecessarily complicated for most practical
purposes and may be simplified to
■ fxvi fxzi 0 0 0 '

fv^t fyw, 0 0 0
fzui fzvi fwd 0 0 0
= -D(qr)qr = - (3.28)
0 -zpf:d ypfwd r
jpd 0 0
0 ~XPfwd 0 r 0
. -ypfud zpf:d 0 0 0 /;J
where the terms on the form is defined according to Newman (1977, P-21, such that
/«., = \PCJA that is fzu ur is the force in z—direction due to a relative velocity in
the x—direction. The subscript l denotes a lift force and corresponds to the lift force in
aerospace terminology and is zero for a symmetric vehicle with zero angle of attack. The
f*d terms are defined such that f*du equals to (3.27) and the xp x f* terms correspond
to moments which will act on a vehicle with a CP that is not aligned with CG . For
simplicity, we have ignored that the center of pressure may changes when the sign of the
velocities change and that the drag forces in general also are a function of the vehicle’s
angle of attack and drift. Notice also that the D(qr) matrix is still positive definite. A
further simplification is to assume a symmetric vehicle and that the centre of pressure
CP lays in the centre of gravity CG. Hence, the matrix in 3.28 is reduced to the familiar
diagonal matrix
D(qr) = diag(dii - diQ | qri |); i - 1..6 (3.29)
Experiments indicate that this form is sufficient for most practical purposes for almost
symmetric and bluff-bodied vehicles.
It is important to notice that a linear and quadratic damping term are not an exact
description of the damping, but only an engineering approximation. The skin frictionmay,
for example, dominate for large, streamlined vehicles such that the damping becomes
proportional to (loffioii)-1. It is also necessary to remember that the damping terms are
very sensitive to the Keulegan-Carpenter number, see section 3.13.5, and the Reynold’s
number, see Fig. 3.4.
3.6.1 Forces and moments from an umbilical

Forces and moments from an umbilical are mainly due to drag forces. The drag forces on
the umbilical will in extreme cases account for more than 90% of the total drag. Consider,
for example, a 3000 [m] long 2.5 [cm] thick umbilical. This cable will have a total surface
area of 72m2 compared to a medium-sized ROV which has a surface less than 2m2.
The forces attack at the connection point TP = [xu, j/u, zu]T on the vehicle. The TP vector
is relative to the CG. Additional weight or buoyancy must also be added to the TP point
if the umbilical is not neutrally buoyant. The forces and moments on an underwater
vehicle are generally velocity dependent and may be written as
Tu = -Du(qr)qr (3.30)
where the components in the D matrix can be calculated on basis of equations given in
Faltinsen (1990a) and Dand and Every (1983). Lie et al. (1989) show how the umbilical
can be shaped to minimize the drag.
3.7 Restoring Forces and Moments

This chapter derives the forces and moments that act on the vehicle due to gravity, socalled
conservative forces. This chapter starts by attacking the phenomenon from a Lagrangian
point of view. The resulting expression is, however, derived in the Newtonian framework,
since this is much simpler for this case.
Restoring forces for underwater vehicles are mainly due to gravity. The gravity can be
looked upon as a scalar force field expressed by the scalar function V(x,t) which may be
a function on both the system’s generalized coordinates x and time t. An appropriate
choice of generalized coordinates for this case is earth-fixed positions. The forces and
moments, due to gravity acting on the vehicle, can now be found as the gradient of the
scalar function V{x) along and about the generalized coordinate axis.
dV{x)
Qi = (3.31)
dxi
It is well known that the change in potential energy is only end-point dependent and not
a function of the path traveled from point 1 to 2. A necessary and sufficient condition for
this is that the force Q is the gradient of the scalar function V/(*) of position only such
that (3.31) can be expressed as, Goldstein (1980):
Q = — W(x)
The work necessary to travel from 1 to 2 can then be expressed as
dV{x) dV(x)
W,12 dz
dz
3.7. RESTORING FORCES AND MOMENTS 41
or
dV(x)dx dV(x)dy dV(x)dz
W12 =
dx dt dy dt dz dt )*-£* (V(x(t)))dt
W12 = V(x(2)) - V(*(l))
Hence, end point dependency is proved. These type of forces are called conservative forces.
Notice also that we assume that V[x) is not a function of time. The n 2nd order Euler-
Lagrange equations given in (3.26), when we neglect the dissipative forces, can now be
rewritten to:
n =- ^ dT~V
’ dt \dxi) dxi
or
d dl_
dt dxi
where the new Lagrangian L is T — V. Notice also that the kinetic energy may be a
function of the position vector since we have changed generalized coordinates.
Gravity forces work on the vehicle because the submerged vehicle has weight and buoy
ancy. The restoring forces denoted £f(x) form in general a 6 x 1 dimensional nonlinear
vector where the elements are functions of the vehicle’s orientation parameters, e.g. Eu
ler parameters or Euler angles and the vehicle’s weight and buoyancy. The weight force
W = mg acts in the vehicle’s center of gravity, CG = (xg, 2/g, zg)t, while the buoyancy
force B = pjVg acts in the vehicle’s center of buoyancy, CB = (xg, ys, zb)T■ m is the
vehicle’s mass including water in free-floating spaces, g is the gravitational constant, p;
is the density of the ambient fluid and V is the volume of fluid displaced by the vehicle.
Figure 3.5: Restoring forces and moments

The W and B forces also produce moments, since the center of gravity and centre of
buoyancy are, in general, not placed in the same place in the vehicle, see Fig. 3.5. The
vector g(x), expressed in the earth-fixed coordinate frame, looks as follows:
0
0
W-B fw ~ fa
9e(*)
VbB — yGW *G * fw ~ XB * fB
xqW — xbB
0
The same vector, expressed in the vehicle-fixed coordinate frame, is found by premul
tiplying the vector with the transformation matrix in (2.2), such that g(x) =
Ji{<t>,6,xl))gE(x). Thus vector g(x) written out becomes
(W - B)sm0
—{W — B) cos 0 sin <f>
—{W — B) cos 0 cos 4>
(3.32)
—(yoW — ysB) cos 0 cos <j> -f {zqW — zbB) cos 0sin <j>
{xcW — xbB) cos 6 cos <f> + (zqW — zbB) sin 0
—{xqW — xbB) cos 0 sin ^ — {yoW — yaB) sin 0
The complexity of vector g(x) is reduced when the vehicle is neutrally buoyant and when
the vehicle-fixed coordinate system is placed in CG or CB. Hence, the g{x) vector
becomes
0
0
( \- 0
—BGyW cos 0<j> + BGZW cos 0 sin <f>
BGZW sin 0 + BGXW cos 0 cos (j)
—BGXW cos 0 cos <f> — BGyW sin 6
if the vehicle-fixed coordinate system is placed in CG for a neutrally buoyant vehicle. The
BG vector is defined according to the SNAME convention SNAME (1950), such that BG
denotes the the vector from CG to CB.
3.8 Propulsion and Control Forces and Moments

The Qi on the left hand side of (3.26) consists of the driving forces on the solid. These
forces consist of the control and propulsion forces and the disturbances forces which are
discussed in Chapter 2 and the next section.
3.8. PROPULSION AND CONTROL FORCES AND MOMENTS 43
The vehicle’s control and propulsion forces will be denoted
r = b(q,u)
where r € 3?", u £ and the nonlinear function b(q, u) is defined such that
b(q, u) : 3?m i-» 3tn.
This section denotes control forces as forces which are used to control the vehicle’s orien
tation and propulsion forces as forces which are used to control the vehicle’s velocity and
acceleration.
Steering fins or rudders are the most common control devices on large submarines, while
small underwater vehicles like ROVs usually use ducted propellers. Propellers are by
far the most common propulsion device under water. We have here excluded fish which
use active foils MITSeaGrant (1991). Other propulsion devices are water jets, Bratland
(1989) and different variable ballast-buoyancy systems Kleppaker et al. (1986) and Ura
and Otsubo (1988). Small underwater vehicles usually use the same actuators to control
their orientation as well as velocity and acceleration. This is because fins and rudders are
most effective under relatively high and steady speed. Rudders and fins lose most of their
control effect when the vehicle operates in its own wake, a situation that is common in
dynamic positioning mode and when the vehicle performs finer maneuvering.
This section will only discuss actuators where the propulsion and control are provided by
screw propellers enclosed in a duct.
3.8.1 Thruster hydrodynamics

In this section we assume that the ducted propeller is isolated from the vehicle such that
all vehicle-thruster interaction is neglected. We can now analyze the thruster’s dynamic
from an “open-water” (alone without a hull) perspective. Dimensional analysis of the
thrust force from propellers reveals that the thrust is a function of the propeller diameter
D, propeller revolution n and the propeller’s speed through the water Va, Walderhaug
(1990). Va is defined such that V4 = (1 — w)V where V is the vehicle’s total speed and
w is the wake fraction number. The wake fraction number represents the reduction of
velocity of the incoming water to the propeller. V = Va for the open water test condition.
These parameters define the non-dimensional coefficient, the advance coefficient Ja:
Similar non-dimensional coefficients for the propeller’s torque Kq and thrust Kr can be
achieved such that
= —Tth Kq = —yjrj (3.33)
pnlD* pn2Db
The thruster’s open water efficiency coefficient r)0 is defined as r?0 = A typical plot
of Kr, Kq and r/0 against J0 is shown in Fig. 3.6. Notice that maximum thrust is not
Figure 3.6: A typical plot of Kr, Kq and r)0 against positive J0,
necessarily found where the Kr is at its maximum since Kr is a nonlinear function of J0.
The overall efficiency of the thruster system T)r is defined as the ratio of efficient power
of thruster mounted on the vehicle divided by the power supplied to the thruster system.
VT = VMrioVH^R
where i]m is the mechanical efficiency, t}r is the “behind-to-open” efficiency, Clayton and
Bishop (1982) p. 370, and r)n is the “hull efficiency”, Clayton and Bishop (1982) p. 371.
VhVR's experimentally determined to be 0.85 by Parfitt and Watters (1990) for the BP’s
DISPS vehicle.
Duct
A duct around a screw propeller has two functions. First, it is supposed to improve the
thruster’s efficiency at high trust loads on low speed, and second, it protects the propeller
from entanglement in the umbilical, cables and collisions. A very good article on duct
design and performance is Oosterveld (1973).
Disturbances
A thruster mounted on a vehicle may lose efficiency due to several type of disturbances.
Cavitation Clayton and Bishop (1982) p. 380, momentum drag Dand and Every (1983)
p. 32, thrusters-hull effects e.g. the Coanda effect, loss of efficiency due to current, free
surface effects on thrusters and thruster-thruster interactions Faltinsen (1990a) pp. 270-
281 are the most important effects.
For the interested reader we would like to recommend Blanke (1981) which contains a
detailed model of propulsion dynamics from a control engineer’s point of view.
3.8.2 The b(q,u) vector

We will now show that the thrust T is as a nonlinear function of the propeller revolution
and that the thrust is a function of the vehicle’s speed. We see from (3.33) that the thrust
T is related to the Kt coefficient such that T = Kt(Jo)pD4ti \ n | We observe from Fig.
3.6 that Kt can be approximated by a linear interpolation Kj = a + ftj0, Fossen (1991c)
Sagatun and Fossen (I991d). Substituting this approximation for Kt into (3.33) together
with the expression for J0 yields
r w &iu | u | +&2 I 9 b |u| (3.34)
where 6j = pD4a and 62 = pD3(l — w)P- | q I2 denotes the total speed which simply
is the Euclidean length of the velocity vector q. Remember that the input u is simply
n. This is clearly verified by Fig. 3.9 (a) where the thrust is plotted as a function of
different speeds of advance and propeller revolutions. Hence, the b(q,u) vector can for
the NEROV be written as
bini |ni | +62 | 9 I2 | | +M2 | ^2 | +&2 | 9 I2 | «2 I
t>in3 |n3 | +&2 | 9 I2 | ns | +6jn4 | n4 | +&2 | 9 I2 I |
bin5 |n5 | +62 I 9 I2 | ns | +^>1^6 | | +&2 I I2 | ^6 j 9

(3.35)
(6i«3 I713 I +&2 I 9 I2 I 713 |)fr
— (bins | ris | -f62 | 9 I2 | Tis |)/y + (bins | Tig | +62 I 9 I2 | Tig |)/j,
. (&1711 | Til I +62 | 9 |2 | Til |)/2 - (&1712 I 712 I +&2 | 9 I2 | 7l2 |)/*
where ti, is the propeller revolution of thruster i and /, is the momentum arm around the
i axis.
3.8.3 The NEROV thruster system

The NEROV propulsion system consists of six ducted thrusters and their control elec
tronics. The most important design criterion for the thruster system was the price. The
whole system, including its control electronics costs in the area of than NOK 100,000.—,
ECU 12,500 (approx). All thrusters have a maximum thrust of 78 N in bollard pull.
The thruster force is reversible and almost symmetrical, see Fig. 3.9 (b). The thruster
bandwidth is 2 — 3 All the thrusters are equipped with propeller angular velocity mea
surements for inner loop feedback. This is obtained by mounting tachogenerators on the
motor shaft. Fig. 3.7 shows a schematic drawing of the thruster with its main dimensions.
Figure 3.7: A schematic drawing of the NEROV thruster Sagatun and Fossen (1991a).
The thruster’s momentum drag were not found to be significant compared to the vehicle’s
total drag with the current maximum thrust, see Fig. 3.10.
The motor
The NEROV thruster is constructed and built at the Division of Engineering Cybernetics.
The thruster motor is a 24 V DC 400 W permanent magnet motor made by Outboard
Marine Corporation. The motorhouse is modified to fit the tachometer.
The duct
The diameter of the duct is 244 mm and the length is 180 mm. The duct is made of PVC.
The duct profile is symmetrical to obtain the same amount of thrust in both directions.
This was an important design criterion in the design of the duct profile. The duct profile
is shaped approximately like nozzle no. 37 described in Oosterveld (1973).
The propeller
The propeller is a three-bladed Kaplan type propeller with radial pitch distribution. The
propeller is made of plastic. The main data for the propeller are; diameter 241 mm, the
pitch P/d at 0.7d is 0.89, the chord length at 0.7d is 93 mm and the thickness of propeller
blade at 0.7d is 4.5 mm.
The control electronics

The analog control board consists of one 24 V DC pulse-width modulator and one mono
variable PID-type controller. The input to the PID-controller is the commanded propeller
revolution from the VME rack and the measured propeller revolution from the tachometer.
The PID controller works as an inner servo loop which improves the thruster bandwidth as
well as reducing effects from nonlinearities in the control loop, e.g. friction. The thrusters
currently have a bandwidth of 2 Hz. The pulse-width modulator is used to control the
propeller angular revolution.
Figure 3.8: The analog inner feedback loop.
The NEROV propulsion system and the actuator dynamics are described in detail in
Sagatun and Fossen (1991a). Recent tests of the PID regulator suggest the removal of
the derivate action. This is due to significant noise form the tacho-generator. A redesign
of the thrusters should involve the use of a pulse-counters instead of tacho-generators.
The pulses could then be integrated by analogue electronics and used in the servo-loop
as feedback.
3.8.4 Open water test of the NEROV thrusters

The open water test of the NEROV thrusters was done full scale with Va — V i.e. a wake
fraction number u> = 0. The test was performed in the towing tank at the Norwegian
Marine Research Institute (MARINTEK). Fig. 3.9 and 3.10 present the test results.
On basis on Fig. 3.9, we can now find the parameters in (3.35). We find that Kt can be
approximated by the function Kj = —0.405Jo + 0.225. Eq. can now be written as
T[N3 kt
lOO
VaX)
80 -■ i/. .9po/»._ nkO
20 -
-t-VaXm/sJ
-0.1 - i
-40 -
-60 -iXy.Avafs^tl
-0.2 -
-80 -
-0.2m/»'// |
OnVs •!
-lOO-20
'---- ----
-1C
L -0.3
-0.5
rev/s
(a) (b)
Figure 3.9: (a) Measured thruster force T as a function of propeller revolutions n for
different speeds of advance Va-(1>) Non-dimensional thrust characteristics Kt versus the
advance coefficient J0 for the NEROV.
O.Sri! |uj | -4.71 | 9 b I | +0.8n2 | n2 | +4.71 | 9 I2 | «2 |

0.8n3 n3 j -4.71 j 9 I2 | «3 j +0.8n4 j n4 j +4.71 | 9 (2 | «4 |
j
0.8n5 | n5 | -4.71 | 9 I2 I | +0.8n6 | n6 j +4.71 | 9 I2 | ^6 |
b(q,u) (3.36)
0.33n3 |n3 | -1.92 | 9 |2 | n3 |
-0.32n5 | n5 | +1.88 | 9 I2 | ^5 I +0.32n6 | n6 | —1.88 | 9 I2 | ^6
0.34ni | ni | —1.98 | 9 I2 | | —0.34n2 | n2 \ +1.98 | 9 I2 | ”2 |
where we have used a wake fraction number w = 0.2 and lx = 0.41 [m], lx = 0.40 [m] and
lz = 0.42 [m].
3.9 Wave and Current Forces and Moments

This chapter will deal with the other driving term on the left-hand side of the Euler-
Lagrange equation. This term is due to wave forces and will be denoted u)(<f>) where <j> is
the wave potential.
3.9. WAVE AND CURRENT FORCES AND MOMENTS 49
Figure 3.10: (c) Nondimensional thrust characteristics Kjx (o marked) and Kty (x
marked) in the x- and y-direction respectively as a function of the advanced coefficient
J0 and angle a = 0° (dashed) and 90° (solid) between thruster and vehicle speed.
In the simplest case we assume that the sea waves are regular plane progressive waves of
small amplitude, with sinusoidal time dependence. This is a crude approximation since
the actual ocean waves are most accurately described as a random process, which causes
random responses of a body in the wave-affected zone. Why do we study regular wave
theory at all ? Fortunately, the random response of a body in random sea can be described
by a linear superpositioning of waves with sinusoidal components.
This section presents first a stochastic model of waves. Different state-space realizations
of sea waves are then presented, before Morrison’s equation is introduced. The section
ends with a brief discussion of current and current induced forces.
It might be uesful to read Appendix B for background in hydrodynamics.
3.9.1 Wave models in the frequency domain
The ocean waves are best described as random processes. It is convenient in the further
discussion to regard ((t,x,y,z) as a continuous, stationary and ergodic process. In prac-
tic, irregular sea is simulated with a sum of a large number of linear wave components,
Faltinsen (1990a):
N
£= sin(w,t — kii + e,) (3.37)
i=l
Here u>,, and e, denote wave amplitude, circular frequency, wave number and ran
dom phase angle respectively. The random phase angles c, are uniformly distributed
between 0 and n. The wave amplitude Ai can be expressed by a wave spectrum S(lo) as
Â? = S(u)j)Au. The instantaneous wave elevation ( is considered Gaussian with zero
mean and variance a2 = S(tj)du) where 5(w) is the wave spectrum. This is derived by
noticing from (3.37) that tr2 = ^?/2, by letting iV —► oo and Aw —» 0, a2 becomes
/0“5(w)dw.
The wave spectrums are usually estimated on basis on wave measurements taken over
a short period of time e.g. | hour - 10 hours. This is what the literature describes as
short term wave description. The spectrum S(u>) is then found by performing the discrete
fast fourier transformation FFT on the sequence of wave measurements. The discrete
Fourier transform pair which is applied is given by: F(u) = j$Ylx=o f(x)e~*2™x/N and
f(x) = Eu=o F{u)e,2ûxlN where Au =
Fig. 3.11 shows a plot of a part of a time series measured by a wave buoy4 outside the
Norwegian coast, together with its corresponding wave spectrum. The spectrum is based
on 2048 samples. Significant wave height is found to be Hi = 1.22m and mean wave
period 7\ = 7.24s.
It is common to use recommended sea spectra from ISSC (International Ship and Offshore
Structure Congress) and ITTC (international Towing Tank Conference) in engineering
design. For open-sea condition, the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum (3.38) is recommended,
S(w) = 0.0081-^ exp (3.38)
while a JONSWAP(Joint North Sea Wave Project) -type spectrum is recommended for
limited fetch eq. 3.39.
4provided by the Trondheim-based company OCEANOR

Figure 3.11: Measured time serie from the North Sea with its corresponding power density
plot.
SM = 0.0081exp (-1 • • yexp(-5^ )
- Ti (3.39)
_ j 0.09 if w > wp
<T~\ 0.07 if w < wp
Y is usually between 1 and 7
The JONSWAP and the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum are shown in Fig. 3.12. Fig. 3.13
compares a measured wave spectrum and the JONSWAP spectrum for the corresponding
sea state. Notice that the measured spectrum is more narrow banded than the JONSWAP
spectrum. The JONSWAP spectrum’s modal frequency lop (peak frequency) is at a higher
frequency than the measured spectrum. This because the measured waves have had time
to develop over a longer period than assumed for the JONSWAP case.
3.9.2 State-space representations of sea waves

We know that we can generate a stochastic process with an almost arbitrary power spec
trum by sending white noise through a dynamic system with the appropriate transfer
function. The JONSWAP power spectrum in Fig. 3.12 can be approximated by sending
1
52 CHAPTERS. MODELING OF UNDERWATER VEHICLES
SP)
0.8 -
Figure 3.12: The JONSWAP spectrum (solid) (3.39) and the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum
(dashed) (3.38)
white noise with unitary power spectrum Q2S(t), Q — l through a second order filter on
the form
h(s) = k-------------- (3.40)
l+2<£ +
Notice that the power spectrum of this filter (jui) has zero energy for zero frequency,
i.e. w = 0 —» 4>yy(0) = 0. This is of course a desirable behavior for this power spectrum.
The parameters k — 0.22 and ( = 0.03 in the resulting power spectrum formed by
$yy(Jw) = hUu) ■ Q ■ H~ju) (3.41)
were found by minimizing

roo
j— (^yy0w) — $jonswapUu)) ^ (3.42)
Jo
Saelid et al. (1983b). w0 = 0.87 was found by letting u»0 = ^ where Ti is the mean wave
period. The corresponding state space representation of the filter in (3.40) is realized by
the 4-tuple (A,b,c,d) where
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Figure 3.13: A comparison between the JONSWAP spectrum (3.39) and a measured spec
trum
(3.43)
c = [0 1 ] d=Q
and a — \Juj0 and b = 2\uj0. The corresponding power spectrum is formed as follows:
fcyyO’w) = [c(jw/ - A)~'b + d] Q [c(-jw/ - A)~lb + d]T (3-44)
where Q = \.
3.9.3 Linear potential theory

The analysis in this section will use the “long wave approximation” Newman (1977), that
is the wavelength A is much greater than the underwater vehicle’s characteristic dimension
D, X^> D. The section will only discuss the case of a fully submerged body.
Consider a fully submerged vehicle which is exposed to incident waves. The velocity
potential can then be written as, Newman (1977) pp. 289-290:
<t>(x,y,z,t) = Re y, z) + A(<t>0{x, y, z) + Mx> y. z)\ e‘“‘ (3.45)

/=1 RADIATION DIFFRACTION t
where A is the wave amplitude and is the three translational and three rotational mo
tions along and about the vehicle-fixed axis. The first term in this equation, called the
radiation potential, corresponds to a rigid body forced to move by an external mechanism
in still water. This effect corresponds to the added inertia effects discussed in Section 3.3
and Section 3.5.
The second term, the wave diffraction problem, represents the incident waves and their
interaction with the rigid body. <j>0 is the incident wave potential, see Table B.l and fa is
the scattering potential which represents the disturbance on the incoming wave train.
fa may be evaluated at one point if we assume D. A physical interpretation of this

is that the pressure field of the incoming wave train does not change over the vehicle’s
length. This approach is known as the Froude-Krylov hypothesis. The diffraction term
in (3.45) may be divided into one Froude-Krylov term and one diffraction term. The
exciting forces and moments can now for a completely submerged body be written as:
u(<t>)= pVqj, + + MAM,2Vf + Mam,3wj ;i = 1..3 (3.46)

F-K FORCES DIFFRACTION FORCES
where ijj = [uf,Vf,Wf,0,0,0]T is the fluid particles’ velocities and V is the volume of the
submerged body. Expressions for is found in Table B.l and the Mam matrix is given
in (3.24). Written in vector form the Froude-Krylov and the diffraction forces may be
expressed as
u{<f>) = Mwqf (3.47)
where Mw is defined as
M i_3i_3 03x3
Mw = (3.48)
03x3 03><3
where Misa-s is the sum of the upper left 3x3 matrices of Mrs and Mam- Notice
that (3.46) does not include any moments or centripetal and Corolis forces. This is be
cause we have assumed that the pressure is constant over the vehicle’s surface, i.e. A D.
Potential damping has been neglected completely in this section. The potential damping
is grouped with the rest of the dissipative forces and treated as one set of forces in Section
(3.6.1). Equation 3.46 is based on potential theory and does not account for viscous
forces. These forces can be accounted for by adding a drag term to eq. 3.46.
3.9.4 Morrison’s equation

Morrison’s equation is a semi-heuristic extension of 3.46 where the dissipative forces also
are taken into account.
= pVCaqTi + ^pCD I | 9r, (3.49)
The added mass coefficient Ca and the drag coefficient Cd are empirically determined pa
rameters which are dependent on many parameters e.g. the Keulegan-Carpenter number
and the Reynold’s number. Fig. 3.14 contains some useful rules of thumb when Morrison’s
equation is applicable and when the drag- and mass-forces are dominating.
3.9.5 Current
Current is defined as slowly varying or constant movement of water.
The surface current U is divided into the following components, Faltinsen (1990a):
U = Ut + Uv> + U. + Um + U,'t-up + Ud (3.50)

where Ut is the tidal component, Uw is the wind generated component, Ua is the Stoke’s
drift, Um is the component from major ocean circulation, Uset-up is the component due
to set-up phenomena and storm and Ud is the current component due to difference in the
water density.
In control system design, the current is usually modeled as
U = Ut + Urest (3.51)
where the Ut component is considered known and the Ure,t is modeled as a stochastic
process. A steady state current of 0.5y is not unusual in the North Sea.
3.9.6 State-space representation of sea current

The current to ship transferfunction can be modelled as a constant or slowly varying
process with states:
xcw Wi
xcN U>2
Dragforces are
No waves possible dominating
Massforces are
dominating
s' Reflection
and diffraction
are important
large-volume small-volume
Mac-Camy and Fuchs Morrison’s equation

theory
Figure 3.14: H is the wave height, D is a characteristic diameter and A is the wave length.
where Wj is a zero mean white noise process and xcn and vcw are the inertial north and
west component of the current. Vehicle-fixed velocities due to the current can now be
found by using the rotation matrix given by (2.2) such that:
uc — apwi — srl>W2
vc = SljjWi + sV>U>2
uc and vc can be equated with white noise processes directly, when t/> is small.
The resulting expression for vehicle-fixed current disturbances should be used together
with a state estimator to estimate the bias force from the current. See also subsection
4.9.1 which discuss estimation or adaption of current.
3.10. UNDERWATER VEHICLES - NONLINEAR EQUATIONS OF MOTION 57
3.10 Underwater Vehicles - Nonlinear Equations of

Motion
We have now, in detail, derived each term in the equation below The terms are explained
from an energy point of view and derived in the Lagrangian or Newtonian framework
when appropriate.
Mq + C(q)q + D(q)q + g(x) = w(<f>) + b(q,u)
x = J(x)q
We can simplify this equation to
Mq + C(q)q + D(q)q - r
x = J(x)q (3.52)
where we have assumed still water, included the effect of gravity in r such that
t = b{q,u) - g(x). (3.53)
The gravity term is completely known and may be compensated for in an inner lineariza
tion feedback loop.
3.10.1 Alternate representation

Up until now we have derived the equations of motion for an underwater vehicle from a
physical point of view; however, another approach is also much in use. This approach uses
a row expansion of the hydrodynamical forces on the vehicle. The number of terms used
in the equations and the magnitude and sign of these terms have to be decided exper
imentally. The following equation for an underwater vehicle’s surge motion is included,
Kalske (1989):
(m — Au)u — X0 + Xuu + Xuliu2 + Xuuuii3 + Xvvv2 + (XTTr2 + mxg)r2

+XsrsTSr2 + (XVTvr + m)vr + XvSrvSr
as a comparison with our approach. The notation is similar to the one used in SNAME
(1950).
3.10.2 Hydrodynamical and hydrostatistical stability analysis

Hydrostatical analysis involves static stability analysis of the vehicle in a fluid. This sta
bility analysis involves a surface stability, a transition stability, and a submerged stability
analysis all of which use the vector CG and the metacenter height as their main object
of study. The interested reader is referred to Allmendinger (1990).
Dynamic stability criteria include both nonlinear analysis and a linear treatment of the
subject. The linear analysis is useful to investigate terms like position stability, straight-
line stability and directional stability. An eigenvalue analysis may be useful in this context,
see section 3.15. Nonlinear analysis of, e.g., stick-free and stick-fixed stability, can be
performed by using for instance Lyapunov stability theory. As Fossen (1992) provides an
excellent treatment of this subject, the results are not repeated in this text.
3.11 Equations of Motion Formulated in the Inertial

Reference Frame
While it is most common to express the equations of motion in the q-frame, the x-frame
formulation has some advantages. One is, while the quasi coordinates represented by the
q vector have no physical interpretation, both the x and the x vectors are easily given a
meaningful interpretation. This implies that the differentiation of position, with respect
to time, yields velocity directly without going through the Jacobian matrix J(x). This
will prove to have a great advantage in proofs of stability. Remember that we assume
throughout this thesis that an appropriate nonsingular J(x) transformation matrix is
used.
The transformation from the q-frame to the x-frame can be done by using the transforma
tions given by (eq:transforml) on the set of equations given by (3.52). Another approach
is to derive the equations directly in the x-frame formulation by using the kinetic energy
of the system expressed in the x-frame. This kinetic energy is then given by:
Tx = ^xtMx(x)x
Mx(x) = J_T(*)M?J_1(a:) and the generalized coordinate vector* is a: = {x,y,z,<j>,0,ip)T.

We can now formulate the Euler-Lagrange equations for the “rigid body-ambient water”
system in the x-frame:
3.11. EQUATIONS OF MOTION FORMULATED IN THE INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAMl 59
which yields
tx = Mx(x)x + MT(x,x)x - ]--^-(xTMX(x)x) + Dx(x,x)x

L OX
where
l-^-(iTMx(x)i) = -J-T(x)(Cq(i) + MgJ-\x)j(x)-Mq)j-\x)x
Mx(x, x)x = J-T{x)(Mq-2MqJ-\x)j{x))j-1{x)x (3.55)
and
Dx(x,x)x = = J~T (x)Dq(x)J~'i (x)x
Recall that Mq is 0. It is now useful to define the matrix Cx(x,x) as:
Cx(x,i) = ^Mx(x) + Nx(x,i) (3.56)
where Nx(x,x) is defined such that

1 1
Nx(x, x)x = -Mx(x)x - - — (xtMx(x)x) (3.57)
Consequently, the underwater vehicle’s equations of motion expressed in the x-frame for
mulation now becomes:
Mx(x)x A Cx{x, x)x + Dx(x, x)x — tx (3.58)
It is easy to prove that Nx(x,x) is such that xTNX(x,x)x — 0 Vx(t). The physical
interpretation of this is that the Nx(x,x) matrix represents the workless forces of the
vehicle, see also section 4.5.3. It is also straightforward to show that both xT(Mx —
2Cx(x,x))x = 0 \/x(t) and qTCq(q)q = 0 Vq(t), Sagatun and Fossen (l991f) and
section 3.12.2.
We will, in the rest of this thesis, assume that potential energy, i.e. the effect of gravity,
is included in the tx vector such that
dy_
tx = r,OX (3.59)
dx
3.12 Model Properties

This section derive some properties of the models given by (3.52) and (3.58). The first
subsection derive properties for the model in vehicle-fixed reference frame, while the next
section does the same for the inertial-fixed reference frame.
While some of the properties may seem trivial, all the proofs are derived independently
of any other text, except where otherwise stated.
3.12.1 Properties of the q-frame formulation

Property 3.1.
The inertia matrix M = Mrb + Mam is symmetric, constant and positive definite such
that M = Mt > 0.
proof: Mrb is found from (3.19) to be:
diagaxaM -m[rGx]
Mrb m[rGx] /
where the elements in the inertia tensor I is given by Lj = p(r ■ rSij — rp-j) dV
Mrb is clearly symmetric. Mam is also symmetric since = Tr { because
2 //= | //p<t>i^dS (Green’s second identity) , see also (3.6). The
positive definiteness is found by the definition of kinetic energy, that is T is greater
than zero for > 0.
□
Remark 3.5.
It should be noted that the symmetric property is only valid for still water or for a zero
velocity. The elements in the M matrix will otherwise be velocity dependent and the
matrix will in general not be symmetric, Faltinsen (1990a) p. 56.
Property 3.2.
The product C(q)q may be parameterized such that C(q) becomes skew symmetric, that
is CT + C = 0.
proof: The C(q)q vector can be parameterized to
C{q)q = (3.60)
3.12. MODEL PROPERTIES 61
Hence it is necessary to prove that An and A22 are skew symmetric or nil matrices
and sufficient to prove that Au — —An to prove that C(q) can be parameterized
such that C(q) is skew symmetric.
The C(q) matrix is formed by the cross product terms in Kirchhoff’s equation such
that
u x dTs
dV
C(q)q =
3TS 97V 97V
w x aw + ^ x atf + ^ x gu v x dv j
Ti and Ts are expressions for the solid’s and the ambient water particle’s kinetic
energy. The above expression for the C{q)q vector can be rewritten to
03x3
V
C{q)q = (3.61)
[(Hf+fSfH -
by recognizing the identity a x Ab = —Ab x o = — [>16x]a, where the matrix
[Ab x] is skew symmetric. We observe that (3.61) is now on the form of (3.60). It
is now trivial to see that Ai2——A^, A22 is skew symmetric and that An is the nil
matrix. Hence we have proved that there exists a parameterization of C(q)q such
that C(q) is skew symmetric.
□
Remark 3.6.
It is important to note that the skew symmetric O(q) matrix in (3.61) is not unique.
Remark 3.7.
Notice that all direct coupling terms among the linear velocities are removed with this
parameterization.
Remark 3.8.
Another parameterization than (3.61) can be obtained when the rigid body’s and the
added inertia’s kinetic energy are treated separately.
Proof: Below is a different parameterization of the C(q) matrix.
- [(Mi2u> + x]
[Mnwx]
v
C{q)q = (3.62)
U)
+ A1\2V + 97V
dV H - [{^22^ + ff#) x]
where M\\ >s the 3x3 diagonal matrix of m, M\2 is the skew symmetric matrix
formed by m[xcx] and M22 is the inertia tensor I. The identities a x (6 x c) =
(a • c)b — (a ■ b)c and (acT)b — (a • b)c can be used to show that An^—A^.
□
Property 3.3.
The property qT (M, — 2C(g)) q = 0 is always true for any parameterization of C(q).
q is the time derivative of the vehicle-fixed quasi coordinates.
proof: The property is proven for the x-frame formulation in property 3.7. The extension
to the q-frame formulation is trivial by using (3.55) and (3.56).
Property 3.4.
The dissipative damping matrix D(q) is positive definite that is D(q) > 0 Vq > 0.
proof: The rate of energy dissipation from a system is defined as ^ — —Ti where
the dissipative forces working on the system is defined as /, = The energy
dissipation from the system can then be written as | qTDq > 0V<7>0 since Td>d
if we, for argument’s sake, assume that the dissipative forces are linear in q. Hence,
the property is proved. The line of reasoning is analogous if we assume another
structure of the energy dissipation.
□
Property 3.5.
The dynamic equations for an underwater vehicle define a passive mapping between r
and q written t q.
proof: Define the Lyapunov function V — qTMq. The function V is clearly lower
bounded. By differentiating V with respect to time we get
V - qTMq = qTT - qTDq (3.63)
which prove that the system is passive.
Remark 3.9.
The system is also dissipative (strictly passive since /“ qTDqdr > 0 for <7 ^ 0.
□
Property 3.6.
The thrust r is a nonlinear function of the control input u and a function of the velocity
such that r = 6(u, q).
proof: See Section 3.8.4.

□
3.12. MODEL PROPERTIES 63
3.12.2 Properties of the x-frame formulation

Throughout this section we assume that the matrix J(x) is nonsingular. This can always
be achieved by using an appropriate representation of orientation.
It is straightforward to extend properties 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 to the x-frame formulation
by using the identities:
Mx = J-t(x)MJ-1(x) ;Dx = J-t(x)DJ~1(x)
We observe that the new M matrix is positive and symmetric since Af J = Mx and
xM~lx = xtJ(x)M~1Jt(x)x — yTM~1y >0 Vj/ > 0
The Dx matrix is still positive for the same reason as cited above. It is now clear that
the positive definite properties and the symmetric properties are preserved by going from
one coordinate system to another. Property 3.2. is not valid in the x-frame formulation
while property 3.3. is.
Property 3.7.
The expression: xT (Mx(x) - 2CI(x,i)) i = 0 is always true for any parameterization
of C(q). x is the vector of generalized coordinates for the system.
proof: This proof follows the same line of reasoning as the one employed in Ortega
and Spong (1988). The Euler-Lagrange equations for an solid moving in an ideal
unbounded fluid can be written as an inertial Lagrangian system
_ d_dT _ dT
T dt dx dx
where the potential energy, i.e. the effect of gravity, is neglected by using Avanzini’s
Theorem, Birkhoff (i960), such that L(x,x) = T(x). The Euler-Lagrange equation
describe n 2nd order equations. We can transform this to 2n first order equations
the so-called Hamilton’s equation by defining the Hamiltonian H and using the
Legendre Transformation such that
H = pTx - L(x,x)
p is the generalized momentum defined as p = J^. H is, on the other hand, found
to be the kinetic energy such that
H = ^xtMx(x)x (3.64)
The 2n first order Hamilton’s equations are found by employing Lagrange’s equa
tions on the Hamiltonian, which yields
dH
X ' dp
p = -|? + t (3.65)
The rate of change of the energy in the system defined by the Hamiltonian can now
be found from (3.65):
dH_ dH . dH .
----x -|------ p X■ T T
dt dx dp
If dissipative forces, like viscousus friction, are present, the right-hand side of the last
equation may be subtracted by a positive term xTDx(x,x)x > 0 which accounts
for this reduction in kinetic energy with respect to time due to these dissipative
forces, thus
dH _
(r - Dx{x,x)x) (3.66)
dt
However, if we use (3.64), we obtain:
= xTMx(x)x+^xTMX(x)x — xtt-xt (^Mx(x) - Cx(i,x)j x-xTDx(x,x)x

(3.67)
where the last transition uses (3.58). We now see that xT (jMx(x) — 2C'x(*,a;)) x
is always zero by comparing (3.67) and (3.66).
□
Remark 3.10.
Observe the similarity between (3.63) and (3.66). This is because both equations express
the rate the energy which dissipate from a mechanical system. The reference frame the
system is expressed in does not affect the basic properties of the system.
Remark 3.11.
A physical intepretation of (3.67) is that the terms xT (^Mx(x) — Cx(x, a;)) x represents
workless forces.
Property 3.8.
The eigenvalues of the inertial-fixed linearized system M~lDx are the same as the ones
of the linearized vehicle-fixed system M~xDg.
3.13. EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF ADDED INERTIA AND DAMPING 65
proof: The MX^DX matrix product can be written as:
M-?Ds = J(x)M?DqJ-\x)
Hence we see that Dx is a similarity transformation of the corresponding ma

trices formulated in the vehicle-fixed reference frame. This transformation preserve
the eigenvalue properties of the system. The rest of the proof follows the exact same
line of reasoning as property 3.6.
□
Remark 3.12.
That the eigenvalue properties are the same in both reference frames should not come as a
surprise to the reader, since the stability properties of a mechanical system are inherently
a function of the physical system and not the reference frame in which it is represented.
3.13 Experimental Determination of Added Inertia

and Damping
This section contains the results of free-decay tests performed on the NEROV. The added
inertia and damping coefficients’ dependency on the KC number and frequency are pre
sented. Sensitivity to perturbations of the NEROV’s geometry is also investigated. The
section contains a discussion of the use of both linear and quadratic drag terms. Off-
diagonal coupling terms are also discussed.
3.13.1 Experimental setup

Fig. 3.16 shows the experimental setup. The vehicle’s mass in air and deplacement are
known in advance. The vehicle is suspended under water by a spring with a known spring
constant (k — ^). The spring is hanged from a force ring (a force sensor). The vehicle
is moved out of its equilibrium point and then released. The extension of the spring is
measured with a force ring with a known force constant (c = •^). The movement, i.e.
the decaying behavior of the vehicle, is then calculated by measuring the voltage over the
force ring. This signal is passed through a fourth-order analog Butterworth filter with
a bandwidth of 4Hz and a signal amplifier before it is digitalized and stored on a PC.
Notice that the vehicle can move in only the desired direction. This implies that the
added mass and damping terms are found for one degree of freedom at the time.
Fig. 3.15 shows a typical decay.
a typical decay
Figure 3.15: A typical decay
3.13.2 Theory
This section is based on the theory presented in Lehn (1990).
The equation of motion for the experiment can be expressed as
mxi + Biii + B2 | ii | x-i + cXi — 0 (3.68)
where c is the spring constant used in the free decay test and m denotes the total mass.
Dividing on both sides with m yields
Xi + piii + p2 | ii | ii + pzXi - 0 (3.69)

This equation can, in each cycle of the oscillation, be linearized to
Xi + pii + p3x, - 0
where p = jtq + P denotes the total linear damping coefficient per unit mass. The
factor Vpp- is the equivalent velocity found from the linearization of the quadratic damp
ing term, X is the amplitude of the oscillation and T is the period. The energy in this
linearized equation is the same as the energy in (3.69) in each oscillation cycle.
Figure 3.16: Experimental setup.
The parameters in (3.68) can be made dimensionless such that

&
2
hi = SBitt ;
2pAD
and
B2
bo =
\pA
The dimensionless added mass coefficient is found to be
_ ^(1 -M
- fc2)'____
P32_____
pV
where k = pCT — 2u>0 and lo0 ~ . Z) is a characteristic height in the direction
of oscillation (1m for the NEROV), /f is a characteristic cross flow area (0.64m2 for the
NEROV), g is acceleration of gravity, c is the spring constant, p is the density of water,

V is a characteristic volume (0.182m3 for the NEROV), M is equivalent oscillatoric mass
in air (183% for the NEROV) and m is total oscillatory mass.
A least square approach is used when fitting the decay curve to (3.69).
Fig. 3.17 justifies the use of a linear damping term. The figure shows the total linear
damping coefficient per unit mass plotted versus the equivalent velocity.
0.16
0.14
DO
I 0.1
■O
| 0.08
0.06
0.04
o.o2-.... ............................... i....... ........ .....i....... ;..

pi
ol- - - - - - - ;- - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - i- - - - - - - i- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - i- - - - - - - -
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
equvivalent velocity
Figure 3.17: The total Imear damping coefficient per unit mass p = pi + P2'^' plotted as
a function of the equivalent velocity
3.13.3 Added mass and damping as a function of frequency

The free decay test allows us to calculate the added mass coefficients and the linear and
quadratic damping terms for the vehicle’s x-, y- and z-direction. We performed the test
for three frequencies (« 1.3, « 0.8 and « 0.4 ~). We also investigated how sensitive
these parameters are to perturbations of the vehicle’s geometry. We performed the test
for two different perturbation objects for all three frequencies. The largest perturbation
object was a second battery-container with a deplacement of 0.042 m3 and the small ob
ject was four cylinders, simulating a manipulator, with a deplacement of 0.009 m3. See
also Fig. 3.18.
The results from these tests are shown in Appendix D and Table 3.1. Notice how little the
parameters change when the geometry is perturbed. This may be explained by noticing
that the NEROV can be considered to be a bluff body such that we have an almost
immediate boundary-layer separation when the streamlines hit the vehicle.
small pertubation
V= 0.009 m3
NEROV sensor computer
large pertubation
V = 0.042 m3
Figure 3.18: The two geometrical perturbation objects .
3.13.4 Added mass and damping as a function of the KC num

ber
We investigated how the added mass parameters and damping terms changed with respect
to the KC number, (KC — = 27t-^, Um is maximum speed in an oscillation period,
T is the period, X is the amplitude and £) is a characteristic length). Fig. 3.19 shows
no pert. small pert. large pert.

axis CA bi b2 CA bi b2 CA 6i b2
x-axis 0.9 0.04 2.7 0.9 0.07 2.9 0.9 0.09 2.4
y-axis 1.3 0.11 1.9 1.3 0.07 3.0 1.2 0.07 3.1
z-axis 1.2 0.05 3.2 1.2 0.04 3.6 1.3 0.05 3.6
Table 3.1: Nondimensional added mass coefficients and linear and quadratic damping
terms for the NEROV for an oscillation period of k \ l s and KC ~ 1.
very strong dependencies between the vehicle’s hydrodynamical coefficients and the KC
number. The KC number indicates the relative importance of drag and inertia forces.
The numbers for high KC values correspond with experimentally obtained data for the
BP’s DISP vehicle where the corresponding values where Cm — 3.5 and Ca = 1.1 ,Parfitt
and Watters (1990). The difference is mainly due to the fact that the DISPS vehicle
Moore et al. (1990) is more compact relative to its surface area.
Notice how the KC number may be used to characterize the vehicle’s cruise condition.
A constant velocity corresponds to a infinite KC number, while an ROY or an A1JV
in a positioning mode correspond to a very small KC. Fig 3.20 shows the relationship
between the Ca and the equivalent quadratic drag coefficient Cdd defined as Cdd — t ....
The relationship between the Ca and the Cdd agrees with observations made by Sarpkaya
(1981) pp. 102-103 where the same dependency is observed for some higer KC numbers,
KC > 10.
3.13.5 Off-diagonal coupling terms

Very small coupling effects were observed during the tests. It is also very difficult to
measure these effects with the experimental setup that was used. We did witness some
small coupling effects between the sway and yaw and heave and pitch. It is, however,
difficult to find out if these effects are acceleration or velocity dependent or effects due to
an unbalanced vehicle.
3.14 Linearized Equations of Motion

3.14.1 Linearization about constant velocity q = q0
(3.1) can be written as
Mv = f(v,u)
3.14. LINEARIZED EQUATIONS OF MOTION 71
0.85
0.75
0.65
KC
Figure 3.19: The equivalent quadratic damping coefficient Cdd and the added mass coef
ficient Ca (both in x-direction) plotted as a function of the Keulegan-Carpenter number,
KC = where X is the amplitude of oscillation and D is a characteristic dimension
for the vehicle.
Neglecting higher order terms this equation can be linearized around the nominal point
f(v0, u0) as follow:
Mv0 + MAv = f(v0, u0) + dJÂ[v _ _ j
ov ou
Defining An — (v — v0) and Aw = (w — u0) and recognizing that f(v0,u0) = Mv we
obtain:
MAv -
OV ou
if
An = AAv + BAu (3.70)
where the A and B matrices are M~l dfivû°) ancl M-1 respectively. Milliken
(1984) contains the complete equations of motion of a submarine linearized around the
velocity n0 = [u0,v0,w0,p0,q0,r0]T.
3.14.2 Linearization about zero velocity g=0

This section contains a linear state-space model of an underwater vehicle linearized about
zero velocity. This requires that the C(q) matrix is set to zero, that the velocity trans
formation matrix J(x) is the identity matrix, and that we assume diagonal added inertia
Figure 3.20: Ca versus Ca for a KC value between 1 and 0.1
and damp damping matrices. Calculations made in Humphreys and Watkinson (1982)
and observations documented in Sagatun and Fossen (l991d) indicate that these require
ments are not harsh for symmetric vehicles with small velocities. We have further utilized
only linear damping terms. That is the quadratic damping terms are made linear so that
the error of the linearization is minimized in a ball around origin , see Fig. 3.21. This
linearizations for the surge, heave, and sway degrees of freedom are done with respect
to the energy in each cycle period in the added mass analysis, Lehn (1990). The linear
damping terms for the roll, pitch, and yaw motion are found by studies of similar vehicles,
observations made of the NEROV in water and engineering guesses.
The resulting linear D matrix becomes:
Dl = -diag(82,156,88,18,30,30)
where the dj terms is the sum of the above linearization and the linear drag terms.
3.14.3 A state space model

The state variables
We have assumed small velocities and small angles such that vehicle-fixed velocities and
accelerations are the same as the corresponding inertia-fixed vectors, that is the transfer-
where JBi is
£>i b! 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 &! 6,
S, = (3.72)
0 0 •4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 —bl'ly bl • ly
'i • h —bi ■ 4 0 0 0 0
The &i and lj terms are described in section 3.8.4.
3.14.4 Properties of the NEROV state-space model

The system described by (3.71) and (3.72) is both observable and controllable. Note also
that Bi is invertible.
3.14.5 Eigenvalue analysis

Below is plots of the eigenvalues of the NEROV vehicle for surge, heave, and sway plotted
as functions of the KC number. The eigenvalues are determined on basis on the free-decay
test documented earlier in this thesis. This implies that we have neglected all off-diagonal
terms in both the damping and mass matrix. Hence, the eigenvalues become A; = n+AM •
We observe that the mass-damping dependent eigenvalues vary with a factor of more than
5 for each degree of freedom. The integral terms are, of course, unchanged.
lm
-0.1 . .-°A .
Re *** r
KG= 0.9 ( 0.04

J if l i I
Iz
Figure 3.22: The eigenvalues of the NEROV in surge sway and heave plotted as functions
of the KC number.
[N] or [Nm]
(m/s] or [1/s]
Figure 3.21: Quasi-linearization of the quadratic damping terms.
mation matrix J{x) = lexe- Hence the state variables z € 9?2n becomes:
_ _ r-T _TiT
2 = 19 ? * J
where q £ dln defined as qr = [it, v, w, p, q, r]T is the time derivative of the quasi coordinate
vector in the vehicle-fixed reference frame and at £ defined as x = [i, y, z, <}>, 9, ip}T is
earth-fixed positions and Euler angles.
The A, B, C and D matrices
The 4-tuple (A, B, C, D) of real matrices which is a realization of the linearized system of
(3.1) and which-are related to the transfer function H{s) — C (si — A)~l B-\-D between
input signal | n | n (3.34) and output z is found to be:
—M~XD 0nxn
A= C = I 2nx2n
Inxn Onxn
(3.71)
B= D = 0 2nxn
Onxn
Ax = -0.25 0
Ay = -0.31 0
Az = -0.20 0
Table 3.2: The open-loop eigenvalues for surge, sway, and heave motion for KC
The damping and added inertia are not determined experimentally for the roll, pitch, and
yaw degrees of freedom, but observations of the NEROV vehicle in water and by com
parisons with similar vehicles, e.g. the MSEL’s EAVE vehicle Humphreys and Watkinson
(1982) and MSEL (1988), allow us to make engineering guesses for KC ~ 1, see Table 3.3:
The corresponding poles for the roll motion for the the DRAPER’S UUV are 0.074±1.102i
XK = -0.11+0.711 -0.ll-0.71i
Am = -0.15+0.79i -0.15-0.79i
Ajv — -0.33 0
Table 3.3: Estimated open-loop eigenvalues for roll, pitch and yaw motion for KC ^ l
Koenig (1991). The complex conjugated poles for the roll and pitch motion are found by
looking on the differential equations:
(Iy - Mi)9 - Mg6+ BG2pgV9 = 0
(Ix-Kr)d>-Kp4> + BGzPgV<f> = 0 (3.73)

where BGZ is the distance between the center of gravity and center of buoyancy. lx, Iy
and Iz are 25[kgm2}, 29[A;<7m2] and 28[kgm2}, respectively. The current NEROV has a
BGZ — 0.03[m] and a V = 0.183[m3]. The added inertia coefficients Caj are estimated to
be approximately 2.5 about the x, y and z axes. If we now plot all eigenvalues for high
KC values we obtain the typical plot of the open loop poles: Each equation in (3.73) may
be rewritten to
A2 + 2(wA + ui2 = 0
It is now easy to see that the natural frequency and damping ratio for the roll and pitch
motions becomes:
BGzpgV -Kv
U4, = C* =
\| /x - Kp 2yfBGzpgV (Ix - Kj)
bn
x X -0.7
4*
• oa • 0.2 • o.i
. \/W \/Mf 1 S
" J
Rt
- -0.7$
x x
Figure 3.23: Open-loop poles for the NEROV vehicle for high KC values.
BGzpgV -M.
U!$ =
Iy Mq
Ce = 2^BGzPgV(Iy-M4)
Hence, the natural frequencies and damping ratios for the NEROV is 0.72 [i], 0.80 [^]
and 0.15 [—], 0.19 [—] for roll and pitch respectively.
3.15 Summary of Chapter 3.

This section has successfully applied Lagrangian mechanics to derive the equations of mo
tion for an underwater vehicle. The equations are first derived in the common vehicle-fixed
reference frame before they are derived in an inertial reference frame. This latter model
will be very useful in the next chapter. The vehicle, with its ambient water, is treated in
a common framework where the added inertia is given a clear and physical explanation.
Restoring forces and the dissipative forces are also explained from a Lagrangian point of
view before a Newtonian approach is used to derive the specific terms. Propulsion forces,
wave loads, and experimental results from both open water tests of the NEROV thruster
system as well as a free decay test of the NEROV are discussed. A decoupled linearized
model of the NEROV is also presented with experimentally obtained data.
The Lagrangian approach is especially useful when properties of the equations of motions
are derived. The use of energy as the leading factor in the discussion will also be of great
importance in the next section where stability is proved by Lyapunov theory.
3.15. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3. 77
This chapter has clearly shown that the equations of motion for an underwater vehicle is
time-varying (a function of the Reynold’s number and the Keulegan-Carpenter number)
and nonlinear. This is a strong motivation to derive nonlinear and adaptive control
algorithms. The next chapter will discuss this topic in detail.
Chapter 4
Optimal Control Algorithms for

Underwater Vehicles
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an optimal and a suboptimal adaptive control algorithm for small
underwater vehicles. The control schemes are minimum effort controllers which result in
(sub)optimal feedback control laws.
The chapter starts with a definition of the problem of controlling a small underwater
vehicle. Differences between controlling surface vessels and small underwater vehicles are
pointed out. A brief review of existing guidance and control systems for both surface ships
and underwater vehicles are presented. Design requirements and basic assumptions for
the derivation of the control algorithms are then discussed before the two control schemes
are derived in detail. The final section of this chapter comes with some implementational
remarks.
4.2 Problem Statement

Balchen (1991) contains the following specification for a DP system:
A good system for DP should keep a vessel within specified position and heading
limits with minimal fuel consumption and wear on the propulsion equipment.
Furthermore, the system should tolerate transient failures in the measurement
and propulsion systems.
This specification may be applied to all control and guidance systems for marine vehicles
if “position and heading” were exchanged with “trajectory” in the above quote. There are
79
80 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHK
two extreme operation modes, with respect to the KC number, in control and guidance
of marine vessels. One is a DP system which operates in the extreme lower KC number
range and secondly we have the course-keeping modus for an autopilot which operates with
infinite KC number. A high performance guidance system which is supposed to control
a vehicle in both modes must be able to account for these two very different situations,
either explicitly, such as gain scheduling as a function of the KC number, or implicitly
as a direct adaptive control scheme. Furthermore, the controller should be optimal with
respect to some minimum effort criterion and tolerant to system failures, e.g. failure in
the sensor or propulsion system.
4.2.1 Small underwater vehicles - a special case

Most automatic control and guidance systems for marine vehicles are developed for surface
vessels. We will mainly focus on automatic control systems for small unmanned under
water vehicles which may be regarded as a special case of the larger class of vehicles,
i.e. marine vehicles. Automatic control systems for small unmanned underwater vehicles
have several distinct features which separate them from traditional marine control and
guidance systems. The most important one is:
It is desirable to control a small underwater vehicle with relatively high veloc
ity along or about two or more axis at the same time. This leads to stronger
coupling, larger nonlinearities, more states in the equations and more un
known parameters in the vehicle’s equations of motion. This fact is the single
most important item which makes it so much more difficult to control small
underwater vehicles compared to surface vessels.
Other factors are:
• While most surface vessels are controllable in maximum 3 dofs, a small underwater
vehicle may be controllable in 6 dofs.
• A small underwater vehicles natural frequency is usually one order of magnitude
higher than most surface vessels. Most ships have their natural frequencies in the
range of | ^ [Hz] and semisubmersibles usually have their natural periods above
^5 [Hz]. The NEROV, on the other side, has its natural frequencies at 0.7 —0.9 [Hz].
• The actuator dynamics on a small underwater vehicle are much faster than on most
surface vessels. The bandwidth on the NEROV’s thrusters is 2 — 3[//z], while the
bandwidth on the rudder of a merchantman may be in the range of 0.01 — QA[Hz].
• Most autopilots and DP systems contain one high- and one low- frequency model
where the control actions usually are determined on basis on the low-frequency
4.3. A BRIEF REVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEMS 81
model. The high-frequency model is used to filter out the relatively high-frequency
oscillatoric wave motion from the sensor data. Small underwater vehicles have a
much higher bandwidth and may compensate for the first order wave disturbances
by means of feedforward and feedback control laws. Hence, the usefulness of dividing
the system model into one high- and one low-frequency part is not present.
4.3 A Brief Review of Existing Systems

I have restricted my discussion to including only control schemes which are actually im
plemented on full-scale vehicles.
4.3.1 Dynamic positioning systems

OD (1983) defines a dynamic positioning system as:
All equipment and components involved in retaining the vessel in its required
position.
This definition will be used in the coming brief review of DP systems.
Conventional DP systems
The first modern DP system was first introduced in 1976 by Balchen et al. (1976) where a
Kalman filter approach for solving the wave noise filtering problem was employed, see Fig.
4.1. DP systems, before this new generation, were mainly based on PID-controllers and
matching notch-filters. Kalman filter based systems are now dominating the DP marked.
Relevant references for Kalman filter based DP systems are Balchen et al. (1976), Jenssen
(1980), Balchen et al. (1980a), J. G. Balchen et al. (1980b), Saelid and Jenssen (1983a),
Saelid et al. (1983b), Fung and Grimble (1983a) and Triantafyllou et al. (1983). A self
tuning based DP system is found in Fung and Grimble (1981).
As mentioned earlier, the Kalman filter based DP systems usually consist of one high- and
one low-frequency model where the control actions usually are determined on basis on the
low frequency model. The high frequency model is used to filter out the relatively high
frequency ocsillatoric wave motion from the sensor data. This would not be not necessary
for small underwater vehicles if it were possible to compensate for the first-order wave
disturbances, at least the waves with longest wavelength.
thrust
physical
system
high
thruster frequency
calc. model
model
low
frequency
model
current
model
setpoint
Figure 4.1: Block diagram showing the Kalman filter based DP system o/Balchen et al.
(1980a)
DP systems for small underwater vehicles

Although there exist several commercial available DP systems for surface vessels, for in
stance Simrad-Albatross (1990), the author is aware of only one general purpose and
commercially available DP system for underwater vehicles is presently on the market.
That is the Marquest’s ROV-DP system , Marquest (1991), which is based on a model-
based Kalman filter to produce smooth estimates of the vehicle’s position and velocity
and PID controller to control the vehicle. The sensor system consists of a hydroacoustic
positioning system, two transeivers mounted on the vehicle and an onboard heading rate
sensor.
Most ROVs designated for off-shore use are, however, equipped with functions like auto
heading and auto depth. Not much information is available on how they are implemented,
but they are usually based on measurements from a pressure meter and a magnetic com
4.3. A BRIEF REVIEW OF EXISTING SYSTEMS 83
pass.
There exist few articles which explicitly discuss DP of small underwater vehicles. Relevant
references on the topic of control of underwater vehicles, in general, will be given in the
next paragraph.
4.3.2 Autopilots
Autopilots or automatic steering machines can be defined as:
An autopilot is a device which automatically steer a vehicle from point A to

point B in an optimal manner.
Conventional autopilots
While it is customary in DP system to explicitly model the relatively high frequency mo
tions induced by wave disturbances, this is less common in autopilots. The suppression of
high-frequency motions induced by the wave forces are commonly done implicitly by in
cluding states like the rudder angle, the rudder angle velocity or states which are function
of both in a quadratic optimization criterion, see e.g. Norrbin (1970) and Kallstrom et al.
(1979). Amerongen (1984) contains an adaptive Kalman filter where the gain is calculated
as a function of some heuristically estimated high- and low-frequency component of the
rate of the heading error.
As for DP systems there exist numerous commercial available autopilots for surface vessels,
e.g. Simrad-Albatross (1990) and Robertson (1991). Several different control schemes are
tested on full scale vessels like self-tuning based algorithms Mort and Linkens (l98l)and
Kallstrom et al. (1979), Model Reference based control schemes Amerongen and ten Cate
(1975), Amerongen (1981) and Amerongen (1984), Kalman-filter based systems Kallstrom
et al. (1979) and autopilots based on optimal theory Ohtsu et al. (1979) and Burns (1990).
Autopilots for small underwater vehicles

There is little difference between a DP system and a autopilot system for small underwa
ter vehicles, since it is possible to compensate for the first wave disturbances. The DP
case becomes a special case of the general control problem where the desired trajectory’s
velocities are zero. Therefore, both kinds of control systems are treated in this section.
The first implementation of a control and guidance system on a small unmanned underwa
ter vehicle is the SISO PID-based regulators on MSEL’s EAVE vehicles, Venkatachalam
84 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHh
et al. (1985) and Franz and Limbert (1987). The position feedback is obtained from
a long base line system (LBL) a depth sensor and a magnetic compass. The vehicles
are consequently restricted to operate in the area covered by the LBL system. Yoerger
et al. (1986) describe the success with which SISO sliding mode controllers have been
implemented on the Jason ROV. The state feedback is obtained in the same way as for
the EAVE vehicle. Recursive parameter identification based control schemes have been
successfully implemented in Goheen (1986). Dougherty et al. (1998) and Dougherty and
Woolweaver (1990) show how Martin Marietta’s MUST vehicle is controlled by SISO slid
ing mode controllers. Feedback is obtained from an angular rate sensor, inclinometers,
a magnetic compass, a depth sensor and a water relative forward speed sensor. They
also plan to use the SHARP hydroacoustic positioning system Marquest (1991) to ob
tain position feedback. LQ-based methods have been implemented to control the Naval
Postgraduate’s AUV, the NPS AUV-1, in the dive plane, Healey et al. (1989) while
Koenig (1991) has implemented a multivariable LQG/LTR controller for headway control
of DRAPER’S UUV (Unmanned Underwater Vehicle). The sensor system of both the
two latter implementations are equal to the MUST vehicle’s sensor system. Lastly Healey
and Marco (1992) describe a hybrid nonlinear controller where the steering system states,
speed control states and diving system states are controlled separately by means of single
input multiple-state (SIMO) modified sliding controllers. The vehicle is the NPS AUV-2
which has a sensor suite of a 3-axis rate gyro, a paddle-wheel speed sensor, a pressure-cell
depth sensor and 4 sonar range sensors. Even though it does not report from any actual
implementations, we would like to mention Fossen (1991c) which contains an extensive
review of nonlinear control schemes for underwater vehicles.
It is worth noting that all the systems mentioned above are either SISO systems or control
schemes for reduced order models of the vehicle, e.g. for headway control or controller for
the vehicle’s dive plane.
4.4 Design Requirements

There are numerous factors which have to be considered in the design of a control system
for implementation onboard a commercial ROV. Some of the most important ones are:
• The bandwidth is usually limited by the control system’s sampling rate, time delay
in the communication channel or structural resonance. The two former factors are
most important for the case of underwater vehicles since most of the today’s ROVs’
structures are very rigid. The time delay factor is especially important when the
control law is implemented outside the vehicle, thus the measured signals have to
be sent to the surface through an umbilical or by means of a hydroacoustic link.
4.5. OPTIMALIZATION WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM CONTROL EFFORT 85
• The control system’s sensitivity to noise has to be considered, because it deter

mines how good a sensor system is and how robust the control algorithm is with
respect to noisy measurements.
• Overshoot is an important property for control algorithms for moving vehicles. An
overdamped system is usually desirable, but some overshoot may be tolerable if this
is taken into account when the trajectory is planned.
• The desired accuracy of the system is usually a function of the commanded tasks,
hence it is not meaningful to discuss this factor before a good task specification is
made.
• Stability is also of utmost importance. For linear SISO systems, stability or phase
margins are common criteria, singular values analysis may turn out to be useful for
MIMO linear systems, while terms like asymptotically stability and exponentially
stability are especially useful for nonlinear systems. The magnitude of the differ
entiated normalized Lyapunov function V may also be a useful criterion for such
systems.
• Fail-safe requirements involve requirements on graceful handling of system failure,
e.g. sensor failure, actuator failure and even computer failure , DnV (1990). These
requirements are typically operational requirements which have to be met during
the engineering phase of the system’s implementation.
• Parameter variation is also an important aspect of the robustness analysis of the
control system. Parameter variations can be taken care of by well-designed adaptive
algorithms or by employing a control scheme which is robust with respect to these
variations. For linear systems, singular value or fi analysis may turn out to be useful,
while an analysis of the behavior of the differentiated Lyapunov function candidate
V for all possible perturbations of the nominal system is a common for nonlinear
system.
While all the factors listed above are important in a real implementation of a control
system, this thesis will only in detail discuss factors like stability and parameter variation.
The other items will be commented on briefly when appropriate.
4.5 Optimalization with Respect to Minimum Con

trol Effort
Optimization is in Gay et al. (1984) defined as: ”To make as perfect, effectiveor functional
as possible”. Formally speaking, the optimal-control problem is to find the optimal control
«* which minimizes a given performance functional J(u). This functional is usually

written as:
J(z,u) = S(z(t/)) + f ’ L(z(t),u{t)) dr (4.1)
JtQ
where z is the system state we wish to control. This system will only discuss so-called
Lagrangian system, i.e. S(z(tf)) = 0. It is well known from the literature, e.g. Athans
and Falb (1966) or Balchen et al. (1978) , that the optimal control «*(t) for the state
space we want to control with the performance measure in (4.1) is found by solving the
following equation:
dJ'(z,t) . “ft dJ*(z,t)T,
L{z(t),ux(t)) + 0 for Vt €[*„,</) (4.2)
dz
The problem is now converted to finding the function J*(z, t) which is called the Hamilton
principle function of optimization. Eq. (4.2) is called the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and
the terms between the parentheses in (4.2) is the Hamiltonian H. The analytical solu
tion to this equation is, however, often difficult if not impossible for a nonlinear system.
There exists no general algorithm to obtain a closed-form solution to the nonlinear and
multivariable case or if the cost functional is not quadratic in z and u.
A natural question is: With respect to what do we want to optimize the control system
? The most traditional optimization criterion for linear systems is the linear quadratic
(LQ) criterion where the Lagrangian is on the form
L(z(t),u(t)) = ^zT(t)Qz(t) -f ûT(t)Ru(t)
where R > 0 and Q > 0 are weighting matrices, u(t) is the control input and z is the
state errors to be minimized. This section will, however, only consider minimum effort
controllers where either the Lagrangian is only a function of u(t) or on the above form,
but where u(t) is a cost function representing energy or fuel. The result of a solution
to fuel- or energy-optimal control of a nonlinear system, where a solution is found, is
almost always open-loop and for the minimum fuel case often on the “bang-off-bang” or
“bang-bang”, where the “bang” represents a switching term Kirk (1970) p. 290. Relevant
references to this section are e.g. Athans and Falb (1966), Lee and Markus (1967) or Kirk
(1970).
4.5.1 Minimum fuel

The minimum fuel control problems usually assume that the state equations of the system
are in the form
x(t) = A(x,t)x + B(x,t)u(t)
with a performance measure to be minimized on the form

r(/ f m
J(“) = / 53 I ftui(f) dr
where /3, is a nonnegative weighting factor, Kirk (1970). This control problem is very
difficult to solve on a closed form for the multivariable nonlinear case. Athans and Canon
(1964) include the solution to the minimum fuel problem for the second order nonlinear
differential equation:
y(<) + ay(t) | y(t) |= u(t)
Only an open-loop control law is presented.
4.5.2 Minimum energy

The form on the state space representation for minimum energy problems are usually the
same as for minimum fuel problems, but with the following performance measure to be
minimized, Kirk (1970):
riuf(t) dr
where r,- is a nonnegative weightning factor. Spangelo and Egeland (1992) have showed
that the performance index
J{u) = f E Ui(t) dr
Jt0 i=i
is an approximation to the minimum control energy problem for an underwater vehicle
with electric DC motors. They assume that the power dissipation due to the interaction
between propeller and water is the dominating term and that each degree of freedom is
controlled independently. However, they only present an open-loop control law which was
obtained numerically by using a conjugate-gradient method.
4.5.3 Other minimum control effort criteria

Lee and Chen (1983)
Lee and Chen (1983) present a suboptimal controller for a mechanical manipulator which
consists of a feedback linearization term and one optimal feedback term where the follow
ing performance index is used:
roc
J(u) = / xt(t)Qx(t) -I- uT(r)Ru(T)dT
The state variable x is defined as x = [pT, qT]T, where p is the generalized momenta
defined as p = M(q — qref)q, where q and qTCj are the actual and desired link positions
and q is the corresponding angular velocities. The control variable u is:
d
£ _ Qre/Hk
Ui~Jt J:=l
The condition </ = oo is used to simplify the Hamilton-Jacobi equations and the optimal
solution is a closed-loop control law on closed form.
Johansson (1990a)
Johansson (1990a) presents an adaptive and optimal controller for a mechanical manip
ulator which minimizes the tracking errors and the forces which are needed to correct
these errors. Only the forces which contribute to the manipulator’s kinetic energy are
minimized. There is no point in optimizing the forces that contributes to the potential
energy since the potential energy is end-point dependent only. We will, therefore, use
the expressions for r given by (3.53) or (3.59) where the forces due to potential energy
are subtracted from the vector r. The work done by the system when subtracting the
potential energy is
W=
Jto
f
rTq dt
where the torque r is found from the n 2nd order Euler-Lagrange equations (3.54) for the
manipulator system such that
r = M{q)q + (9, q)q + N(q, q)q
where q is the joint angles. The work due to the manipulator’s kinetic energy can now
be formulated as:
W = J/ iT (M(9)9 + ^(9,9)9) dt
Johansson suggests the following control variable to be minimized

u = M(q)Tii + | Af (9,9)T,i
(4.3)
where the vector z is defined as 2 = [(9 — 9r)T! (9 ~ 9r)T]T and the matrix T\ € 3?nx2"
will be defined in the next section. Hence, he use the following performance index:
J{z,u) = f 1 }-zT(t)Qz(t) -(- ûT(t)Ru(t)dt

Jto l J
(4.4)
where R> 0 and Q >0 are weighting matrices.

Sagatun and Johansson (1992)

Sagatun and Johansson (1992) contains an adaptive and optimal controller for underwater
vehicles. The article presents several modifications of the control scheme introduced by
Johansson (1990a). One of these is the performance measure which in addition to the
kinetic energy also includes the energy which dissipate away from the vehicle due to
damping effects from the water, e.g. viscous friction. The work done by the system when
subtracting potential energy becomes:
W, = It’ ^= / / *T + JV,* + Dxi^ dt
The term xTNxx is evaluated to zero which implies that the term corresponds to the
workless forces of the system. Johansson (1990b) suggests the control variable in (4.3) to
be minimized, while a more natural choice for underwater robots is:
u = M^z + (Dx + ^Mx)Tii (4.5)
since the dissipative effect (i.e. viscous damping) is very important for marine vehicles,
ti € 3?” and Ti is the upper n x2n matrix of T0 defined as
' Tj ' ' Tn T12

T„ —
. T2 . Onxn ■^nXn
The introduction of the Ta matrix results in a non-physical interpretation of the u vec

tor since the matrices now are multiplied with a linear combination of acceleration and
velocity, and velocity and position. An advantage with the use of the Ta matrix is that
the new control variable also is a function of the position. This becomes more clearer in
section 4.8.4. Sagatun and Johansson (1992) present two different Lagrangians. Both will
be discussed in detail in the next section.
Sagatun (1992)
Sagatun (1992) derives an adaptive and near-optimal control algorithm. The algorithm
is near optimal only in velocity control. This control scheme also minimizes the forces
which contribute to the kinetic energy but uses the vehicle-fixed reference frame in the
derivation of the algorithm. The work done by the system when the potential energy is
subtracted from the force ,(3.53) is in the q-frame formulation:
Wa = f S rTq dt = f , qT (Mq + D(q)q) dt (4.6)

Jto Jto
90 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHIC
since qTC(q)q = 0. The control variable to be minimized is simply, Sagatun (1992):
u = Mq + D{q)q (4.7)
with the performance index

. too . t . _
J{q)= I 9 Qq + uTRud,T (4.8)
Jto
where R> 0 and Q > 0 are weighting matrices and </ = oo. Remark that we only mini
mize velocity tracking errors and the forces which correct the deviations from the desired
velocities. Hence, the method optimize the forces which correspond to the disspation of
energy and kinetic energy which are necessary to employ to correct the deviations from
the desired velocities, see also Section 1.2.
4.6 Basic Assumptions

The following assumptions are made in the derivation of the OpAC and NOpAC control
schemes. Assumption A8 is relaxed when the adaptive controllers are derived.
Al: The motion is governed by the equations (3.52) (q-plane formulation) or (3.58) (x-
frame formulation).
A2: The reference trajectory is smooth, bounded and within kinematic and physical
limits. This can be achieved by assuming that the desired reference trajectory is
generated by the strictly stable reference model
Xr + KdXr + KpXr = Kpxd (4.9)
The n X n matrices Kd and Kp are define such that xr, xr and xr are within the
physical limits of the vehicle. This can be taken care of by employing the refer
ence model adjustment (RMA) technique presented in Amerongen (1982), utilized
in Fjellstad et al. (1992) and described in subsection 4.9.2. Physical limited ac
celerations and velocities imply that xT, xr and xr are € L°° and xr € C1. The
transformation in (2.4) is used when a vehicle-fixed reference trajectory is used. The
following relation is used when we operate with only velocity control:
qr + Kdqr = Kdqd (4.10)
A3: The state variables we use in the OpAC control scheme are defined by the vector
z = [xT,xT]T and the tracking error vector z = [(i — xt)t,(x — zr)T]T, z 6 3J2”.
4.7. THE NOPAC CONTROL SCHEME 91
It will also be useful to define the vector zT = [xJ,xJ]T. This implies that the z
vector becomes z = [(se — xt)t, (x — xr)TY■ The state variables for the NOpAC
control scheme are y = [qT, xT]T, since the velocities are decomposed in the vehicle
fixed reference frame. The yT and y vectors are altered accordingly.
A4: The control variable to be minimized is given by (4.5) or (4.7).
A5: All states are measured, that is vehicle fixed velocities q and inertial positions and
orientations x.
A6: In the discussion of the OpAC controller, the y vector is reffered to as the mea
surement vector, see also A5. A useful transformation in the coming discussion is
z = Ty where the transformation matrix T is given as
T = diag(J(x),Inxn) (4.11)
A7: The structure of the equations of motion are completely known.

A8: The parameters in the equations of motion are completely known.
4.7 The NOpAC Control scheme

I have in Chapter 1 shown that limitations on work and energy are important constraints
for effective operation of completely autonomous underwater vehicles. Chapter 3 shows
that the dynamics of underwater vehicles are multivariable, nonlinear and time-varying.
These factors combined are the motivation for deriving adaptive and optimal control al
gorithms for small underwater vehicles. This section presents the first near-optimal and
adaptive control scheme, named the NOpAC control scheme (Near-Optimal and Adaptive
Control), while the next section presents an optimal adaptive control scheme named the
OpAC control scheme.
The NOpAC algorithm is optimal in the sense that it minimizes velocity tracking errors
and the forces which contribute to the vehicle’s kinetic energy and the effort to overcome
dissipative forces that is spend to correct these errors. The near-optimal system is proved
to be globally asymptotically stable with respect to velocity tracking errors in the case of a
perfectly known vehicle mode. However, this is rarely the case for underwater vehicles, so
an adaptive version of the algorithm is also presented. Globally asymptotically stability
with respect to tracking errors and bounded parameter errors are proved in the adaptive
case. A globally asymptotically stable position feedback loop is also added to the feedback
law. The system is not optimal when the position feedback loop is employed. The results
in this section are published in Sagatun (1992).
4.7.1 State-space representation

The NOpAC algorithm is derived in the y state-space where y € 9i2n where y is defined
as y — [qT, xT]T. A state-space representation of (3.52) expressed in the y state-space is
-m;' (c,(*)+ £>,(*)) Onxl -9r - Mg1 (Ci(9) + Dq{q)) qT 7nxn
y-r|
■1/ 4_
i
J(xe) Onxn Onxn Onxn
unxn
(4.12)
were yT can be generated as described in A3.
4.7.2 The control objective

This algorithm minimizes the thrust forces which correct the deviations between the
vehicle’s actual and desired velocities. We only consider the forces which contribute
to the underwater vehicle’s kinetic energy and the dissipative forces. The optimization
criterion does also contains a term which is quadratic in the velocity error. The work
done by the system when using subtracting the effect of potential energy from the thrust
forces is given by (4.6). Therefore, we choose to minimize the control variable in (4.7).
We can rewrite (4.7) such that we obtain the following state space description:
q = —M~l Dq(q)q + M~ru
_ t
q — A(q,t)q + Bu (4-13)
Notice that (4.13) is a nonautonomous system since A(q) = A(q + qr(t)) — A(q,t).
The entries in A(q, t) are continuous and the system [A, B] is controllable except for the
trivial singularity <jr = 0.
We wish to minimize the quadratic performance index

too
J{q,t) = / L(q,u) dr (4.14)
Jto
with the Lagrangian

L(q,u) = q Qq + uTRu (4.15)
where R — RT > 0 and Q = Qt > 0 and u is given by (4.7). We will without loss
of generality restrict the coming discussion to discuss problems with B. matrices on the
form R — r-i ■ Inxn- This is realistic since energy spent to correct tracking errors in one
direction is assumed to be as valuable as in another one.
We are now able to find an optimal control u = u” that moves the system represented by
(4.13) from an arbitrary initial state to the origin while minimizing J(q,t).
4.7.3 Optimality and stability

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation can be reformulated to:
-Tn (4.16)
V dj dt
where written
aq q is the gradient of J* with respect to the error state q and is
(4.16) combined with (4.13) written out yields
- T {2VJ*(^ t)TA(i, t) + 2VJ*(4, tfBu + utRu + (4.17)
We minimize this blend of a functional and partial differential equation by differentiating

the left-hand side with respect to u, which yields:
u* = (4.18)
Notice that we have assumed that
d_ fdP
du 1 dt 11=11’ — 0
Finding an appropriate J* for the general nonlinear case is, if possible, very difficult, so a
suboptimal approach is utilized. Notice that J* is a homogenous function of degree two
of the vector q such that 2J* = q- It is now possible to show by using induction
on Euler’s theorem on homogenous functions that the solution of (4.17) is quadratic in q
such that the optimal cost function becomes:
J'{q, t) = qT{t)K{q, t)q(t) (4.19)
where K(q,t) is symmetric and positive definite, Anderson and Moore (1989) pp. 21-27.
Anderson and Moore (1989) prove the existence of a finite K(q,t) for the infinite time
problem (tf — oo). Hence, we obtain the following Riccati equation:
qT (-K{q,t)BR-'BTK(q,t) + K(q,t)A(q,t) + AT(q,t)K(q,t) + Q + K(q,t)) q = 0

(4.20)
Theorem 4.1
The following feedback law gives a close to optimal solution to the optimization problem
formulated by (4.2) with the Lagrangian in (4.15).
u* = -R-1BTK{q,t)li (4.21)
where K(q,t) € 3?nxn is the symmetric positive definite solution to the Riccati equation
given by (4.20)
Proof: The optimal feedback is verified by inserting (4.21) and (4.19) in (4.17). The
solution to the Riccati equation is not unique, but if we restrict ourselves to sym
metric positive definite solutions, one unique solution is found, see e.g. (Barnett,
1971). Hence, we have proved that (4.21) is the optimal feedback law.
□
It is worth while noting that the index * on the control feedback law is a misnomer, since
J* will eventually become infinite for non-zero qd since t-final is infinite and steady state
u* is not zero for non-zero qr, K(q , too) will still be finite.
The system in (4.13) becomes autonomous for ty —» oo when qd is constant, but it is still
necessary to use nonautonomous stability theory, since stability in the transient phase
must also be proven.
Notice that when qd is constant and the system has arrived to a steady state, then
^ = 0- This implies that K{q,t) = 0, thereby easing the computational effort
needed to solve the Riccati equation. The optimal feedback law is still given by (4.21),
where K(q,t) is found by solving:
-K(q,t)BR'lBTK(q,t) + K{q,t)A(q,t) + AT(q,t)K(q,t) + Q = 0
Hence, a new feedback matrix K(q,t) can be calculated every time the condition, i.e. the
velocity, changes are substantial. One criterion for starting the gain scheduling can be:
II I a»(9><) ~ a«(9,< + 1) l> «

i=l
where a is a positive design parameter.

Lemma 4.1
The nonautonomous system in (4.33) controlled with the feedback in (4.18) is always
uniformly globally asymptotically stable with respect to q under the above assumptions.
Proof: Throughout this section we will use Barbalat’s lemma for global stability, (Barbalat,
1959) and a method found in (Popov, 1973) pp. 210-213 which states: Assume that
the Lyapunov function candidate V(q,t) satisfies:
1. V(q,t) is lower bounded

2. V(q,t) is negative semi-definite
3. V(q, t) is uniformly continuous in time
then V^q,^) —> 0 as < —► oo. We suggest to use the following Lyapunov function
candidate.
v(ii,t) = iiTK(ii,t)ii (4.22)
Differentiating V with respect to time and using (4.20) yields:
v{Q,t) = -qTQq < o
Hence V(q,t) < 0. This implies that V(q,t) < V(q, 0) which in turn implies that
q is bounded. Bounded reference trajectories and the fact that Dq{q), Mq and
K(q,t) are continuous bounded functions ensures that V(q,t) is bounded; conse
quently, V(q,t) is uniformly continuous in time. Finally, application of Barbalat’s
lemma shows that V(q, f) —► 0 which again implies that q converges asymptotically
towards zero. This concludes the proof.
□
Lemma 4.1 guarantees that errors in velocities will converge to zero. Thus far we have not
included any position feedback to the controller. This is necessary if we want accurate
automatic positioning of an underwater vehicle but not necessary for teleoperated vehicles
(ROVs) or underwater vehicles in autopilot mode. The OpAC control scheme presented
in the next section includes position feedback by using a non-physical control variable u
where the pseudo-kinetic energy and pseudo-work to overcome dissipative forces consist
of a linear combination of acceleration, velocity, and position errors. This control scheme
uses the control variable in (4.5) which has a more physical interpretation, with the extra
cost of having to add a position feedback loop to the system. It is worth noting that the
Riccati equation is no longer satisfied when this additional term is added to the control
input. This results in a near-optimal control law when small deviations from the desired
trajectory are present. This scenario will often occur when an underwater vehicle is in
transit and exposed for current disturbances, see Fig. 4.2. This position feedback loop is
presented in the next lemma.
Assumption A9:
The proof of stability for the position control assumes a constant commanded velocity.
This implies that the system becomes autonomous.
Preliminary assumption A10:

We will first discuss the case when we have diagonal Mq and Dq(q) matrices which results
in a diagonal K(q) matrix and then extend our proof to the general case when stability
is proved.
inertial-fixed reference frame
current
\ desired trajectory
Figure 4.2: An underwater vehicle in transit exposed for disturbances

Lemma 4.2
Under the above assumptions, the autonomous system in (4.33) controlled with the aug
mented feedback in (4.23) is globally asymptotically stable with respect to g and x.
u = u* — JT(x)Kpx Kp — Kj, > 0 (4.23)
Proof: A standard Lyapunov proof (Lyapunov’s direct method) may be applied to this
lemma, since we asumme that the system is autonomous, i.e. constant commanded
velocity. Consider the following Lyapunov function candidate:
Nfq Onxn
Onxn Kp y
which can be looked upon as a combination of the vehicle’s kinetic energy and
virtual potential energy where the Kp matrix acts like a virtual spring constant.
Differentiating V with respect to time and using the augmented feedback in (4.23)
we get:
V(y) = (Dq(q) + ±M;lK(qj) $ < 0
Hence, globally asymptotically stability is proved for q. Note that the rate of
convergence increases with increased damping. This is as expected since the system
becomes more dissipative with more damping. That is U = TTq — qTDqq for an
underwater vehicle. There remains to prove that also x converges to zero. This can
be done by using the global invariant set theorem, Salle and Lefschetz (1961) pp.
56-59. We need to check if the system can get stuck at a position where <7 = 0, but
where i ^ 0. This, however, is not the case here since when g = 0 we get
q = —M~1JT(x)KPx
which is non-zero for non-zero x, since JT(x)Kp is non-singular.

□
Note that the position errors remain bounded for the nonautonomous case, since we then
can apply Barbalat’s lemma with the same Lyapunov function candidate. The position
errors would then converge asymptotically to zero when the vehicle’s velocity again returns
to steady state, i.e. constant velocity.
Relaxation of preliminary assumption A10.

The K{q) matrix is usually diagonally dominant since both the Mq and D{q) matrices
are strongly diagonally dominant (a„- >> Y.iaij i ^ j h an » Y,jaij * 7^ j) for most
marine vehicles. This, in turn, implies that the matrix product is also diagonal
dominant and usually positive. When the product qT (^D(q) +-AM~xK(q)j q < 0 a
switching term, the scalar function 7(9,9) is multiplied to the K(q) matrix. ( , ) is
7 9 9
defined as:
1 r * ?T (±M;'K(q) + D(q)) 9 > 0
7i(9,9)
where > 0 is a design parameter. Notice that a more conservative version of the 'y(t)
function is :
7(9,9) =sgn(qT—M;1K(q)q)
r\
however this term is more convenient to use in stability analysis. Remark that a nondi
agonal D(q) matrix does not cause instability, since addition of damping only makes the
system more dissipative.
4.7.4 The control law

A combination of the control variable in (4.23) with the state-space representation in
(4.12) yields the following expression for the resulting thruster forces:
r; = M ,9r + Dq(q)qr + Cq(q)q + u*

t
= V’«(9r,9r,9)®1) + V’90(9r,9r,9)+^(0 (4-24)
where
u* = --Mr1 jr(g)i - Jt(x)kpx
ri
We observe that the model is linear in the parameters. Note that we have used the
notation it’ even though the system is only near-optimal in velocity control. This is for
notational convenience, and the reason should be evident in the discussion of the adaptive
controller. The corresponding commanded angular velocities nj to each thruster can be
computed from:
nd = b} (9)t* (4.25)
where B^g) = W-1 Bj{BjW*1 Bt)*1 for m > n and b] = B^l(q) when Bj(q) is
non-singular. We have used a positive and diagonal IV which distributes energy between
the different thrusters after a quadratic cost criterion.
Underwater
Vehicle
Figure 4.3: The block diagram for the NOpAC control scheme
4.7.5 The adaptive control algorithm

This paragraph derives an adaptive version of (4.24). Rewrite (4.24) such that it is
expressed as a function of the present estimate of the parameters:
r = (MqqT + Cg(q)q + Dq(q)qr) + u*(t)
$
T = V,,(9r,9r,9)^ + V’?o(9r,9rI9) + <(0 (4-26)
where tf>0 represents the part of the model which is completely known and V*? £ 3?nxp, 9 G
5ip. The new control variable (with model errors present) uq is now found by subtracting
(4.24) from (4.26):
uq = u*q + il>q{qr,qT,q)eq (4.27)
where 9 =9 — 9. Notice that optimal control is achieved when the parameter errors,
that is <? = 0. We can now define the augmented error vector e G 5R2n+p such that
e = {yT,0]T and introduce the new Lyapunov function candidate:
Vc(e,t) = V(y,t) + Ve(9) (4.28)
where
V,(0) = ^9TKt0 Kt = Kj>0 (4.29)
and V(y,t) is found in lemma 4.2 We are now ready to formulate the following theorem:
Theorem 4.2
The system described by (4.26) with unknown parameters and controlled by (4.23) is
globally asymptotically stable with respect to y with the following adaption law:
^ = -Ke'tf'q Ke = Kj>0 (4.30)
Furthermore, the adaptive control law in (4.30) is stable in the sense that all parameters
remain bounded for all t. The adaptive controller will be a suboptimal adaptive control
system for constant parameters when 0 — 0 and under the assumptions made in the
previous section.
Proof: It is easiest to show that V(e,t) is negative semi-definite by employing the
Lyapunov function candidate in lemma 4.2 with the signum version of the 7(9,9)
multiplier defined in the previous subsection. If we differentiate (4.28) with respect
to time and assume constant 0 we get:
Ve(e,f) = V(y,*) + V#(d) (4.3!)
A combination of (4.31) with the control law in (4.27) and the results in lemma 4.2
yields:
Ve = ~qD(q)k ~ ~ I qM~qlK{qYq \
ri
We recognize the two first terms as negative from lemma 4.2 and that the two last
ones cancel each other when 0 is defined as in (4.30) such that:
I/e = --qTD{qyq--\qM~'K{qyq\
n
Ve < 0
Hence, we have proved that V(e,t) < 0. This implies that V{t) < V(0) which in turn
implies that e is bounded. Bounded reference trajectories and the fact that ip, 0 and
J{x) are continuous bounded functions ensure that V(e,t) is bounded, consequently
V(e,t) is uniformly continuous in time. Finally, application of Barbalat’s lemma
shows that V(e,t) —» 0 which again implies that 9 converges to zero and that 0
remains bounded for all t. We have u = u* in the case of no parameter errors, and
hence, we have a near-optimal controller with respect to the performance criterion
in (4.14).
□
4.7.6 Some critical remarks

A drawback to the results of theorem 4.2 is the requirement that Mq must remain positive
definite. Spong and Ortega (1990) discuss briefly how to implement algorithms which
involves the inversion of the adapted inertia matrix and Craig (1988) discusses this topic
in detail, see also subsection 4.9.4. Another simpler modification to avoid the inversion
of the Mq matrix involves a fixed a priori estimate of Mg denoted Ma in the calculation
of the near-optimal control law and the adapted version of Af,, Mq in the feedforward
linearization in (4.24). This approach is used in the simulation study. It is useful to
remember that the Mq matrix is usually strongly diagonal dominant and that we have a
good a priori estimate of the inertia matrix, see e.g. Humphreys and Watkinson (1982)
and Sagatun and Fossen (l991d). A block diagram of the complete control algorithm is
found in Fig. 4.3.
4.7.7 A simulation study

The following simulation study is based upon the same 3DOF model as the one used in the
OpAC simulations. The Q, R and Kp matrices were chosen to 10 • isxs ,10-4 • Isxs and
300 • 13x3 respectively. We have here neglected off-diagonal added inertia and damping
terms. We also assume (not necessarily realistically) that all the damping terms are fully
known such that 0 € Jf3, hence 0 becomes 0 = N^) with an initial estimate
0 — (—m, —m, —/z). The actual values are 0T = (0.8m, 1.1m, 0.8/*). The parameter
updating gain matrix Kq were chosen to 0.01 • /axs- The V’ matrix and the V’o vector are
found to be
f m (ur — vr) + Iu
m (vT + ur) + y|„|„ | v
\ IzrT + Af|r|r | r | rv
f —ur vr 0 \
—ur —vr 0
uv —uv —rr
The desired state vector was yj — (0,0,0,0,0,0)T while the initial positions and veloci
ties were yT = (1,1,1,1,1,1). The sampling rate was set at 30 Hz A simulation of the
controller with the adaption is shown in Fig. (4.4).
We notice that the tracking is good from the two upper frames. The lower right frame
shows the principal function of optimization plotted as a function of time. We observe
that = 0 after approximately 4s. Jm converges to a constant cost since qd = 0.
The lower left frame shows the V(y,t) and Vê,^) functions plotted versus time. We
102 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHl
notice that V(e, <) is negative semi-definite which implies that all parameter estimates
are bounded, while V(y,t) is after a close look negative definite which implies that the
system is globally asymptotically stable. The adaption of the three unknown parameters
together with their actual values is shown in the middle right frame. We observe that
no parameters converge to their correct values. This can be explained by looking on the
system input (i.e. the thrust) in the middle left frame which does not contain enough
information, i.e. the system input is not sufficiently persistent excitative, e.g. Ortega and
Tang (1989) or Craig (1988).
4.7.8 Implementation of the NOpAC control scheme

The complete control algorithm consists of the nonlinear feedback term CQ(q)q, the non
linear feedforward terms MqqT+Dq(q)qT, the suboptimal feedback term Mq'K(q)q
and the proportional term represented by JT(x)Kpx. In addition we also have the adap
tion mechanism in (4.30).
The overall control can be computed from the following steps.: Calculate the desired
trajectory off line.
step 1. Read the measured positions x and velocities q from the sensors,
step 2 . Calculate the J(x) matrix and the 7(9,9) switching term,
step 3. Compute the matrix and the il>0{qT,qr,q) vector,
step 4. Use the adaption law given by (4.30).
step 5. If changed conditions, solve the Riccati equation for the new values.
step 6. Determine the optimal feedback term given by (4.21).
step 7. Compute the nonlinear feedforward, feedback and proportional terms.
4.7.9 Comments to the NOpAC control scheme

We have derived an optimal controller which minimizes the tracking error and the work
that corresponds to the vehicle’s kinetic energy and the dissipative forces that are used
to correct these tracking errors. The controller consists of one feedforward linearization
term, one feedback linearization term, the proportional term and the optimal feedback
law. This is most easily seen by conferring (4.24) with u written out:
t= Mqqr + Dq(q)qr+ Cq(q)q - _ fr(m)KPx

'---------- v----------' '--- v--- ' Tl '------ V--------
feedforward terms feedback term TT ” proportional term
optimal feedback term
The resulting control algorithm utilize the desired trajectory information instead of the
actual measurements in a large degree. This robustifies (with respect to performance) the
regulator as well as makeing the actual implementation easier.
Barbalat’s lemma has successfully been employed to prove global asymptotically stability
for both the completely known as well as the adaptive controller. We have also presented
techniques to avoid the problem of inverting the adapted inertia matrix. The simulation
study indicates that the NOpAC controller may turn numerically unstable for bad choices
of gain matrices (e.g. large R and Kg matrices) together with a small sampling frequency
when Euler integration is employed.
The next section will derive an optimal controller which is optimal even through the
transient phase of the tracking.
velocities
normalized 8
-500 -0.5 -
-1000
-1500 -
-2000
0.8 -/
0.2 -
Figure 4.4: NOpAC simulation study

The two upper plots show the vehicles positions and velocities, (solid — x-direction, broken
= y-direction and dotted — about the z-axis). The two plots in the middle show the thrust
forces in and about the x-, y- and z-axis and 6 plotted versus time. The bottom left plot
shows V(e,t) and V(y,t) while the bottom right plot shows J(u*,y) plotted versus time.
4.8. THE OPAC CONTROL SCHEME 105
4.8 The OpAC Control Scheme

This section presents extensions of the algorithm presented in Johansson (1990b) and the
control scheme presented in the previous section. The algorithm is a continuous-time
optimal control algorithm for underwater vehicles. The algorithm is optimal in the sense
that it minimizes the state errors and the forces and moments that correspond to the
vehicle’s kinetic energy that is spent to correct these errors. The performance measure
also contains a term which penalizes the quadratic tracking errors proportional to the rate
of energy required by the controller due to dissipative forces. Alternative optimization
criteria are presented with their control laws. Global uniformly asymptotic stability is
proven for the case of a perfectly known vehicle model. However, this is rarely the case
for underwater vehicles, so an adaptive version of the algorithm is also presented. Global
asymptotic stability is proven for the tracking errors and a bounded parameter estimate
is guaranteed in the adaptive case. The results in this section are going to be published
in Sagatun and Johansson (1992).
We will first derive the controller for the completely known model in the x-frame formula
tion. The controller will be transformed to the vehicle-fixed reference frame. An adaptive
version is then derived.
4.8.1 State-space representation

A state-space description of (3.58) expressed in the z space can now be found:
-M,-1(C, + D,) 0nxn -xr — Mx 1 (Cx + Dx) ir n* —1^.
nlnxn I| Mx
i+ rx (4.32)
Inxn Onxn Onxn unxn
The matrices’ explicit dependency on the x and the x vectors are skipped for brevity.
Eq. (4.32) is written in compact form as
z = A(x, x)z + n(x, x, xr, xr) + EMX 1tx
where E is defined as E = [Jnxn, Onxn]T- Notice that (4.32) represents a nonautonomous
system since, for instance, the D(z) matrix can be written as
D(z) = D(z + zT{t)) = D(z,t)
4.8.2 The control objective

Eqs. (4.32) combined with the control variable in (4.5) yield the following state space
description:
-Mx-'iCx + Dx) On> T0i + r; ■i [[ Mx-1 '
Onxn (4.33)
11 J 12 J
106 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHH
The control objective is to minimize the quadratic performance index given by

J(z,ux) = f ’ L(z(t),ux(t)) dr (4.34)
Jt0
with the Lagrangian in
L(z(t), ux(t)) = X
-zT{t) (Q + Tt0ED{z)EtT0) z(t) + ^(t)Rux(t) (4.35)
where R = ri-Imxm = RT > 0, Q = QT > 0 and f/ is not fixed. Notice that we have both
a penalty on the tracking error as well as the applied work that is needed to correct the
state errors. This allows us to derive a feedback solution for the minimum control effort
problem. Another important detail is that (4.35) also contains a term which penalizes the
quadratic position and velocity errors proportional to the rate of energy which dissipate
from the vehicle due to dissipative forces, e.g. viscous friction. A diagonal structure of
the matrix R given above is assumed since energy spent to correct tracking errors in one
direction is as valuable as in another one. The weighting of the distribution of energy to
each of the vehicle’s thrusters is taken care of in (4.25). It is important to realize that we
minimize the velocity and thrust in the inertial coordinate system. The transformation
to a vehicle-fixed coordinate system will come at a later stage of this control system design.
We are now able to find an optimal control ux(t) — ux(t)m that moves the system repre
sented by (4.33) from an arbitrarily initial state to the origin while minimizing J(z(t))
under the assumptions made in section 4.6.
4.8.3 Optimality and stability

This section utilizes the same line of reasoning as employed in Johansson (1990b) to prove
optimality and stability. The new system (an underwater vehicle instead of a manipula
tor), a new set of equations of motion, the inclusion of dissipative forces and the modified
performance index result in a different solution to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and a
different control law.
It is well known from the literature, e.g. Athans and Falb (1966), that the optimal control
«*(<) for the state equation in (4.33) with the performance measure in (4.1) can be found
by solving the Hamilton-Jacobi equation given by (4.2). One way of doing this is to find
the function J*(z,t) which is called the Hamilton principle function of optimization.
Lemma 4.3
This lemma gives the optimal feedback law for controlling an underwater vehicle.
The following function J* satisfies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and constitutes a Hamil
ton’s principal function for the optimization problem formed by (4.2), under the assump
tions made above:
iT (4.36)
o
where AT is a positive definite symmetric matrix K £ 3?nxn and for K and Ta solving
the matrix equation
+ Q- TtoER-1EtT0 = 0 (4.37)
The optimal feedback law u* that minimizes (4.1) with the Lagrangian in (4.35) is
<(t) = -R-'ETT0z{t) (4.38)
Proof: See Appendix A.l

□
Note that (eq:riclike2) is quadratic in z\ this is as expected since the performance measure
in (4.34) is a homogenous function of degree two of z, see also subsection 4.7.3.
Theorem 4.3 (Johansson (1990b))
Subject to the assumptions made above, the optimal control solutions of (4.1) result in
an L2 stable closed-loop system controlled by the optimal feedback given by (4.38). The
following choices of the weighting matrices T0 and K are necessary:
Tn T12 _ R-jQi RjQ2
and
jr = a:t = 1 (q[q2 + Q Q ) - \ (Qi2 + q£)
2 1 > o
where Qt and Hi are the Cholesky factors of Qtt and R respectively.
Proof: Johansson (1990b).

□
Theorem 4.4
The system described by (4.33) and controlled by (4.38) always globally uniformly asymp
totically stable with the choice of the weighting matrices T0 and K given in theorem 4.3
and the above assumptions.
Proof: The theorem is proved if we can find a suitable Lyapunov function candidate
V(z, t) for the nonautonomous system described by (4.33) satisfying, Lee and Markus
(1967):
i) V(z,t) is continuous at z = 0 Vt,
n) V(z,t) is positive radially growing with ||z||,
in) V(z,t) has a unique minimum at the origin of the error space
and
iv) V(z,t) is negative definite along z and t.
Mz(x) 0nxn
It is straightforward to show that V(z,t) = J*(z,t) — ro T~z
Onxn K
satisfies the three first requirements. The last requirement is also easily proven since
(4.2) states that
dV dJm(i,t) dJ'(i,t)T, _
dt dt dz Z -L(2(<), MO)
dV
< 0 Vz(<) # 0
dt
Hence we have shown that the system described by (4.33) and controlled by (4.38)
is always globally uniformly asymptotically stable. This concludes the proof.
□
A similar proof is presented in Johansson (1990b) for a system without dissipative forces
and with the Lagrangian in Lemma 4.4.
Comment 4.1. The stability properties proved in theorem 4.4 can also be proven by
differentiating V{z,t) explicitly to show that
^<0 Vi(t)#0
This is proved in Appendix A.2.

□
Comment 4.2. Remark that the dissipative forces in (A.8), represented by the D(z)
matrix, increase the stability of the system. This can also been seen when we look
4.8. TEE OPAC CONTROL SCHEME 109
on the mapping from the vehicle’s thrust r to velocity x written as r >—> i which
is strictly passive (dissipative) since V = ttx — xTD(z)x, Sagatun and Fossen
(l991f). This corresponds to a strictly positive real system in the linear time invari
ant framework. We observe from the expression of V that the gradient of V becomes
more negative, that is V converges faster to zero, with increased damping. This is,
of course, expected i.e. compare with the SISO case where the phase margin in
creases with increased damping. The positive term z{t)TTÊD{z)ErT0z(t) with
T12 = 0 Tn = Jnxn corresponds to the rate the energy dissipates from the vehicle,
i.e. the dissipative character of the equations given by (3.1) or (3.58) increases with
increased D{z).
□
Lemma 4.4
The system in (4.33) with the following Lagrangian:
L(z{t),ux(t)) = ^zT{t)Qz(t) + ûl(t)Rux(t)
is stable and optimal with the optimal feedback law ul(z,t) given by:
u;(z,t) = -R-'(z)ETT0z(t) (4.39)
where R(z) is formed by the product of the two Cholesky factors RlT(z) and R11(z)
such that
R-'(z) = R-t(z)R^\z) = R-' + Dx(z) (4.40)
Proof: The proof is straightforward by inserting (4.40) in (A.8). Notice that it is al
ways possible to perform the Cholesky decomposition in (4.40) since R-1 > 0 and
Dx(z) > 0
□
Notice that the dissipative forces are now represented explicitly in the feedback law. This
has been obtained by adding the damping matrix Dx(z) to the feedback gain matrix R_I.
4.8.4 The control law

A combination of the control variable in (4.5) with the state-space representation in (4.33)
yields the following expression for the resulting thruster forces:
T* = Mr [*r - TulTl2i - T^Mx-1 {(Cx + Dr) ETT0i - <(<))] + Cri + Dri
where u* is given by (4.38). This expression is considerably simplified if we also assume

that the Q matrix can be written on the form Q = diag[q\ • Inxn, <?2 • /nxn]- Tn and Tu
will then become diagonal matrices such that Tn = tn ■ /„xn and Tn = tn • /nxn The
new control law then becomes
'ri = ~ [Mx (tn&r ~ hix) + (Cx + Dx) (tuxT - t12x) + <(<)] (4.41)
This expression can be simplified even more by defining the signals

MO = <ll*r ~ <12*
«*(<) = tnxr - tnx (4.42)
Notice that MO's no< a time derivative of any meaningful vector. The dot notation is
used such that s multiplied with the mass matrix denotes a quasi-acceleration dependent
force and s denotes a corresponding dissipative force. The control law in (4.41) can now
be written as
T*x = T~ {Mxsx + Cxsx + Dxsx + «*(0) (4.43)

tn
or in a more general form
K = 4>x(sx, sx, x, x)ex + <tn(0 (4-44)

where
V^x(^x) 8X) x, x^0x — ~ (Md- GX8X -j- Dxsx)
tn
and Ux,u(t) = ^-ux(0 Notice the similarity between the error signal s(t) and the one
employed by Fossen and Sagatun (1991a). The control law in (4.43) and (4.44) is of
no practical use, since the resulting thrust forces are calculated in an inertial reference
frame. Eqs (4.43) and (4.44) are also impractical in the sense that they use velocities
decomposed in an inertial reference frame while we measure the vehicle-fixed velocities. A
last drawback with (4.43) and (4.44) are that they are much more complicated when they
are formulated in the x-frame than in the q-frame. It is, however, possible to transform
equations (4.43) and (4.44) to the q-frame by using the following lemma.
Lemma 4.5
The equation described by (4.44) can be transformed to a vehicle-fixed coordinate system
by employing the following transformation:
JT{x)il>x(sx, M X, x)0x = ikq(8q, M q)0g
where the regressor matrix ‘4>q is found from
9)e<> = T~ + <?,($)*, + (4.45)

*11
where 5, and s, is defined in (4.48). The resulting control law formulated in the vehicle
fixed coordinate system then becomes:
T*,='l’',{8i>8q,q)6q + u* (4.46)
The feedback control law formulated in the q-frame u*(<) is found from
u!(f) = -^-JT(x)R-1ETT0Ty (4.47)

tn
where y is the measurement vector defined in A6.
Proof: The new signals sq and sq are found by using (2.4) on each term in (4.42) such
that:
sq{t) = tnqr
sq(t) = tuqT - <12 ^j-1(x)x -(- q^j (4.48)
The rest of the proof is straightforward. Noticethat j '(a:) = —J~1(x)j(x)J~1(x).

□
Comment 4.3. If lemma 4.4 is applied, the new control law becomes:
«;(*,9) = - (jT(x)il_1J(*) + D,(g)) q-j^ ^{x)^1 J(x) + Dq{q)) J_1(a;)*

11 (4.49)
Note that the first term in sq and sq are feed-forward terms while the latter are feedback
terms. The reparameterization, by using a virtual vector in (4.45), is similar to the one
employed in Fossen and Sagatun (1991a). Notice also that all signals in (4.48) are mea
surable or preprogrammed. The form of the rpq vector is also much simpler than the ipx
vector.
The corresponding commanded propeller angular velocities are found by employing (4.25).
112 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEH
4.8.5 The adaptive control algorithm

Many of the parameters in the M, D(q) and C(q) matrices are unknown and time-
varying for marine vehicles and especially for small underwater vehicles. This motivates
us to use an adaptive version of (4.46).
Rewrite (4.46) such that it is expressed as a function of the current estimate of the
parameters
Ti = J-(Mq$q + Cq{q)kq + Dq{q)k„)+u*{t)

Ml
t
rq = tl>q(sq,sq,q)0q + iJ>qo(sq,sq,q) + u'{t) (4.50)
where (•) denotes the estimated value of (•) and ip0 represents the part of the model
which is completely known. Notice that we are not applying the optimal thruster forces
r* anymore since we have model errors. The effective control variable uq is now found
by comparing (4.50) and (4.46) to be:
uq = u* + i/>q(sq,sq,q)dq (4.51)
where V, € 3?nxp and 6q € 3fp, p is the number of parameters we want to adapt. The
corresponding new feedback law formulated in the x-frame becomes
«*.„(<) = + V’x(«x, Sx, X, X)0x (4.52)

__ y
We can now define the augmented error vector e € 5J2n+p such that e = [z7", 6 ]T and
introduce the new Lyapunov function candidate, Johansson (1990b):
Ve(e,t)=V(z,t) + Veq(9q) (4.53)
where
Vgq(0q) = 0T
qKe0q Kg = Kj>0 (4.54)
and V(z,t) is found in theorem 4.4. We are now ready to formulate the following theorem:
Theorem 4.5
The system described by (4.50) with unknown parameters and controlled by (4.51) is
always globally asymptotically stable with respect to y with the following adaption law:
0q = -K^xl>Tj-'(x)ETToTy (4.55)
Furthermore, the adaptive control law in (4.55) is stable in the sense that all parameters
remain bounded for all t. The adaptive controller will be an optimal adaptive control
system for constant parameters when = 0 and under the assumptions made in the
previous section.
proof: It is easiest to prove this theorem by using the results from lemma and applying
Barbalat’s lemma for global stability, Barbalat (1959). It is easiest to show that
V{e,t) is negative semi-definite by employing the Lyapunov function candidate in
(4.53) in the x-frame formulation and then transform the solution to the q-frame.
If we differentiate (4.53) with respect to time we get:
Ve(e,0 = V(i,f) + V,f(0,) (4.56)
A combination of (4.56) with the control law in (4.52) and the results in theorem
4.4 yields:
\t)TT0E (R-1 + D{»)) ETT0z(t)+^K»^,+-zT(t)TÊrl>xei
where constant parameters are assumed, i.e. 0 = 0. This can be rearranged to
= -\yT(t)TT ({ ZTu (R-1+ £>(*)) Tt —K + 2Tjl (R-1 + D(z)) Tn

-K +2:
2T[2 (R-1 + D{z)) Tu 2TTn (R-1 + D{z)) Tn Ty{t)
+»: + V1 {t)TTEJ~1 .6
1 1
-K + 2TTn{R-' + D(z))Tu \
V* = -\yT(t)T' (V -K2TTn{R-1 + D{z))Tn
+ 2Ttu{R-1 + D{z))T1 2Tj2(R-1 + D(z))T12 )Iy()
Ve < 0
where we have used the adaption law in (4.55) to eliminate the terms containing
0 and 0. We recognize the matrix on the right-hand side as positive definite from
comment 1. to theorem 4.4 (see also appendix A). Hence we have proved that
l^(e)f) < 0- This implies that V(t) < V(0) which, in turn, implies that z = Ty
is bounded. Bounded reference trajectories and the fact that ipq, 0 and J(x) are
continuous bounded functions ensure that V{e,t) is bounded, consequently V(e,t)
is uniformly continuous in time. Finally, application of Barbalat’s lemma shows
that V(e,t) —> 0 again implying that z = Ty converges to zero and that 0, remains
bounded for all t. We have ug = u* in the case of no parameter errors and, hence,
we have an optimal controller with respect to the performance criterion in (4.1).
114 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHI
Comment 4.4. Remark that if lemma 4.4 is applied we must use the estimate of the
damping matrix in the feedback law such that
R~T(z)R~\z) = JT1 + £)x(z)
where Dx{z) is a conservative (underestimated) estimate of Dx(z) such that Dx(z) =

Dx(z) + JDx(z) and Dx{z) > 0 Vz AVt. The Dx(z) matrix can be kept conservative
by finding a lower bound on Dx(z) and employing the technique in Craig (1988)
pp. 55-58 to ensure that Dx(z) stays positive semidefinite. An underestimated
damping matrix results in a suboptimal controller, but the controller will still be
stable. This follows directly from comment 4.2.
□
Comment 4.5. An alternative proof of theorem 4.5 which uses Lyapunov theory is found
in Appendix A3.
□
A block diagram of the complete control algorithm is presented in Fig. 4.5.
Underwater
Vehicle
Figure 4.5: The block diagram for the OpAC control scheme
4.8.6 A simulation study

The following simulation study is based upon a 3 DOF nonlinear model of the NEROV
vehicle (see Fig. C.l) moving in the horizontal plane. The model given by (3.1) expressed
in the q-frame becomes:
M, diag(m — Xu,m — Yi, Iz — Nr)

Dq(q)
diag(XMu \ u |,yj„|„ | v |,Ar|r|r | r |)
^ 0 —mr —YuV \
Cg(q) mr 0 —XuU
K YyV Xû 0 j
The Q and R matrices were chosen to 10 2 • /exe and 0.005 • /sxs respectively. We
assumed that all added mass terms and damping terms were unknown such that 6 €
* A AâaAAAA *T
3? , hence 6 becomes 6 = (Xi, 1^,, TVr, X|u|u, yj„|u, Aîrir) with an initial estimate 6 =
(—m, —m, —/2, lîr). The actual values are = (320,380,49.2,300,180,45)
The parameter updating gain matrix Kg were chosen to 0.005 • /exe- The ^(^ *cj)9)
matrix and the tl>qa{sq, sq,q) vector are found to be
i ( -s'D)? vs(3), 0 i(l), | u | 0 0
V’,(«!,«?.9) = 7- -us(3), -s(2), 0 0 i(2), | v | 0
11 \ «(2)f -»i(l)f -5(3), 0 0 i(3), | r|
j f m(s(l)? - r*(2),) \
i>qSi>qCsq,q) - — m(s(2), + ri(l)?)
V /*5(3), J
The desired state vector was = (0,0,0,0,0,0)T while the initial positions and veloci
ties were zT = (1,1,1,1, l,25r). The sampling rate was set at 10 Hz A simulation of the
controller with the adaption is shown in Fig. (4.6).
We notice that the tracking is good from the two upper frames. The lower-right frame
shows the principal function of optimization plotted as a function of time. We observe
that = 0 after approximately 2.5s. The lower-left frame shows the V(z, t) and V(e, t)
functions plotted versus time. We notice that V(e, t) is negative semi-definite which
implies that all parameter estimates are bounded, while V(z,t) is, after a closeer exami
nation, negative definite, implying that the system is globally asymptotically stable. The
adaption of the six unknown parameters are shown in the middle-right frame. None of
the parameters converge to their correct values. This can be explained by looking on the
system input, i.e. the thrust, in the middle-left frame which does not contain enough
information i.e. the system input is not sufficiently persistent excitative, e.g. Ortega and
Tang (1989) or Craig (1988).
116 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHl
4.8.7 Implementation of the OpAC algorithm

The overall optimal control scheme may look complicated, but is easy to implement on a
computer, at least if have good sensor data. The complete control algorithm consists of
one nonlinear feedback and feedforward term given by (4.46), one optimal feedback term
given by (4.47) and the adaption term given by (4.55).
The overall control can be computed from the following steps.: Calculate the desired
trajectory off line.
step 1. Read the y vector from the sensors,
step 2. determine the J(x) and T matrices,
step 3. Calculate the s, and s, vectors.
step 4. Compute the rjj{sq,8q^q) matrix and the ij}0(8q,8q,q) vector.
step 5. Use the adaption law given by (4.55).
step 6. Compute the optimal feedback term given by (4.38).
step 7. Compute the nonlinear feedback and feedforward terms given by (4.46).
4.8.8 Comments to the OpAC control scheme

We have derived an optimal controller which minimizes the tracking error and the work
that corresponds to the vehicle’s kinetic energy that is used to correct these tracking
errors. The cost function also contains a term which penalizes the quadratic tracking
errors proportional to the rate of energy which dissipate from the vehicle due to dissipative
forces. As an alternative, we present a feedback law which explicitly compensates for the
dissipative forces which work on the underwater vehicle. This feedback law is optimal
with respect to the quadratic tracking errors and the vehicle’s kinetic energy as well as
the energy expended to compensate for the dissipative forces which act on the vehicle.
Global uniformly asymptotically stability is successfully proven by employing Lyapunov
theory. An adaptive version of the optimal controller is also derived. Stability, in the
sense of Lyapunov, is proven for this case, that is all parameters remain bounded for any
t > t0 while the tracking errors are proven to be globally asymptotically stable around
the origin. The controller consists of one feedforward linearization term, one feedback
linearization term, and the optimal feedback law. This is easily seen by conferring (4.50)
and (4.42):
r9 = ^ (A^9s, + C,(q)s, + i>,(q)s,) + g(Q
^7 TT \ TT^jr 7~ ^ optimal feedback term

feedback and feedforward terms r
The algorithm is initially derived in an inertial coordinate frame and the transformed
to the vehicle-fixed frame. This transformation is simplified by defining the augmented
signal vectors sx, sx, 8q and sq which can be looked upon as a measure of tracking. The
performance criterion is formulated in the inertial coordinate system while the controller
operates in a vehicle-fixed system. This is not in conflict with respect to the minimization
of the energy. The total energy spent by the vehicle will still be the same, but the distri
bution of thrust in the ux versus the uq vector will be different. The controller is initially
derived in the x-frame formulation, since both the inertia-fixed position and velocity (the
x and the x vectors) are given an meaningful interpretation, while vehicle-fixed position
(the q vector) has no physical interpretation. This approach has a great advantage over
deriving the controller in the vehicle-fixed reference frame, since it avoids the problem of
working with the velocity transformation matrix J(x).
The Hamilton’s principal function of optimization given by (4.36) contains nice analogies
to the physical system i.e. the vehicle moving in a fluid. The first part of the equation can
be looked upon as the scaled virtual energy from an artificial spring and as the vehicle’s
scaled kinetic energy. It also makes sense to use the dissipative matrix D(z) in the cost
function, since the velocity errors should be penalized more harshly for vehicles with large
damping coefficients.
positions
Xu Yv
Figure 4.6: OpAC simulation study

The two upper plots show the vehicles positions and velocities, (solid = x-direction, broken
= y-direction and dotted = about the z-axis). The two plots in the middle show the thrust
forces in and about the x-, y- and z-axis and 6 plotted versus time. The bottom left plot
shows V(e,<) and V(z,t) while the bottom right plot shows J(u*,z) plotted versus time.
4.9. IMPLEMENTATIONAL REMARKS 119
4.9 Implementational Remarks

This section contains some useful remarks for the implementation of the two algorithms
discussed in this chapter.
4.9.1 Selection of parameters to adapt

Adaption of input uncertainty
The equation of motion of an underwater vehicle in the surge motion can be written as
mil + d | tt | u = r (4.57)
where the expression for r is in (3.34) found to be
r= | n | n + b2u | n |
where &i = pD4a and 62 = pD3(l — w)S and a and j3 are the parameters in the linear
approximation of Kt such that Kt = a + /9J0. The expression for r can be rearranged
to:
r =| n | n
such that
M»= . . (4-58)
- + bi
02
We notice that the above equation contains an algebraic loop in n. This loop can be
broken by approximating the n on the right-hand side of the equation with nk~\ which
is the n measured in the previous sample. Eq. (4.58) can, however, be simplified further
by looking on the magnitude of the parameters bj and b2. and b2 are related to each
other by the following relation
—k•D where fc ~ < —1.4, —0.5 >

b2
This relation is valid for most marine vehicles which operate in the first quadrant of Fig.
3.6. k is approximately —0.6 for the NEROV thrusters. Note also that is typically less
than 0.01 for most modes of operation such that (4.58) can be simplified to:
n — —r (4.59)
01
where the new control variable n is defined such that n =| n | n or n = sgn(n)

(4.59) combined with (4.57) yields:
h = m'u + d' \ u \ u
120 CHAPTER 4. OPTIMAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS FOR UNDERWATER VEHI
where (•)' = Hence we have shown that input uncertainty can be corrected for by
adaption of the damping and inertia parameters. This line of reasoning also applies when
linear drag coefficients are present.
Estimation of current - adaption of the damping parameter

The equation of motion of an underwater vehicle in surge with current denoted uc can be
written as
mil + d(u + uc) = t iic = 0
which can be rewritten to
ii
r = dTi]) = [m, d, uc] u
1
We do now achieve integral effect for free if we have an estimate of the current uc and the
parameter vector 9 is adapted on a standard manner like
9 = -rv>e
A more naive approach would be to try to adapt the current forces as an increase in the
drag. Assume, for argument’s sake, that the adapted parameters converge to their true
value. The equation of motion above can be rewritten to
mil + du + duc = mil + (d + dc) u = mil + d'u = r
where the magnitude of the increased drag dc is dc = d^. This system can be adapted
as above with the regressor ip = [u, u]T and parameter vector 9 = [m,d']T
There are two major disadvantages with this approach. Firstly, we notice that no integral
effect is present so this effect must be added explicitly, and secondly, we must adapt a
varying parameter which may cause instability.
Hence, we have shown that current should be estimated and the estimated value can then
be used in the adaption algorithm to gain integral effect.
4.9.2 Saturation handling

This section presents a method to avoid saturation in velocities i, propeller angular
velocities n and the change in propeller angular velocities n. Saturation is specially a
problem in direct adaptive control where it may lead to instability. Consider Fig. 4.7. The
block “reference generation” may be thought of as generating the strictly stable reference
trajectory introduced in A2 in section 4.6. The problem is now twofold: firstly, how do we
generate a strictly stable reference trajectory which is whitin the physical and kinematical
limits of the vehicle, and secondly, how do we avoid saturation of the thrusters.
desired state trajectory control vehicle

generator generator system
Figure 4.7: The overall block diagram for the saturation handling scheme
The reference trajectory

The equation of motion for an underwater vehicle can, for the surge, sway, heave, and
yaw direction, be written as:
1 . K
xT + —xT = —r
where the subscript r denotes the desired reference trajectory and the T and K values
are unknown. However, we usually have an a priori upper- and lower-bounded estimate
on the parameters such that e.g. T £ (Tmin,Tmax)- The states in the desired reference
trajectory that can be generated by using the modified desired position x'd as an input to
the linear filter given in Fig. 4.8.
Figure 4.8: Generation of the desired reference trajectory
Fossen (1991a) suggests the following values of Tm and Km:

1
Tm < -^TmIN Km
4(2Tm
where £ > 1 to obtain an overdamped system.
Generation of the desired steady state

The problem is now converted to find a method to compute a desired state xjj which pre
vents saturation of the vehicle’s actuators and which ensures that the calculated reference
trajectory stays within the physical and kinematic limits of the vehicle. Consider Fig.
4.9. The nonlinear block SAT is defined as Amerongen (1982):
Figure 4.9: Generation of the modified desired state Amerongen (1982).
SAT _ / ^ ’ i+fc if I T‘ l> ™AX

l i+fe if I * l< ^
where tc is the commanded thrust if the saturation avoidance scheme in Fig. 4.9 were
not present. Remember that tmax = Umax | Umax |- Amerongen (1982) suggests the
following heuristic estimate of the time constant Ta in the low-pass filter.
Ta
tmax
Ta is usually considered to be constant, tmax is the maximum rate of change of thrust.

We notice from Fig. 4.9 that the desired state generator has three inputs: tmax, tMAX
and xmax which is a physical limitation of the vehicle’s velocity.
4.9.3 Integral action

None of the control schemes presented in the previous sections have integral action. This
may be desirable when the nonadaptive methods are used and no steady-state errors are
specified.
There have been several methode presented to include integral action into nonlinear ,mul
tivariable controllers for a system on the form given by (3.52) or (3.58). This section
discusses three of them.
Perfect decoupling
Perfect decoupling assumes perfect knowledge of the model such that (3.52) can be de
coupled to a set of perfectly decoupled double integrators.
ij>x6x = TX Tx = Mx(x)ux -1- Cr(*, x)x -(- Dx(x, x)x
V
X - ux
The new control variable u can now be chosen to
= koZi + kpii + ki f Xi{T)d,T i = l..n (4.60)
Jto
The gains for the perfectly decoupled case can now be chosen from e.g. a pole placement.
Use of a virtual measure of tracking

The use of a virtual error signal vector s(t) is employed in e.g. Slotine and Li (1987). The
trick is now to find a control law, adaptive or not, which makes the signal vector s(t) go
to zero. Consider for instance, the system given above with the following control law:
T? = V’A - JT(x)Kds
and definition of the signal s(t):
S{ — x, + 2Axi + X2
Jto
f
Xi(r)dT i = \..n
where A = if we compare with (4.60). This system represents a stable multivariable

controller witfi integral action since the error signal s is a linear combination of the
integral of the tracking error, the derivative of the tracking, and the error itself. The
stability of this system can easily be proven by applying Barbalat’s lemma with the
following Lyapunov function candidate, Fossen (1991c):
V(s,t) = ±(sTMxS + 6TKed')
Nonlinear multivariable PID

Arimoto and Miyazaki (1984) prove stability of a multivariable PID controller for a robot
manipulator. This control scheme, modified to fit an underwater robotic vehicle, is pre
sented below.
The equation in (3.58) can be written as
P = -^-*?(*,*) + «
* = M~'(x)p
where the vector p is the momentum vector defined as p = Mx(x)x and the tj vector
consists of model errors and the damping matrix such that
ij(x, x) = ij>xOx - i>x6x -(- Dx(x, x)x
where we assume that r) can be written as
r}(x,x) = d + fc(p,*)
I *7(*,*) I < I*i +^2 |p |
in a domain 17 which will be defined later. Stability can now be proved for the following
control law:
“ii = koii + kpii + kj I Xi(r)dT t = l..n
Jto
under the following assumptions, firstly we restrict ourselves to discuss only the DP case,
that is xT and xT is zero, secondly, stability is proved only for z = [pT(t), i^(f), ^^(f)]7 6
J? where the set 17 is defined as
f7 = {z(f) = [pT(t),xT{t),ZT{t)}T :| Xi - xTi |< jti, | Pi |< 7r2, | £ |< 7r3}
where 7ri..3 are positive constants such that z € 17 and the vector £ is such that £ = x. The
following restrictions apply on the Kp = diag(kp), Kp, = diag{ki>) and K[ = diag(kj)
matrices:
Ki >0 Kd > Mx(x) KP > KD + 2a~1 Ki
where a is such that
Kd a >0
The stability is proven locally under the above assumptions by using Lasalles theorem,
Salle and Lefschetz (1961) with the following Lyapunov function:
i / JW* (*) aInx.n 0nxn \

V{z) = -ZT\ alnxn Kp Kj \z
1 \ 0nXn Kj aKj )
The complete proof is a straightforward extension of the proof for a robot manipulator in
Arimoto and Miyazaki (1984).
4.9.4 Modified parameter update laws

Investigations in the literature, e.g. Reed and loannou (1988) and Narendra and An-
naswamy (1989), show that stable adaptive and linear controller may turn unstable in
present of unmodeled dynamics, bounded input disturbances and time-varying param
eters. These effects can be compensated for by using modified parameter update laws
like the <x modification scheme loannou (1984), the | e | modification Narendra and An-
naswamy (1987), bound on the | 9 | vector Craig (1988) pp. 55-58 and the dead-zone
modification. There exists very little theory on robustness of adaptive and nonlinear con
trollers. Most of the present analysis tools are only valid for linear systems with MRAC
controllers.
Of the modification schemes above, only the bound on the j 9 | vector scheme is analyzed
for nonlinear system.
Bound on the parameter vector

This robustness scheme restricts the estimate of the parameters to lie within known
bounds such that
®'MIN ~ < @i{t) < @iMAX A ^
If the estimated parameter is on the boundary, the following update law is used:
f O'MIN Oi(t) < 0iMIN $
l 6'maX ^ kt)>0iMAX+8
This modification scheme is attractive if we have a priori knowledge of the bounds of the
parameters in the actual system.
Dead-zone
Even though the stability improvements of the dead-zone is not proven for the general
nonlinear case, it contains some heuristically attractive properties which make it useful.
The dead-zone scheme is based upon the observation that most of the high frequency and
small tracking errors are due to noise. It is, therefore, desirable to turn off the adaption
when the errors are below some value. This is exactly what the dead-zone scheme does:
kt+) { 0 if | e |< £
(AH, if | e |> <5
The dead-zone technique is especially attractive because of due to its simple structure
and easy implementation.
4.10 Summary of Chapter 4.

This chapter started by defining the problem of controlling a small underwater vehicle.
The differences between small underwater vehicles and surface vessels were discussed,
before a brief review of existing control and guidance systems applied to marine vessels
were given. Some basic design requirements for control systems for marine vehicles were
discussed before providing a short review of minimum control effort optimization criteria.
We will specially like to call the reader’s attention to the minimum effort criteria which
contain control variables which are derived on the basis of minimum work or minimum
kinetic energy. These criteria have been used successfully in the two control schemes
presented in this chapter. Basic assumptions for the controllers derived in this section
were presented before two (near)optimal and adaptive controllers for underwater vehicles
were derived. The controllers are optimal in the sense that they minimize the forces which
contribute to the vehicle’s kinetic energy and the energy which dissipates from the vehicle.
Stability proofs for both the adaptive as well as the completely known cases are proven
with Lyapunov theory or Barbalat’s lemma. The different terms in the Lyapunov functions
correspond to a vehicle’s kinetic and virtual potential energy. This is not a surprise
since Lyapunov’s direct method of stability was originally derived for motion stability of
mechanic systems. The chapter ends with some remarks concerning implementation of
nonlinear and adaptive controllers.
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Summary and Conclusions

This thesis has presented and shown:
• That the demand for underwater robots will increase and that it is a requirement
for optimal minimum control effort controllers.
• A model of underwater vehicles based on Lagrangian mechanics. Each term in
the model has been derived in detail. Lagrangian mechanics have proved to be
particularly useful in explaining the phenomenon of added inertia and to revealing
the inherent properties of these equations. Model properties of both the nonlinear
equations of motion as well as for a linearized model are presented. The problem of
controlling an underwater vehicle is a nonlinear and multivariable control problem.
The thesis shows that an underwater vehicle’s parameters are unknown and time-
varying, hence a need for adaptive controllers is indicated.
• That the Lagrangian formalism used in the derivation of the equations of motion
eases the design of minimum control effort criteria.
• A near-optimal adaptive and nonlinear controller called NOpPAC. The control
scheme is optimal with respect to minimum control effort criteria which take into ac
count forces due to the dissipation of energy and the kinetic energy. A near-optimal
velocity feedback law is obtained by using an infinite-time approach.
• An optimal adaptive and nonlinear controller called OpPAC. The controller is opti
mal with respect to minimum control effort criteria which take into account forces
due to the dissipation of energy and the kinetic energy. The derivation of this
control scheme shows how beneficial it can be to initially express the equations of
127
128 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
motion in an inertial reference frame, transforming the resulting control law to the
vehicle-fixed frame for implementation. Both proofs of optimality and stability have
been more easily achieved in the x-frame formulation.
• How the Lagrangian formalism and the expressions for work and energy can be used
in proofs of stability and optimality.
Energy and work have been the leading terms in both the derivation of the vehicle model
as well as in proofs of stability and optimality. There are many advantages to using the
Lagrangian formulation. The equations of motion may be derived almost automatically by
applying the Euler-Lagrange equation on the Lagrangian. The Euler-Lagrange equation
is valid regardless of the number of masses considered, the type of coordinates employed,
the number of holonomic constraints on the system, and whether or not the constraints
and frame of reference are in motion. Hence, the Lagrangian approach replaces a large set
of special methods that must be utilized for other methods. The Euler-Lagrange equation
is also valid in any coordinate system, inertial or not, as long as generalized coordinates
are used. Chapter 4 shows that the Lagrangian formulation is also very useful in the
formulation of minimum control effort optimization criteria, proofs of stability (by using
Lyapunov theory and Barbalat’s lemma) and proofs of optimality.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Work

Theoretical fields of interest for future studies are:
• Proofs of stability of nonlinear and adaptive controllers with state estimators.
• The study of energy-based adaptive controllers with exponential stability, such that
the rate of convergence a > 0 in V^z, t) = e~atV(z0,t0) can be chosen. A particu
larly attractive feature would be to calculate a from an optimization criterion.
• The design of adaptive controllers which are only a function of the reference tra
jectory zT = [xJ,xJ]T, and zr and an augmented error signal such that 9 =
—Kgip(zT, zr)e. This will cause a more robust and efficient adaption law since
the noise is completely removed from the off-line computed regressor.
• The study of robust optimal nonadaptive nonlinear controllers. This family of con
trollers is particularly attractive when we have a relatively good a priori knowledge
of the process’ parameters. Many problems with the implementation of adaptive
controllers can therefore be avoided.
5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 129
We are looking forward to the first tests of the completed NEROV in the Ocean Basin at
the Department of Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture. We are hopeful that the
vehicle will be ready for these tests by Winter 1992. Three tasks have to be completed
before we can say that we have an operational vehicle:
• We must integrate the Kearfoot accelerometer with the rest of NEROV’s sensor suite
to obtain a better velocity estimate. This is particularly necessary when adaptive
controllers are to be tested on the vehicle.
• We should install the multiprocess multiprocessor real-time operating system Vx-
Works on the vehicle’s VME rack. The system is already purchased and will be
installed the coming spring. We have so far used a small OS-kernel (PEPBug) and
some administrative routines written by the undersigned.
• The new modified analogue thruster control cards should be completed. The deriva
tive effect on the old cards is removed, since we have too much noise from the
tachogenerators. Hence, the new cards have only PI action.
Relative navigation and dynamic positioning of an underwater vehicle by means of sensor
data from a camera together with a sonar is a particularly useful and interesting field of
research. The NEROV can be very useful in this work. The NEROV should also be a
vital part of the telerobotics laboratory which is under development at the Division for
Engineering Cybernetics under the MOBATEL program.
130 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Appendix A
Proofs
This appendix contains the proofs of lemma 4.3, comment 4.1 to theorem 4.4 and an
alternative proof of theorem 4.5.
Notice that (4.32) represents a nonautonomous system since a matrix -A(z) can be written
as
A(z) - A(z + zr(t)) = A(z,t)
A result of this is that the gradient of A with respect to the state z becomes
dA(z,t) dA{z,t) i dA(z,t)
dt dz ~ ^ dt (A.l)
where
dA(z,t) dA{z,t) _■
(A.2)
dt dzr
and oZt
denotes
dA(z, t) ,• £\dA(z + zT).
d*r ~T~h 9zri ZT' (A.3)
A.l Proof of Lemma 4.3

Eq. (4.2) constitutes a necessary condition for optimality of the cost function in (4.1)
with the Lagrangian in (4.35). The feedback law in (4.38) is found by minimizing the
Hamiltonian H in (4.2) such that
dH d_ dJ*(z,t)T,
L(z(t),ux(t)) + (A.4)
du du dz
131
132 APPENDIX A. PROOFS
We need first to evaluate the gradient of J* with respect to the error state z.
iT* = iTrr (S'1 + 0 ,„ |r.;

Onxn
dJ*T,
( ^Xn oT ')i-*TT?E(D(z) + N(z)ETT°* + *TT°Eu
di
-iTTT ( E1?=1 9~Mf^^-Mr(z) 0nxn

+ 25 ^ dxk T0z
On xn On xn
(A.5)
This can be simplified to:

r.T
If* = rT(Sr
tiiTr f s-i - «-w ,j.....
r„z
^ V Onxn Onxn
(A.6)
By remembering that N{z) is skew symmetric. The expression for z is found in (4.32).
Eqs. (A.5) and the Lagrangian given by
L(z(<),ux(0) = \zT{t) (Q + Tt0ED{z)EtT0) z{t) + l-uT

x(t)Rux(t) (A.7)
inserted into the Hamiltonian (A.4) results in the control law in (4.38). We can now use
the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (4.2) to check if the found control law is optimal. ^ is
1 ~TmT I dM(* + x<.>)') o
------- = -z‘ T1 at Un xn jI T° r? —
— -zi TT
_ ** t I 2^* = 1 drrL
dxr Xr* unxn T0z
dt 2 0 l 0nXn 0„x„ 2
Onxn
hence
dJ*(z,t) + dJ*{z,t) \
z + L(z(t),u*(t)) = 0
dt dz
zT{t) Onxn K + Q-TT0ER'ETTi z(t) --- 0

K 0 nXn
The last transition uses the fact that
A.2. PROOF OF COMMENT 4.1 133
This concludes the proof.
□
A proof following the same line of reasoning is found in Johansson (1990b) for a ma
nipulator without friction i.e. dissipative forces. The Hamilton’s principal function of
optimization is the same, but this article’s cost function is altered to account for the en-
ergy spend to overcome dissipation of energy from the vehicle. The equations of motion
are, of course, also different.
A.2 Proof of Comment 4.1
It is sufficient to prove that comment 4.1 is valid without the dissipation matrix, since
comment 4.2 shows that the inclusion of damping only increase the stability of the system.
Remember also that we can, without loss of generality, assume that the R matrix is on
the form R — r ■ Imxn
dV(i,t)
dt
= ) i(t) - z(t)TTÊ (R-' + D(z)) ETT0z(t)
11 drop the dissipation term
dV(2,t)
dt 2
£») 5(0 - iitfTÊRÊ7^^)
dV(i) l.T„, / 2Tf1ii-1Tn -K + QThR-'Tu)

dt
-5*T(0 { -K + 2T'f2R-lTn 2Tf3R-1T13 J U
Z
dV(~z) 2*T(0 ( _I (qTq2 + qTqJ +Qi
1 (qT + qt'j + 2QtQi
dt
-5 (QlQi + Q2Q1) + | (Qfa + Q?i) + 2QTQ2 \ i(t)
11
<h J
dV(~z)
dt
< o v*(o / o (A.8)
Hence we have shown that the system described by (4.33) and controlled by (4.38) is
always globally uniformly asymptotically stable by explicitly differentiating V.
□
134 APPENDIX A. PROOFS
A.3 Alternative proof of Theorem 4.5

We chose the Lyapunov function candidate in (4.53). It is easiest to show that Vê, t)
is negative semi-definite by expressing the Lyapunov function candidate in the x-frame
formulation and then transform the solution to the q-frame. V(e, t) is clearly positive
definite and radially unbounded in z. If we differentiate (4.53) along z and time t we get:
V'(e,t) = V(z,t) + Vu(6q) (A.9)
A combination of (A.9) with the control law in (4.52) and the results in theorem 2 yields:
^ ~T d\ ( xn K
£Xn I) Ht) - i(t)TTjE(R-1 i D(z)) ETT0~z(t)
rT'T ip i 7>~ l + ipT v+ ^ + iT(t)T?Eil>x8z
v, = (<)
V = _Vmrr/ 2Tl(R-l+p(z))Tn -K+ 2^ (R'1 + D(z)) T12 \ T-(t)

* 2P u 1,-Ar + 2rf2(ii-1 + £>(z))r11 2tJ2(r~1+ d(z))t12 JTp{)
+6*Kiq9q + pT{t)TTTT0 EJ-T(*)V>,e, assuming 0 = 0
11
v; < o
We recognize the first parenthesis as positive definite from theorem 2 and that the two
last terms cancel each other out when 0q is defined as in (4.55). Hence, we have proved
that V(e,<) < 0. This implies that V{t) < 1/(0) which, in turn, implies that p is bounded
for all t > t0. Consequently, V(e, t) is a valid Lyapunov function and the system is
globally asymptotically stable. We have uq = u* in the case of no parameter errors and,
hence, we have an optimal controller with respect to the performance criterion in (4.1)
with the Lagrangian in (4.35)
□
Appendix B
Fluid Mechanics and

Hydrodynamics
This appendix introduces the reader to some fundamental hydrodynamic properties which
will be needed in Chapter 2 when we introduce the term velocity potentials. This theory
will be useful for the explanation of added mass in the next chapter. Most of this appendix
is taken from Sarpkaya (1981), Newman (1977), and Faltinsen (1990a). The first section
introduce to the reader some basic hydrodynamics and fluid mechanics, the next section
derives the equation for the linear wave potential, while the third section expands the
linear theory to also include the nonlinear Stoke’s drift.
B.l Basic fluidmechanics and hydrodynamics

Velocity potential
A velocity potential <j> can be used to describe the fluid velocity vector r (x, y, z) = (u, v, w)
at time t at the point x = (x, y, z) in a cartesian coordinate system. This implies that
„ , _ .d<t> .d<j> d<t> ,

V = ^* = ,di+,Yy+kdi (EU)
where i, j and k are unit vectors along the x—, y— and 2—axes. Notice also that the
dynamic pressure po is
(B.2)
135
136 APPENDIX B. FLUID MECHANICS AND HYDRODYNAMICS
Equations of motion
The equation of motion for an incompressible Newtonian fluid known as the Navier-Stokes
equations may be written as
D'v di) 1
= -57 + (» ffrad) v = F---- Vp + i/V2v (B.3)
Dt ut p
in which v represents the velocity vector of the water particles in x, y and z directions
respectively, F the components of the body force per unit mass in the corresponding
directions, p the pressure and u the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. The term ^ denotes
the substantive acceleration, also known as the material derivate or Eulerian derivate.
The above equation consists of a local acceleration due to the change of velocity at a
given point in time and a convective acceleration due to translation. A velocity potential
is useful in analysis of irrotational fluid motions.
Irrotational fluid
A fluid is said to be irrotational when the vorticity vector
u=Vxv (B-4)
is zero everywhere in the fluid.
Incompressible fluid
Since an incompressible fluid satisfies V • w = 0, it follows that the velocity potential
satisfies the Laplace equation
d2<j> d2<f> =
dx2 + dy2 + dz2 (B.5)
Bernoulli’s equation
Below is Bernoulli’s equation which is valid for unsteady, irrotational and invicid fluid
motions.
9<t> P „
p + pgz + p— + -v -v = C (B.6)
C is a constant which can be related to the ambient or atmospheric pressure.

B.2. LINEAR WAVE THEORY 137
B.2 Linear wave theory

In this appendix we present the linear velocity potential for regular sinusoidal propagating
waves on finite and infinite water depth. Linear theory means that the velocity potential
is proportional to the wave amplitude. The theory is valid when the wave amplitude is
small relative to the wave length and the still-water depth. This linear wave theory is
also known as small amplitude wave theory, sinusoidal wave theory or Airy theory.
We use the following assumptions to derive the equation for the velocity potential.
Incompressible fluid
That is a fluid which satisfies Laplace equation, B.5
Sea bottom condition
The velocity of the water particles is zero in the z—direction at the seabottom i.e.
86
—= 0 on z = —h (B-7)
Kinematic surface condition

This condition is based on the assumption that a fluid particle on the surface is
assumed to stay on the surface. First we define the free-surface by the equation
z = C(x, y, t) where £ is the wave elevation. Secondly, we define the function
F(x,y,z,t) = z — ((x,y,t). The assumption that a fluid particle on the surface
stays on the surface implies that
DF ^+r-VF = 0
= 0 (B.8)
Dt dt
Evaluating eq. B.8 and keeping only the linear terms we obtain the kinematic
surface condition.
8( 8<i>
on z = —h (B-9)
dt dz
Dynamic free surface condition
By inserting eq. B.l and eq. B.2 in eq. B.6 and choosing the constant C as p0/p,
where p0 is the atmospheric pressure, we arrive to the following expression:
d<j) 1
9( + W + 2 = 0 on z C{x,y,t) (B.10)
Keeping only linear terms in B.10, the expression is simplified to

d<j>
9( + It = 0 (B.ll)
which is the dynamic free surface condition.
By combining B.5 B.7, B.9, and B.ll we arrive to the following equation for the velocity
potential for finite water depth Walderhaug (1990):
g( cosh k(z + h)
4=— --------- 7—r-.----cosfurt — kx) (B.12)
oj cosh kh
where k can be found from
— = k tanh kh (B.13)
9
Finite water depth Infinite water depth
velocity potential <f> = êkz cos(wt — kx)
wave number k and —

9
= k tanh kh f-*
circular frequency ui
wave length A and A = £T2 tanh Ifh * = £T2

wave period T
wave profile c = Ca sin(wt - kx) = (fa sin(wt — kx)
dynamic pressure PD - P9(a c<Jlt } smM kx) PD = P9(aekz sin(wt - kx)
x-component of velocity u = U(a^^^t-kx) u — u(aekz sin(wt — kx)
z-component of velocity w - wCa -sJiu1 cos(wt kx) w = u)(aekz cos(wt — kx)
x-component of acceleration U - w2Ca - sidlt ) C0s(wf kx) ii = u)2(aekz cos(u;t — kx)
z-component of acceleration W- kx) w — —Lo2C,a.ekz sin(wt — kx)
Table B.l: Equations derived from <j> Faltinsen (1990a) T = Wave period, ui =
A =Wavelenght, k = , (a = Wave amplitude, g = Acceleration of gravity, z positive
upwards, h = waterdepth, total pressure in fluid: po — pgz + p0
Table B.l contains some useful equations which are derived from the velocity potential.
It is common to divide the range of water depth into shallow water, intermediate water
and deep or infinite water where:
B.3. NONLINEAR EFFECTS - STOKE’S DRIFT 139
shallow water waves m>I
intermediate depth water ^ f<f
deep water waves I > 2
B.3 Nonlinear effects - Stoke’s drift

It is relatively easy to show that the first order wave potential is also a solution to the
second-order kinematic surface condition eq. B.9 and the second-order dynamic free
surface condition eq. B.ll, Newman (1977) pp. 247-248. Therefore, the first-order wave
potential (for infinite water depth) can be written as
<f> = y^-ek2 cos(ujt — kx) + 0((3) (B.14)

OJ
The free-surface elevation must, however, be corrected for second-order effects by including
the second-order terms in eq. B.10. Eq. B.10 can be rearranged to:
(bi5)
We assume that £ can be written in the form ( = e<j>i + e2^2 + By writing ( eq. B.15
in this power series expansion form up to second-order terms, we obtain the following
expression for (, Newman (1977):
1 1 d(f> d2<j>
c= - 9 dt
+ -V^ •
g dt dzdt z=0
(B.16)
Combining eq.B.14 and eq.B.16 we get the following second-order expression for the free-
surface elevation:
C = Ca sin(a;< — kx) — ^Co + ^Ca sin2(wt — kx)
C = Ca sin(wt — kx) — T^Ca cos2(wt — kx) (E-IT)
We see from this equation that the crests have become steeper and the troughs flatter as
a result of the nonlinear terms. This asymmetry cause a second order mean drift of the
fluid particles in the same direction as the wave propagation. This mean drift is a net
flux of water in the same direction as the waves.
We will now calculate the velocity components of a given fluid particle. Consider a
particle at the position (x0,z0). This particle must satisfy the relations ^ = u(x0,zo,t)
and ^ = w(x0,z0,t). We can expand these expressions by a Taylor series to
^ = u(x0,z0,t) + (x0-x)^ + (z0-z)^ + 0(O (B.18)
= w(x0,z0,t)+ (x0-x)^+ (z0-z)^+0(fi)
We have in Table B.l (column 2, row 6 and 7) found an expression for the velocity of the
given water particle on infinite water depth for the x— and z—direction. If we integrate
these expressions with respect to time, we get the first-order trajectories
(x — x0) = J u dt = —(aekz cos(wt — kx) (B.19)
(z — Zg) — J w dt = C,aekz sin(uit — kx)

If we combine eq.B.20 and the equations for water particle velocity in Table B.l with eq.
B.19 we obtain the following:
dx0
u>(aekz sin(wt — kx) + + O(C^) (B.20)
dt
dz0
u>(aekz cos(ut — kx) + 0(Cf) (B.21)
dt
We see that the second-order vertical motion of the given water particle is periodic while
the horizontal velocity contains a steady drift term, called the Stoke’s drift.
This horizontal drift influences on the motion of marine vessels on and in the water column.
This drift is an important factor to take into account when disturbances are modeled for
marine vessels. Notice that the average velocity at a fixed point is zero according to the
second-order wave theory, while the velocity of a specific wave particle is the same as the
constant drift term in eq. B.21. This is important when we want to model the current.
If we want to model the current at a fixed point in space, the Stoke’s drift should not be
taken into account when there are waves present Faltinsen (1990a).
Appendix C
The NEROV
This appendix is outlined as follows. The next section gives the background, program
goals and objectives for the NEROV project. The third section presents NEROV’s gen
eral arrangement, while sections four, five, and six, respectively, describe the propulsion
system, sensor system, and computer system.
C.l NEROV
FORWARD
NEROV computer
Figure C.l: The NEROV vehicle - general arrangement
141
142 APPENDIX C. THE NEROV
C.2 Background
The NEROV vehicle is a part of the ongoing effort at the Division of Engineering Cy
bernetics - Norwegian Institute of Technology in the field of underwater robotics. The
NEROV vehicle will be particularly useful for in research in teleoperation and telemanip
ulation.
The NEROV vehicle is a testbench for testing intelligent and traditional control algo
rithms for autonomous and remotely operated robots with special focus on underwater
vehicles. Automatic modes in the operation of remote manipulator systems and problems
related to time delays in the communication channel between the operator and the robot
are of particular interest.
The NEROV vehicle will be a useful simulation and research tool for the underwater
industry as well as the oil companies. This is especially true in the context of advanced
operation of ROVs.
C.3 Program Goals and Objectives

The primary goal was to design and develop a vehicle with state-of-the-art processing and
data storage capability, navigation, and sensor systems.
Computer hardware and software architecture should be designed so that both traditional
and intelligent control schemes can be developed and tested on the vehicle. The system
should be totally autonomous with respect to both energy and control, but the vehicle
has, in the first stage of the project, a communication cable from the vehicle to an on
shore computer monitoring system.
The specific objectives of the study includes:
• Designing and developing a controllable underwater vehicle with six degrees of free
dom.
• Integrating a suite of sensors to the vehicle.
• Conducting performance tests of the vehicle.
• Using the vehicle as a general purpose testbench in research on underwater robotics.
• Using the vehicle as a laboratory in graduate courses and research.

CA. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT 143
Using the vehicle as a simulation and research tool for the underwater industry.
C.4 General Arrangement

Figure C.l shows the general arrangement of the NEROV vehicle. The vehicle’s main
dimensions are 1.065 x 0.945 x 1.005 [m] [L x B x H]. The vehicle has a deplacement
of 0.183 m3 and a positive buoyancy of about 20./V. The vehicle’s six thrusters have a
maximum thrust of about 78N each.
The vehicle is controllable in six degrees of freedom and is stable in both pitch and roll.
The limitations in the pitch and roll are with the current BG ±40° in pitch and ±20° in
roll respectively. Its maximum speed in the x, y and z directions is 0.8—, 0.7— and 0.7y
respectively.
The supporting frame is made of stainless steel tubes. The cylindrical containers are made
of PVC plastic and are rated for a depth of 100 m. The energy source which is two 12V
batteries with a capacity of 69Ah each, is located in the lower cylindrical container. The
computer hardware and the sensor system are located in the two upper containers. The
NEROV’s general arrangement is described in more detail in Sagatun and Fossen (1990b)
C.5 Propulsion System

The NEROV thruster system is described in section 3.8.3.
C.6 The Sensor System

The NEROV vehicle is well instrumented. We have currently instrumented the vehicle as
follows: two Schaevitz LSOP-90 inclinometers, one Robertson RFC250 fluxgate compass,
a three-axial angular rate sensor from Watson Industries, one Keller EI-72 pressure meter
and the UPOS hydroacoustic positioning system. The NEROV sensor system is described
in Fossen and Sagatun (1991b). Figure C.3 is a schematic drawing of the NEROV’s
sensor system with its Kalman filter based state estimators. As the figure illustrate, the
linear and angular velocities are estimated independently of each other. We are currently
working with integrating a 2-axis Kearfoot accelerometer to the vehicle’s sensor suite.
J\{x2) and J2(x2) represent the velocity Jacobian and angular velocity Jacobian matrices.
The Jf1^) matrix is singular for 0 = |, that is for a pitch angle of 90°. Experimentally
obtained sensor data with their Kalman-filter estimate is shown in Fig. C.4.
C.7 The Computer System

The computer system is based on the VMEbus and is located in the vehicle’s upper right
container. Fig. C.2 contains a schematic drawing of the NEROV computer system. We
had to use the single height Eurocard format due to the size of the vehicle’s containers.
The processor board consists of one Motorola MC68020 32 bits 16 MHz microprocessor,
one MC68881 floating point co-processor, 1 MByte of static RAM and 512 KBytes of
ROM. The microprocessor card is fitted with two RS232 serial ports. These ports are
used to connect a terminal and a monitor to the system while programming, testing, and
operating the computer system.
We also have two computer cards which take care of the I/O to and from the sensors and
the propulsion system. We currently have sixteen 12 bits A/D input channels, eight TTL
I/O ports and twelve A/D output channels. All I/O ports are programmable.
The software is interrupt driven and is programmed in C on a SUN workstation and

downloaded through a serial port to the VME rack. The NEROV computer system is
described in Sagatun and Fossen (1991b).
We are planning to install the real-time operating system VxWorks on the vehicle the
coming season.
C.7. THE COMPUTER SYSTEM 145
The NEROV computer system
VMEbus
MC68020 uP VMOD VDAD

MC68881 f.coP 8 x DA ports 16 x AO ports
1 Mbyte SRAM 4 x DA ports
-512 Kbyte ROM
1B7MHZ
2 x RS222 ports
thruster sensor
system system
RS232
UPOS transponders
RS232 RS232
Landbased UPOS rack
Joystick
Figure C.2: The NEROV computer system

Linear velocities and position

UPOS
positioning system (surge, sway and heave)
Keller EI-72
pressure meter
Angular velocities and Euler angles

Schaevitz LSOP-90 (roll, pitch and yaw)
Inclinometer
Schaevitz LSOP-90 theta
Inclinometer
Robertson fluxgate
compass RFC250
Watson Ind. Inc.

3-axial angular
rate sensor
Figure C.3: Schematic drawing of the sensor system.

C.7. THE COMPUTER SYSTEM 147
Actual (dotted) and estimated (solidl roll angle Ide^l
Actual (dotted^) and estimated (solid) angular rate in roll Ideg/sl
time [s]
Roll angle estimation error Ideal
time [s]
Angular rate estimation error in roll fdeg/s 1
Figure C.4: Experimentally obtained sensor data with and without Kalman filter Fossen
and Sagatun (199lb).
Appendix D
Results from the Free Decay Test
This appendix presents the results from the free-decay test. The test gave us the added
mass terms for the vehicle’s x-, y- and z-direction as well as the linear and quadratic
damping terms. We performed the test for three frequencies (« 1.3, ~ 0.8 and « 0.4 r^).
We also investigated how sensitive these parameters are to perturbations of the vehicle’s
geometry. We did the test for two different perturbation objects for all three frequencies.
The largest perturbation object was a second battery-container with a deplacement of
0.042 m3 and the small object was four cylinders, simulating a manipulator, with a de
placement of 0.009 m3. See also section 3.13.5.
The results from these tests are shown in Table 3.1 , and Figs. D.l, D.2 and D.3.
149
150 APPENDIX D. RESULTS FROM THE FREE DECAY TEST
linear damping term (juadratic damping term

4 — i
3 —&-1
*9
2
____________________ i_______
0 ___________ 1____________________ 1
0.5 1 1.5
0)[rad/s] (0 [rad/s]
2 added mass coeffecient

------------------------1 ------------------------------- 1 ------------------------------- 1
1.5
6 1
' +■
0.5
0 ____________________ i ____________________ i
0 0.5 1 1.5
CO [rad/s]
Figure D.l: Nondimensional free decay test-results for the x-direction. The upper left
frame contains the dimensionless linear damping coefficient , upper right frame contains
the quadratic damping coefficient in dimensionless form, while the bottom left frame shows
the added mass coefficients (made dimensionless such that ttia = CapX J, solid = unper
turbed geometry, dashed — small perturbation and dashdot = large perturbation.
151
—
quadratic damping term
~^ ~ i _r_'_ ■- ■'•
0.1.......
- —* ) Aft*..... ........ —
s
S *
w
* ' >>
cs y
*
£> X)
0.05-
___________1
0.5 0.5
added mass coeffecient
Figure D.2: Nondimensional free decay test-results for the y-direction . The upper left
the added mass coefficients (made dimensionless such that mA = CapV ), solid = unper
turbed geometry, dashed = small perturbation and dashdot = large perturbation.
152 APPENDIX D. RESULTS FROM THE FREE DECAY TEST
linear damping term quadratic damping term

-----------------—1r ~~1
--f______+---•
________1
05 1
added mass coeffecient
Figure D.3: Nondimensional free decay test-results for the z-direction . The upper left
the added mass coefficients (made dimensionless such that = CapV ), solid = unper
turbed geometry, dashed = small perturbation and dashdot = large perturbation.
Appendix E
A Complete Mathematical Model
This appendix contains the complete equations of motion for an underwater vehicle as
well as the corresponding numerical values for the NEROV.
E.l Complete Equations of Motion

The following limitations applly to the model presented in this section:
• Environmental forces as wave and current loads are not included.
• Some cross-coupling terms for the dissipative forces are neglected.
• A rigid body with constant mass and deplacement is assumed.
• Off-diagonal added-inertia terms are neglected in the nonlinear matrix.
• The control forces consist of only thrusters placed in a configuration similar to the
NEROV.
The following model will be used:
Mq + C(q)q + D(q)q + g(x) Ter + b{q,u)
x = J(x)q
where the vectors and matrices are written out:
m- Xi -Xi -Xp mza - Xq -myG - Xr
-Xi m — Yi -Yi, -mzG - Yp ~Yi -mxG - Yr
M-
-Xu, -Y* m — Xu, mya — Zp mxa — Zq -Zr
-Xp -mza - Yp myc - Zp h-Kp -hy - Kq -Izz - Kr
mza - Xq -Yi -mxa — Zq -by - Kq ly-Mq fyz Mr
-mya - Xr mxa - Yr -Zi -It: - Ki -lyz - Mr h ~ Ni
153
154 APPENDIX E. A COMPLETE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
-m(yaq + zar) m(!/GP+ w)~ Zu,w m(zGp — v) + YiV
m(xaq - w) + Z^w -m(zar + xap) m(zaq + u) — X^xi
m(xar + v)-YiV m(yar- ul + Aû -m(xap + yaq)
m(ycq + ZGr) —m(xGq -w)-Z* -m(xGr + v) + YiV
-Tn(yap+ w) + Z^w /n(zGr + xap) —m(yGr — u) - Xû
-m(zGP-v) - YiV -m(zGq + u) + XiU mixaP + yaq)
0 -IyZq ~ h*P+ hr - Nir IyZr + hyP - lyQ + Mjq
(3.1)
lyzq + EtP- hr + NiV 0 -hzr - hyq + hp - Kpp
-Iy*r - hyP+Iyq ~ Mjq hzr + hyq - hp+Kfp 0
■ fxzi
/;< 0 0 frvt 0 ■
/yuj fyw, 0 0 0
D(qT)qT =
fzui fzvi Jrwd 0 0 0
9r
0 -Zpfvd ypfwd /;„ 0 0
Zpfud 0 ~Xpfwd 0 ru 0
/;J
. -ypftd *pf:d 0 0 0
where the terms on the form /t^ is defined according to Newman (1977) p.21, such that
fzu, = \pCfA |ur|, that is fzxiltur is the force in z—direction due to a relative velocity in
the x—direction.
(W-B)smO
—{W — B) cos 6 sin <f>
— (W — B) cos 9 cos <f>
— — VbB) cos 5 cos <j> + (zoW — zbB) cos 0 sin
{xqW — xgB) cos 9 cos <j> + (zqW — zgB) sin 9
—(xgW — XBB)cos9sm(f> — (yGW — yBB)sin9
b\rii | n\ | +62 | 9 I2 I I +(>1^2 | ^2 I +(*2 I 9 I2 | ^2 |
b\nz | n3 | +62 j 9 I2 I ”3 I +61^4 | | +62 | 9 b j «4 |
b\ns | n5 | +62 | 9 b I n5 | +61 n6 | n6 j +62 j 9 b I n6 j

(61/23 | ns | +62 | 9 I2 I n3 |)/«
— (61/I5 | 2^5 | +62 | 9 I2 | n5 |)(y + (61/I6 I ne I +62 I 9 I2 | |)fy
. (6ini | nj | +62 | 9 I2 | ni \)lz - (b^ | n2 | +62 | 9 |2 | n2 |)(,
E.2. NEROV MODEL DATA 155
TV;
Tuy
TU,
TU
VuTU, — ZuTrjy
Z-uTu, ~ XUTU,
Z'uTUy VuTU, .
And finally the kinematic relation:
x = J(xE)q
X apcO — sx[>c<l> + ClpS0S<j> sxl>s<j> + ctjjc<j)s9 u

y sipcO Clfrctj) + S<j>S0SlJ> —cifts4> + s9sij>c<j> 03x3 V
z —sO c6s<j> c9c<j> w
<t> 1 s<t>s9 c<t>s$
1 c$ cB p
o
6 03x3 <1
1
. ^ n M c±
r
. . U C0 cfl J
E.2 NEROV Model Data

The following assumptions are made for the NEROV nonlinear equation of motion in
addition to the ones cited above:
• The vehicle-fixed coordinate system is placed in the center of gravity.
• We assume xy- and yz-symmetry.
• We neglect the effect of an umbilical.
• Only the experimentally determined or estimated hydrodynamic values are included

in the model.
Kp, and N+ is estimated to have the same magnitude as the corresponding inertias.
The damping terms are found in the previous appendix. An equvivalent linearized damp
ping matrix is found in chapter 3:
156 APPENDIX E. A COMPLETE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
parameter values unit

m= 183 [M
fn = 192.5 [M
V= 0.187 K1
B= 1810 [W
W= 1795 [N]
~BG = [-0.014, 00.053]t [m]
KG = [0.020, 0,0.461]t [m]
' 20.6085 0 -0.1806 '
I= 0 24.1959 -0.1427 [kgm2]
-0.1806 -0.1427 18.9706
144 [M
240 [%]
z ~ 211 M
K- ~ 20 [kgm2}
Mi ~ 24 [kgm2]
Ni ~ 18 [fcg'm2]
Table E.l: NEROV masses and inertias
0.8ni | nx | -4.71 | 9 I2 | I +0.8n2 | n2 | +4.71 | 9 I2 | «2 |

0.8n3 | n3 | -4.71 | 9 (2 j ra3 | +0.8ri4 | n4 | +4.71 | 9 b I ^4 |
... . _ 0.8ns j n5 j -4.71 | 9 I2 I | +0.8n6 j n6 | +4.71 | 9 I2 | "e |
[q,U) 0.33n3 | n3 |-1.92 | 9 I2 | n3 |
—0.32ns | ns | +1.88 | 9 I2 I ns | +0.32ng | n© | —1.88 | 9 I2 I j
Q.34ni | nx \ —1.98 | 9 I2 | I —0.34n2 | n2 | +1.98 | 9 |2 | n2 |
Notice that we have used the simplification m = m.
References
J. S. Albus, H. G. McCain, and R. Lumia (1987). NASA/NBS Standard Reference

Model for Telerobot Control System Architecture (NASREM). Technical Report 1235, Na
tional Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
E. E. Allmendinger (1990), editor. Submersible Vehicle Systems Design. The Society of

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 601 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, N. J. 07306.
J. Van Amerongen and A. J. Udink ten Cate (1975). Model Reference Adaptive
Autopilots for Ships. Automatica, 11, No. 1, pp. 441-449.
J. Van Amerongen (1981). A Model Reference Adaptive Autopilot for Ships - Practical
Results. In IFAC 8th Triennial World Congress, pp. VII 106-113, Kyoto, Japan.
J. Van Amerongen (1982). Adaptive Steering of Ships - A Model Reference Approach to

Improved Maneoeuvring and Economical Course Keeping. Ph.D thesis, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
J. Van Amerongen (1984). Adaptive Steering of Ships - A Model Reference Approach.

Automatica, 20, No. 1, pp. 3-14.
B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore (1989). Optimal Control: linear quadratic methods.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
S. Arimoto and F. Miyazaki (1984.). Stability and Robustness of PID Feedback Control
for Robot Manipulators of Sensory Capability. In M. Brady and R. Paul (1984.), editors,
First International Symposium on Robotics Research, pp. 783-799. The MIT Press.
M. Athans and M. D. Canon (1964). On the Fuel-Optimal Singular Control of Nonlinear
Second-Order Systems. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, AC-9, No. 4, pp. 360-370.
M. Athans and P. L. Falb (1966), editors. Optimal Control. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York.
J. G. Balchen, N. A. Jenssen, and S. Saelid (1976). Dynamic Positioning Using Kalman

Filtering and Optimal Control Theory. In IFAC/IFIP Symposium on Automation in Offshore
Oil Field Operation, pp. 183-186, Holland, Amsterdam.
157
158 REFERENCES
J. G. Balchen, M. Fjeld, and O. A. Solheim (1978). Reguleringsteknikk Bind 3. Tapir

a.s., Trondheim, Norway. In Norwegian.
J. G. Balchen, N. A. Jensen, E. Mathisen, and S. Saelid (1980a). Dynamic Position

ing System Based on Kalman Filtering and Optimal Control. Modeling, Identification and
Control, MIC-1, No. 3, pp. 135-163.
J. G. Balchen (1991.). Ship Positioning: Adaptive Control. In M. Papageorgiou (1991.),

editor, Concise Encyclopedia of Traffic and Transportation Systems, pp. 308-331. Pergamon
Press, UK.
Barbalat (1959). Systemes d’Equations Differentielles d’Oscillations Non Lineaires. Revue

de Mathematiques Pares et Appliquees, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 267-270. Academie de la Republique
Populaire Roumaine (in French).
S. Barnett (1971). Matrices in Control Theory. Van Nostrand Reinhold, London.
G. BirkhofF (1960). Hydrodynamics - A Study in Logic, Fact and Similtude. Princeton

University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
M. Blanke (1981). Ship Propulsion Losses Related to Automated Steering and Prime Mover
Control. Ph.D thesis, The Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.
D. R. Blidberg and S. G. Chappell (1986). Guidance and Control Architecture for the
EAVE vehicle. IEEE Journal of Ocean Engineering, OE-11, No. 4, pp. 449-461.
A. K. Bratland (1989). Generell vurdering av propulsjonsforhold pa hurtiggaende fartqy.

Technical report, Norwegian Institute of Technology - Division of marine hydrodynamic,
Trondheim - Norway. Masters Project, in Norwegian.
R. S. Burns (1990). The Design, Development and Implementation of an Optimal Guidance

System for Ships in Confined Waters. In 9th Ship Control Systems Symposium, pp. 3.386-
3.400, Bethesda, MD.
S. G. Chappell (1987). An Autonomous Vehicle Supervisory Module using the Blackboard

Architechture. Ph.D thesis, University of New Hampshire - Marine Systems Engineering
Laboratory.
B. R. Clayton and R. E. D. Bishop (1982). Mechanics of Marine Vehicles. E. fc F. N.

Spon Ltd, London, UK.
J. J. Craig (1988). Adaptive Control of Mechanical Manipulators. Addison-Wesley, Reading,

Massachusetts.
J. J. Craig (1989). Introduction to Robotics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

REFERENCES 159
I. Band and M. J. Every (1983). An Overview of the Hydrodynamics of Umbilical Cables

and Vehicles. In Proceedings of the SUBTECH’83 Conference, paper no. 10.4.
DnV Det Norske Veritas, Hoevik, Norway. Rules for Classification of Steel Ships - Special
Equipment and Systems Additional Class: Dynamic Positioning Systems, part 6, chapter 7
edition, January.
F. Dougherty and G. Woolweaver (1990). At-Sea Testing of an Unmanned Underwater
Vehicle Flight Control System. In Symposium on Autonomous Underwater Technology, pp.
65-68, Washington, DC.
F. Dougherty, T. Sherman, G. Woolweaver, and G. Lovell (1998). An Autonomous
Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Flight Control System Using Sliding Mode Control. In Ocean’88,
pp. 1265-1270, Baltimore, MD.
O. Egeland (1985). Robotmanipulatorer. Institutt for teknisk kybernetikk, Norges tekniske
hogskole, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway. In Norwegian.
L. Euler (1776). Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientairum Imperialis Petropolitane. -,
Vol. XX, , pp. 189.
O. M. Faltinsen (1990a). Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures. Cambridge Univer
sity Press, New York.
O. E. Fjellstad, T. I. Fossen, and O. Egeland (1992). Adaptive Control of ROVs with
Actuator Dynamics and Saturation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE), San Francisco, CA, June 1992.
T. I. Fossen and S. I. Sagatun (1991a). Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Underwater
Robotic Systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp.
1687-1695, Sacramento, California, April 1991.
T. I. Fossen and S. I. Sagatun (1991b). Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems: A
Case Study of Underwater Robotic Systems. Journal of Robotic Systems, JRS-8, No. 3, pp.
393-412.
T. I. Fossen and S. I. Sagatun (1991c). The Norwegian Experimental Remotely Operated
Vehicle (NEROV) Equations of Motion. Technical Report 91-4-W, Division of Engineering
Cybernetics, Norwegian Institute of Technology, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway.
T. I. Fossen and S. I. Sagatun (1991d). The Norwegian Experimental Remotely Op
erated Vehicle (NEROV) Sensor System. Technical Report 91-2-W, Division of Engineering
T. I. Fossen (1991). Adaptive autopilot, Teknisk rapport 1. Technical Report 1, Division
of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian Institute of Technology, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway,
Nov. confidential, in norwegian.
160 REFERENCES
T. I. Fossen (1991). Adaptive Macro-Micro Control of Nonlinear Underwater Robotic

Systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR),
pp. 1569-1572, Pisa, Italy, June 1991.
T. I. Fossen (1991). Nonlinear Modelling and Control of Underwater Vehicles. Dr.ing

thesis, Division of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim,
June 1991.
T. I. Fossen (1992). Control an Guidance of Ocean Vehicles. Technical report, Division

of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian Institute of Technology, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway,
Feb. Lecture notes.
P. Franz and D. Limbert (1987). A Thrust Vector Controller for the EAVE Vehicle.
In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible
Technology, pp. 579-589, MSEL-UNH, Durham NH, June.
P. T-K. Fung and M. J. Grimble (1981.). Self-tuning Control of Ship Positioning

Systems. In C. J. Harris and S. A. Billings (1981.), editors, Self-tuning and adaptive
control: theory and applications, pp. 308-331. Peter Peregrinus ltd. on behalf of IEE.
P. T-K. Fung and M. J. Grimble (1983a). Dynamic Ship Positioning Using a Self Tuning
Kalman Filter. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, AC-28, No. 3, pp. 339-349.
H. Gay, B. O’Kill, K. Seed, and J. Whitcut (1984), editors. Longman Webster English
College Dictionary. Longman Group Ltd., Essex, UK.
K. R. Goheen (1986). The Modelling and Control of Remotely Underwater Operated Ve
hicles. Ph.D thesis, Dept, of Mechanical Eng.,University College London, July 1986.
H. Goldstein (1980). Classical Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
B. Haues-Roth (1985). A Balckboard Architecture for Control. Artificial Intelligence, 26,

, pp. 251-321.
A. J. Healey and D. B. Marco (1992). Slow Speed Flight Control of Autonomous

Underwater Vehicles: Experimental Results with NPS AUV II. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE), San Francisco, CA, June
1992.
A. J. Healey, F. A. Papoulias, and R. Cristi (1989). Design and Experimental Verifi

cation of a Model Based Compensator for Rapid AUV Depth Control. In Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology, pp. 458-474,
MSEL-UNH, Durham NH, June.
D. E. Humphreys and K. W. Watkinson (1982). Hydrodynamic Stability and Control

Analyses of the UNH-EAVE Autonomous Underwater Vehicle. Technical Report A.R.A.P.
REFERENCES 161
Tech. Memo. No. 82-2, University of New-Hampshire, Marine Systems Engineering Labora
tory, Durham, New-Hampshire 03824.
F. H. Imlay (1961). The Complete Expressions for Added Mass of a Rigid Body Moving in
an Ideal Fluid. Technical Report DTMB 1528, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington D.C.
P. loannou (1984). Robust Direct Adaptive Control. In Proceedings of the 23th IEEE Conf.
on Decision and Control, pp. 1015-1020, Las Vegas, NV, Dec.
F. Irgens (1990). Dynamikk. Tapir forlag, Trondheim, Norway. In Norwegian.
N. A. Jensen J. G. Balchen, , and S. Saelid (1980b). Dynamic Positioning of Floating
Vessels Based on Kalman Filtering and Optimal Control. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 852-864, New York, NY.
N. A. Jenssen (1980). Estimation and Control in Dynamic Positioning of Vessels. Dr.ing
thesis, Division of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian Institute of Technology, December
1980.
R. Johansson (1990). Adaptive Control of Robot Manipulator Motion. IEEE Transactions

on Robotics and Automation, RA-6, No. 4, pp. 483-490.
R. Johansson (1990). Quadratic Optimization of Motion Coordination and Control. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, RAC-35, No. 11, pp. 1197-1208.
C. G. Kallstrom, K. J. Astr0m andN. E. Thorell, J Eriksson, and L Sten (1979).
Adaptive Autopilot for Tankers. Automatica, 15, , pp. 241-254.
S. Kalske (1989). Motion Dynamics of Subsea Vehicles. Technical report, Technical Re
search Centre of Finland, Vuorimiehentie 5, SF-02150 Espoo, Finland, January 1989.
T. R. Kane, P. W. Likins, and D. A. Levinson (1983). Spacecraft dynamics. McGraw-

Hill, NY, NY.
G. Kirchhoff (1869). Ueber die Bewegung eines Rotationskorpers in einer Flussigkeit.

Crelle’s Journal, No. 71, pp. 237-273.
D. E. Kirk (1970). Optimal Control Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
07632.
R. A. Kleppaker, K. Vestgard, J. O. Hallset, and J. G. Balchen (1986). The

Application of a Free-Swimming ROV in Aquaculture. In IFAC Symposium on Automation
and Dataprocessing in Aquaculture, Trondheim, Norway, August 1986.
M. A. Koenig (1991). Headway Control System for the Unmanned Undersea Vehicle.
In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible
Technology, pp. 116-129, MSEL-UNH, Durham NH, September.
162 REFERENCES
H. Lamb (1932). Hydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.

C. S. G. Lee and M. H. Chen (1983). A Suboptimal Control Design for Mechanical
Manipulators. In ACC, pp. 1056-1061, June 1983.
E. B. Lee and L. Markus (1967). Foundation of Optimal Control Theory. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc, New York, NY.
E. Lehn (1990). The program system DECAY - User’s manual. MARINTEK - SINTEF,
Trondheim, Norway.
H. Lie, B. Sortland, and W. Lian (1989). Design of ROV Umbilical Configurations

to Improve ROV Operability. In Proceedings of the OMAE’89 Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, March 1989.
Marquest (1991). ROV Dynamic Positioning ROV-DP. Sales brochure from Marquest
Group Inc, Bourne MA.
L. Meirovitch (1990). Dynamics and Control of Structures. Wiley Interscience, NY, NY.
L. G. Milliken (1984). Multivariable Control of an Underwater Vehicles. Ph.D thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 1984.
L. M. Milne-Thomson (1968). Theoretical Hydrodynamics. MacMillan Education Ltd.,

London, UK.
MITSeaGrant (1991). MIT Sea Grant Quartely Report - Giving Submarines Something
to Flap About. Technical Report Vol. 13, Issue 2, Spring, Mit Sea Grant, Cambridge, MA
02139.
B. Moore, A. Cretenet, S. H. L Parfitt, and G. M. Primrose (1990). Development

of a Diverless Subsea Module Deployment System. In 22nd Annual OTC, Houston, TX.
A. Morecki, J. Ekiel, and K. Fidelus (1984), editors. Cybernetic Systems of Limb

iove,emts in Man, Animals and Robots. Ellis Horwood ltd, West Sussex, UK.
N. Mort and D. A. Linkens (1981.). Self-tuning Controllers for surface ship course-
keeping manoeuvring. In C. J. Harris and S. A. Billings (1981.), editors, Self-tuning
and adaptive control: theory and applications, pp. 297-308. Peter Peregrinus ltd. on behalf of
IEE.
MSEL (1988). A Cooperative Research Project on Intelligent Control for Multiple Au
tonomous Undersea Vehicles. Technical Report 88-03, Marine Systems Engineering Labora
tory, University of New Hampshire, 03824 Durham NH.
K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy (1987). A New Adaptive Law for Robust

Adaption Without Persistent Excitation. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, AC-32,
No. 2, pp. 134-145.
REFERENCES 163
K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy (1989). Stable Adaptive Systems. Prentice Hall

Int., Boston, MA.
J. N. Newman (1977). Marine Hydrodynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
N. H. Norrbin (1970). Theory and Observation on the use of a Mathematical Model for
Ship Maneuvering in Deep and Confined Waters. In 8th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Pasadena, California.
Oceaneering (1988). Report for Field Demonstration Trials of a Platform-Based ROV

Cleaning and Inspection System for Ekofisk. A report prepared by Oceaneering A/S for
Phillips Petroleum Company Norway, confidential.
OD - Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Oslo, Norway. Guidelines for the Inspection of Pri
mary and Secondary Structures for Production - and Shipment Installations and Underwater
Pipeline Systems.
OD - Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Oslo, Norway. Guidelines for the Specification and
Operation of Dynamically Positioned Diving Support Vessels.
K. Ohtsu, M. Horigome, and G. Kitagawa (1979). A New Ship’s Autopilot Design

Through a Stochastic Model. Automatica, 15, , pp. 255-268.
M. W. C. Oosterveld (1973). Ducted propeller characteristics. In Proceedings The Royal

Institution of Naval Architects - Symposium on Ducted Propellers, Teddington, UK, June.
R. Ortega and M. W. Spong (1988). Adaptive Motion Control of Rigid Robots: A

Tutorial. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 1575-1584,
Austin, TX.
R. Ortega and Y. Tang (1989). Robustness of Adaptive Controllers - a Survey. Auto

matica, Vol 25, , pp. 651-677.
S. H. L Parfitt and A. J. Watters (1990). Performance Trials for a Remote Guidance

Vehicle. In 22nd Annual OTC, Houston, TX.
V. M. Popov (1973). Hyperstability of Control Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
J. S. Reed and P. A. loannou (1988). Instability Analysis and Robust Adaptive Control
of Robotic Manipulators. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control,
pp. 1607-1612, Dec.
Robertson (1991). Robertson AP300 Autopilot Series. Sales brochure from Robertson
Tritech A.S.
J. Roskam (1982). Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Control. Roskam
Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Route 4, Box 274, Ottawa, Kansas 66067.
164 REFERENCES
S. Saelid and N. A. Jenssen (1983a). Adaptive Ship Autopilot with Wave Filter. Modeling,
Identification and Control, MIC-4, No. 1, pp. 33-46.
S. Saelid, N. A. Jenssen, and J. G. Balchen (1983b). Design and Analysis of a Dynamic
Positioning System Based on Kalman Filtering and Optimal Control. IEEE Transaction on
Automatic Control, AC-28, No. 3, pp. 331-339.
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1990a). Computer-Controlled Underwater Robot Ma
nipulator. In Proceedings of the 22nd Offshore Technology Conference, pp. 123-129, Houston,
TX, May 1990.
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1990b). Design Study of The Norwegian Experimental

Remotely Operated Vehicle (NEROV). Technical Report 90-57-W, Division of Engineering
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1991a). The Norwegian Experimental Remotely Operated

Vehicle (NEROV) Propulsion System. Technical Report 91-1-W, Division of Engineering
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1991b). The Norwegian Experimental Remotely Oper

ated Vehicle (NEROV) Computer System. Technical Report 91-3-W, Division of Engineering
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1991c). The Norwegian Experimental Remotely Operated

Vehicle (NEROV). In Proceedings of the ROV’91 Conference, Hollywood, Florida, May 1991.
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1991d). Results from free decay tests of the NEROV
. Technical Report 91-54-W, Division of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian Institute of
Technology, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway.
S. I. Sagatun and T. I. Fossen (1991e). The Norwegian Experimental Remotely Operated

Vehicle (NEROV) - Hydrodynamic Properties. In Proceedings of the 7th International Sympo
sium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology Conference, Durham, NH, September
1991.
S. I. Sagatun and T.I. Fossen (1991f). Lagrangian Dynamics of Underwater Vehicles.

In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Char
lottesville, VA, October 1991.
S. I. Sagatun and R. Johansson (1992). Optimal and Adaptive Control of Underwater

Vehicles. Journal of Robotic Systems, submitted.
S. I. Sagatun (1988). NAVPLAN: Tactical Routeplanning for Seagoing Vessels based on

Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- SCAI88, pp. 113-125, Tromso, Norway.
REFERENCES 165
S. I. Sagatun (1989). A Situation Assessment system for the MSEL EAVE-III AUVs. In
Sixth International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology, pp. 292-
306, Durham, NH.
S. I. Sagatun (1992). Near Optimal Adaptive Control of Underwater Vehicles. In Proceed

ings of IFAC 12th World Congress, Sydney, Australia, July, submitted.
S. Salcudean (1991). A Globally Convergent Angular Velocity Observer for Rigid Body
Motion. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, AC-36, No. 12, pp. 1493-1497.
J. La Salle and S. Lefschetz (1961). Stability by Lyapunovs Direct Method. Acadamic

Press, Baltimore, MD.
T. Sarpkaya (1981). Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures. Van Nostrand

Reinhold Company, New York, New York.
Simrad-Albatross (1990). ALBATROSS - Positioning and Control Systems. Sales brochure

from Simrad Albatross a.s, Kongsberg, Norway.
J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li (1987). Adaptive Manipulator Control. A Case Study. In

Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1392-1400, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
SNAME (1950). The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Nomenclature
for Treating the Motion of a Submerged Body Through a Fluid. In Technical and Research
Bulletin 1-5.
I. Spangelo and O. Egeland (1992). Generation of energy-optimal trajectories for an
autonomous underwater vehicle. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa
tion. (in press).
M. W. Spong and R. Ortega (1990). On Adaptive Inverse Dynamics Control of Rigid
Robots. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, AC-35, , pp. 92-95.
M. S. Triantafyllou and A. M. Amzallag (1984). A New Generation of Underwater

Unmanned Tethered Vehicles Carrying Heavy Equipment at Large Depths. Technical Report
MITSG 85-30TN, MIT Sea Grant, Boston, Massachusetts.
M. S. Triantafyllou, M. Bodson, and M. Athans (1983). Real Time Estimation of Ship

Motions Using Kalman Filtering Techniques. IEEE Journal of Ocean Engineering, OE-8, No.
1, pp. 9-20.
T. Ura and S. Otsubo (1988). Gliding performance and longitudinal stability of free
swimming vehicle. In Proceedings of the Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology
- PACON, Honolulu, HW, May 1988.
166 REFERENCES
R. Venkatachalam, D. E. Limbert, and J. C. Jalbert (1985). Design and Simulation

of a Crab-Wise Motion Controller for the EAVE-EAST Submersible. In ROV’85.
H. Walderhaug (1990). Marin Hydrodynamikk Grunnkurs. Institutt for marin hydrody-

namikk, Norges tekniske h0gskole, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway. In Norwegian.
C. W. Wampler (1986). Manipulator Inverse Kinematic Solutions Based on Vector For

mulations and Damped Least-Squares Methods. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, TSMC-16, No. 1, pp. 93-101.
D. A. Wells (1967). Lagrangian Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, NY, NY.
D. R. Yoerger, J. B. Newman, and J. J. E. Slotine (1986). Supervisory Control
System for the JASON ROV. IEEE Oceanic Engineering, OE-11, No. 3, pp. 392-400.
W. W. Zhou (1987). Identification of Nonlinear Marine Systems. Ph.D thesis, Servolabo-

ratoriet, The Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Index
actuator dynamics, 78 Corolis, 25

adaption law, 97, 109 Coulomb damping, 40
adaptive control algorithm, 89, 96, 109 current, 23
added inertia, 25, 35, 67
advance coefficient, 48 D’Alambert’s paradox, 40
application areas, 2 damping matrix, 25
asymptotically stable, 62 damping ratio, 75
autonomous, 92 dead-zone, 123
autopilots, 81 deep water waves, 136
AUV, 3 design requirements, 82
desired accuracy, 83
bandwidth, 82 dissipative forces, 40, 61, 94, 105
Barbalat, 92, 97, 110 disturbances, 50
basic assumptions, 88 divers, 1
Bernoulli’s equation, 42, 134 DP system, 77
bound on the parameter vector, 122 drag forces, 41
boundary condition, 29 duct, 49, 51
boundary-layer separation, 42 dynamic free surface condition, 135
Butterworth filter, 65 dynamic positioning systems, 79
dynamical stability, 57
center of buoyancy, 46
center of pressure, 42, 44 efficiency, 49
center of gravity, 34, 44, 46 eigenvalue analysis, 74
centripetal, 25 end-point dependent, 45
Cholesky decomposition, 106, 104 energy conservation, 27
commanded angular velocities, 95 energy dissipation, 40, 42
contributions, 5 equations of motion, 25, 151
control and guidance systems, 78 ergodic process, 17
control electronics, 52 estimation, 21
control forces, 47 Euler angle representation, 11, 12
control law, 95 Euler parameters, 11, 15
control objective, 90, 102 Euler’s theorem, 30
control variable, 87, 89 Euler-Lagrange equations, 26, 40, 46, 58, 63,
coordinate systems, 11 86
167
168 INDEX
experimental setup, 65 Jacobi’s integral, 27

Jacobian matrix, 14, 58
fail-safe requirements, 83 JONSWAP sea spectrum, 19
fast fourier transformation, 18
feedback linearization, 99, 113 Kalman filter, 21, 79, 141
feedforward linearization, 99, 113 Keulegan-Carpenter (KC) number, 55, 68,
fluid’s kinetic energy, 36 74, 78
fluidmechanics, 133 kinematic surface condition, 135
frictional forces, 40 kinematics, 11, 153
Froude-Krylov hypothesis, 55 kinetic energy, 26, 58
kinetic energy of the fluid, 29
gain scheduled parameters, 21, 92 kinetic energy of the solid, 31
Gauss’ theorem, 30 Kirchhoff’s equations, 28, 33, 60
generalized coordinate, 15, 25, 26, 58
generalized forces, 28 Lagrangian, 26, 46, 84, 90, 103, 106
generalized momentum, 27, 63 Lagrangian formulation, 25, 27
global uniformly asymptotic stability, 102, Lagrangian mechanics, 5
105 Lagrangian system, 84
globally asymptotically stable, 89 Laplace’s equation, 30
gravity forces, 46 Legendre transformation, 63
Green’s second identity, 30 linear quadratic criteria, 84
linear damping, 44, 65
Hamilton principle function of optimization, linear velocity potential, 135
84 linear wave potential, 133
Hamilton’s canonical equations, 27 linear wave theory, 135
Hamilton-Jacobi equation, 84, 90, 103, 130 linearized equations of motion, 70
Hamiltonian, 26, 27, 63, 84, 129 low frequency model, 79
high frequency model, 79 lower bounded, 92
holonomic, 28 Lyapunov function, 105, 109, 132
hydrodynamics, 133 . Lyapunov theory, ,92 122
hydrostatical analysis, 57
mass matrix, 38
implementation, 99, 112 measurement vector, 89
incompressible fluid, 134, 135 minimum effort controllers, 4
inertia matrix (tensor), 25, 34, 59, 61 minimum control effort, 4
inertial reference frame, 58 minimum control effort criterias, 85
inertial-system, 11 minimum energy, 85
input uncertainty, 117 minimum fuel, 84
integral action, 120 model properties, 59
intermediate depth water, 136 modified parameter update laws, 122
irrotationa! fluid, 134 Morrisons equation, 55
ISSC sea spectrum, 18
ITTC sea spectrum, 18 natural frequency, 75, 78
INDEX 169
Navier-Stokes equations, 134 potential energy, 26, 45

near optimal, 89 prediction, 22
negative semi-definite, 92 principle of optimality, 4
NEROV, 66, 139 propeller, 52
NEROV nonlinear equation of motion, 153 propellers’ angular revolution, 25
NEROV background, 140 propulsion and control forces, 25, 47
NEROV computer system, 5, 141
NEROV free decay tests, 6 q-frame, 11, 58
NEROV general arrangement, 141 quadratic damping, 44
NEROV mathematical model, 5 quasi coordinates, 15, 25
NEROV model data, 153 quaternions, 11
NEROV overall vehicle design, 5 Rayleigh’s dissipation function, 40
NEROV propulsion system, 5, 50 reference trajectory, 88, 118
NEROV sensor system, 5, 141 regular wave theory, 17
NEROV state-space model, 73 reparameterization, 108
Newtonian, 26 restoring terms, 25
Newtonian damping, 40 Reynold’s number, 43
nonautonomous, 90, 102, 129 Riccati equation, 91, 93
nonholonomic, 15 rigid body’s nonlinear matrix, 38
nonlinear multivariable PID, 121 rigid body equations of motion, 33
NOpAC, 88, 89, 99 rotation matrix, 13
ROV, 1
off-diagonal coupling terms, 70
rudders, 48
open water test, 52
open-loop poles, 74 saturation handling, 117
optimal feedback law, 91, 104, 106 sea bottom condition, 135
optimal planning, 3 sensitivity to noise, 82
optimization, 83 shallow water waves, 136
optimization criterias, 5 ship-wave transfer functions, 21
overshoot, 83 similarity transformation, 64
OpAC, 88, 102 simulation study, 98, 111
singular, 13
parameter variation, 83 skew symmetric, 60
passive, 61 skin friction, 44
perfect decoupling, 120 small underwater vehicles, 78
performance index, 85, 86, 90, 103 stability, 83
periodical inspection, 1 state space model, 72
PID, 52, 121 state space representation of sea current, 24
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum, 18 state variables, 88
position feedback loop, 93 state-space realizations, 17
positive definite, 31, 98 state-space representation, 71, 89, 102
potential damping, 25, 41, 55 state-space representations of sea waves, 20
170 INDEX
steady state, 92
steering fins, 48
Stoke’s drift, 133, 137
strictly passive, 62
structure, 89
tachogenerator, 51
task planning, 3
The angular velocity transformation matrix,
14
the state variables, 72
tracking, 98, 112
trajectory planning, 3
transformation matrix, 13
transient, 92
umbilical, 44
uniformly continuous, 92
uniformly globally asymptotically stable, 92
vehicle-fixed system, 11
velocity potential, 29, 133
virtual measure of tracking, 120
viscousus effects, 25
VME, 52, 141
VxWorks, 142
wake, 42
wake freaction number, 48
wave and current disturbance, 25
wave diffraction, 54
wave forces, 53
wave spectrum, 17
waves, 17
way-point planning, 3
work, 86, 87
workless forces, 64
x-frame, 11, 58, 62

PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NO9205 250

SVEIN IVAR SAGATUN NEI-NO--;

MODELING AND CONTROL OF

Portions of this document may be illegible in

Modeling and Control of Underwater

Svein Ivar Sagatun

Diploma Engineer from the Division of Marine Systems Design,

This page is intentionally left blank

List of Figures xiii

3 Modeling of Underwater Vehicles 19

3.1.1 The Lagrangian versus the Newtonian approach.................................. 20

3.13.5 Off-diagonal coupling terms................................................................ 70

4 Optimal Control Algorithms for Underwater Vehicles 79

4.8.7 Implementation of the OpAC algorithm................................................116

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 127

B Fluid Mechanics and Hydrodynamics 135

C The NEROV 141

D Results from the Free Decay Test 149

E A Complete Mathematical Model 153

E.l NEROV masses and inertias........................................................................ 156

1.1 Hierarchical optimal trajectory planning and tracking............................. 4

2.1 Coordinate systems used in this thesis........................................................ 12

C.l The NEROV vehicle - general arrangement..................................................... 141

Vectors and Matrices

A Area, projected or characteristic area

Cdd Equivalent quadratic drag coefficient

T Kinetic energy, time constant, wave period, propeller thrust

Sub- and superscripts

I am very grateful to my supervisor Professor Jens G. Balchen at Division of Engineering

1.1 Background and Motivation for this Research

As an example, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate’s regulation states that primary

The conventional method of inspecting underwater installations, e.g. bottom templates,

nipulators , typically Slingsby or Shilling, with 4 to 8 degrees of freedom (DOFs) Sagatun

• observation and inspection related to:

• location and identification of underwater objects.

• installation and retrieval of underwater systems

• underwater search and identification

• bottom photography and sampling

1.2 Optimal Path Planning, Trajectory Generation

Figure 1.1: Hierarchical optimal trajectory planning and tracking

1.3 Why Lagrangian Mechanics

1.4 Contributions of this Thesis

• overall vehicle design , Sagatun and Fossen (1990b)

• propulsion system, Sagatun and Fossen (1991a)

• sensor system, Fossen and Sagatun (1991b)

• computer system, Sagatun and Fossen (1991b)

• mathematical model, Fossen and Sagatun (1991c)

1.5 A Brief Tour through this Thesis

field operator year number of

under water in space

< io-4 [&]

• launch loads low frequency < Q.3Hz high frequency 3 — 500/?z

Table 1.2: A comparison between underwater and space robotics

2.2 Coordinate Systems

Figure 2.1: Coordinate systems used in this thesis

2.3 Euler Angle Representation

A vector in system A can be transformed from system A to system B by premultiplying

sub- and superscripts are explained in the nomenclature.

2.3.1 The rotation matrix Ji(x£)

cipcO —stpcp + cipsOsp sipsp + cipapsd

~sB cOsp cOcp

2.3.2 The angular velocity transformation matrix ^(x#)

’ p" ' 4 '

2.5 Euler Parameters to Euler Angles Transforma

3.3.4 Rate of change of angular and linear impulses in a mov

0.1 __ i