Advertisement

Optimal shape design of an autonomous underwater vehicle based on multi-objective particle swarm optimization

  • Qirong TangEmail author
  • Yinghao Li
  • Zhenqiang Deng
  • Di Chen
  • Ruiqin Guo
  • Hai Huang
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Optimization of autonomous underwater vehicle’s shape is usually a multi-objective optimization problem, which is essential for autonomous underwater navigation and manipulation. To overcome the inefficiency of computational fluid dynamics software during the optimization process and the limitations of traditional single-objective optimization, a novel strategy combining genetic expression programming and crowding distance based multi-objective particle swarm algorithm is presented. Its central idea is as follows, several underwater vehicle shapes are analysed to obtain their water resistances and determine the best underwater robot shape. Shape factor of the bow and shape factor of the stern are employed as design variables, and sample points are selected by the optimal latin hypercube design. Then gene expression programming method is used to establish the surrogate model of resistance and surrounded volume. After that, the surrogate model based on the gene expression programming method is compared with that based on the surface respond method. The results show the superiority of the GEP method. Then the resistance and surrounded volume are set as two optimized variables and Pareto optimal solutions are obtained by using multi-objective particle swarm algorithm. Finally, the optimization results are compared with the hydrodynamic calculations, which shows the method proposed in the paper can greatly reduce the cost of computation and improve the efficiency of optimal shape design for underwater vehicle.

Keywords

Autonomous underwater vehicle Shape optimization Gene expression programming Multi-objective particle swarm optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61603277, 61873192, 51579053), the Key Pre-Research Project of the 13th-Five-Year-Plan on Common Technology (No. 41412050101), the SAST Project (No. 2016017). Meanwhile, this work is also partially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the Youth 1000 program project. It is also partially sponsored by the Key Basic Research Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation Plan (No. 15JC1403300), as well as the project supported by China Academy of Space Technology. All these supports are highly appreciated.

References

  1. Coello C, Lechuga M (2002) Mopso: a proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 congress on evolutionary computation. CEC’02, vol 2, pp 1051–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2002.1004388
  2. Coello C, Pulido G, Lechuga M (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(3):256–279.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2004.826067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crombecq K, Gorissen D, Deschrijver D, Dhaene T (2011) A novel hybrid sequential design strategy for global surrogate modeling of computer experiments. SIAM J Sci Comput 33(4):1948–1974.  https://doi.org/10.1137/090761811 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferreira C (2001) Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Syst 13(2):87–129.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1834.1208 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Forrester A, Keane A (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45(1):50–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gao L, Xiao M, Shao X, Jiang P, Nie L, Qiu H (2012) Analysis of gene expression programming for approximation in engineering design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(3):399–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0767-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson T (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(1):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-001-0160-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim BS, Lee YB, Choi DH (2009) Comparison study on the accuracy of metamodeling technique for non-convex functions. J Mech Sci Technol 23:1175–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-008-1201-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Myers R, Montgomery D (1995) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, Wiley series in probability and statistics, Chapter 1. Wiley, New York, pp 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1996.10484509 Google Scholar
  10. Prats M, Garcia JC, Fernandez JJ, Marin R, Sanz PJ (2011) Advances in the specification and execution of underwater autonomous manipulation tasks. In: OCEANS 2011 IEEE-Spain, pp 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1109/Oceans-Spain.2011.6003619
  11. Raquel C, Naval P (2005) An effective use of crowding distance in multi-objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, Washington DC, USA, pp 257–264.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1068009.1068047
  12. Sarkar N, Podder TK (2001) Coordinated motion planning and control of autonomous underwater vehicle-manipulator systems subject to drag optimization. IEEE J Ocean Eng 26(2):228–239.  https://doi.org/10.1109/48.922789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shao X, Yu M, Guo Y (2008) Structure optimization for very large oil cargo tanks based on FEM. Ship Build China 49(2):41–51.  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-4882.2008.02.006 Google Scholar
  14. Song L, Wang J, Yang Z (2013) Research on shape optimization design of submersible based on kriging model. J Ship Mech 17(1–2):8–13.  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-7294.2013.h1.002 Google Scholar
  15. Teodorescu L, Sherwood D (2008) High energy physics event selection with gene expression programming. Comput Phys Commun 178(6):409–419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2007.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yang Y, Li X, Gao L, Shao X (2013) A new approach for predicting and collaborative evaluating the cutting force in face milling based on gene expression programming. J Netw Comput Appl 36(6):1540–1550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2013.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang Z, Yu X, Pang Y (2011) Optimization of submersible shape based on multi-objective genetic algorithm. J Ship Mech 15(8):874–880.  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-7294.2011.08.007 Google Scholar
  18. Zhang H, Pan Y (2006) The resistance performance of a dish-shaped underwater vehicle. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 40(6):978–982.  https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1006-2467.2006.06.023 Google Scholar
  19. Zhou C, Xiao W, Tirpak T, Nelson P (2003) Evolving accurate and compact classification rules with gene expression programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(6):519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2003.819261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195.  https://doi.org/10.1162/106365600568202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zuo J, Tang C, Li C, Yuan C, Chen A (2004) Time series prediction based on gene expression programming. In: International conference on web-age information management, pp 55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27772-9_7

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Robotics and Multibody System, School of Mechanical EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Underwater VehicleHarbin Engineering UniversityHarbinPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations