Attitude coordination of multi-HUG formation based on multibody system theory
- 66 Downloads
Application of multiple hybrid underwater gliders (HUGs) is a promising method for large scale, long-term ocean survey. Attitude coordination has become a requisite for task execution of multi-HUG formation. In this paper, a multibody model is presented for attitude coordination among agents in the HUG formation. The HUG formation is regarded as a multi-rigid body system. The interaction between agents in the formation is described by artificial potential field (APF) approach. Attitude control torque is composed of a conservative torque generated by orientation potential field and a dissipative term related with angular velocity. Dynamic modeling of the multibody system is presented to analyze the dynamic process of the HUG formation. Numerical calculation is carried out to simulate attitude synchronization with two kinds of formation topologies. Results show that attitude synchronization can be fulfilled based on the multibody method described in this paper. It is also indicated that different topologies affect attitude control quality with respect to energy consumption and adjusting time. Low level topology should be adopted during formation control scheme design to achieve a better control effect.
Key wordshybrid underwater gliders (HUGs) formation attitude coordination multibody system Kane’s equation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors appreciate all the team members for their contribution to this research.
- Chen, Z.E., Yu, J.C., Zhang, A.Q., Yi, R.W. and Zhang, Q.F., 2013. Folding propeller design and analysis for a hybrid driven underwater glider, 2013 OCEANS-San Diego, IEEE, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Huston, R.L. and Liu, Y.W., 1991. Dynamics of Multibody System, Tianjin University Press, Tianjin. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Kane, T.R. and Levinson, D.A., 1985. Dynamics: Theory and Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- Liang, X.L., Wu, W.C., Chang, D. and Zhang, F.M., 2012. Real-time modelling of tidal current for navigating underwater glider sensing networks, ANT 2012 and MobiWIS 2012, Niagara Falls, Canada, pp. 1121–1126.Google Scholar
- Liu, F., Wang, Y.H. and Wang, S.X., 2014. Development of the hybrid underwater glider PetreI-II, Sea Technology, 55(4), 51–54.Google Scholar
- Merckelbach, L.M., Briggs, R.D., Smeed, D.A. and Griffiths, G., 2008. Current measurements from autonomous underwater gliders, Proceedings of the IEEE/OES 9th Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology, IEEE, Charleston, SC, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
- Perry, R.L., DiMarco, S.F., Walpert, J., Guinasso, N.L., Jr. and Knap, A., 2013. Glider operations in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 2013 OCEANS-San Diego, IEEE, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Smith, T.R., Hanβmann, H. and Leonard, N.E., 2001. Orientation control of multiple underwater vehicles with symmetry-breaking potentials, Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, Orlando, FL, pp. 4598–4603.Google Scholar
- Wang, Y.H. and Wang, S.X., 2009. Dynamic modeling and three-dimensional motion analysis of underwater gliders, China Ocean Engineering, 23(3), 489–504.Google Scholar
- Wang, Y.H., Zhang, H.W. and Wang, S.X., 2009. Trajectory control strategies for the underwater glider, Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China, pp. 918–921.Google Scholar
- Xue, D.Y., Wu, Z.L. and Wang, S.X., 2015. Dynamical analysis of autonomous underwater glider formation with environmental uncertainties, IUTAM Symposium on Dynamical Analysis of Multibody Systems with Design Uncertainties, Germany, pp. 108–117.Google Scholar
- Zhao, J., Hu, C.M., Lenes, J.M., Weisberg, R.H., Lembke, C., English, D., Wolny, J., Zheng, L.Y., Walsh, J.J. and Kirkpatrick, G., 2013. Three-dimensional structure of a Karenia brevis bloom: Observations from gliders, satellites, and field measurements, Harmful Algae, 29, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar