Experimental Identification of Three Degree-of-Freedom Coupled Dynamic Plant Models for Underwater Vehicles

  • Stephen C. Martin
  • Louis L. Whitcomb
Part of the Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences book series (LNCIS, volume 474)


This paper addresses the modeling and experimental identification of five different three degree-of-freedom (DOF) coupled nonlinear second-order plant models for low-speed maneuvering of fully actuated open-frame underwater vehicles for the surge, sway, and yaw DOFs. A comparative experimental evaluation of five different candidate plant models, whose unknown plant parameters are estimated from data obtained in free-motion vehicle trials, is reported. Model performance is evaluated for each of the five different 3-DOF coupled nonlinear finite-dimensional second-order plant models as identified by ordinary least squares (OLS) and total least squares (TLS), respectively, by comparing the mean absolute error between the experimentally observed vehicle velocities and the velocities obtained by a numerical simulation of the identified plant models. A cross-validation is reported which evaluates the performance of a plant model to accurately reproduce observed plant velocities for experimental trials differing from the trials from which the plant model parameters were estimated.


Ordinary Little Square Reynolds Average Navier Stoke Reynolds Average Navier Stoke Underwater Vehicle Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank Dr. D. R. Yoerger who graciously provided the use of his 300-kHz SHARPS navigation system. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation under Award #0812138. Stephen C. Martin was supported by a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, a Link Foundation Doctoral Research Fellowship in Ocean Engineering and Instrumentation, and an Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Scholarship.


  1. 1.
    Alin, N., Bensow, R.E., Fureby, C., Huuva, T., Svennberg, U.: Current capabilities of DES and LES for submarines at straight course. J. Ship Res. 54(3), 184–196 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avila, J., Adamowski, J.: Experimental evaluation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of a ROV through Morison’s equation. Ocean Eng. 38(17–18), 2162–2170 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avila, J., Adamowski, J., Maruyama, N., Takase, F., Saito, M.: Modeling and identification of an open-frame underwater vehicle: the yaw motion dynamics. J. Intell. Robot. Sys. 64, 1–20 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avila, J., Nishimoto, K., Sampaio, C., Adamowski, J.: Experimental investigation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of a remotely operated vehicle using a planar motion mechanism. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 134, 021,601(1–6) (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachmayer, R., Whitcomb, L.L., Grosenbaugh, M.: An accurate finite-dimensional dynamical model for the unsteady dynamics of marine thrusters. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 25(1), 146–159 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caccia, M., Indiveri, G., Veruggio, G.: Modeling and identification of open-frame variable configuration underwater vehicles. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 25(2), 227–240 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, S.K., Yuh, J., Takashi, G.Y.: Development of the omni-directional intelligent navigator. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2(1), 44–53 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conte, G., Zanoli, S.M., Scaradozzi, D., Conti, A.: Evaluation of hydrodynamics parameters of a UUV: a preliminary study. In: First International Symposium on Control, Communications and Signal Processing, 2004, pp. 545–548 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elbert, T.F.: Estimation and Control of Systems. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York, NY (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldman, J.: Model investigation of stability and control characteristics of a preliminary design for the deep submergence rescue vessel (DSRV scheme A). Technical report AD637884, Hydromechanics Laboratory, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington D.C. (1966)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feldman, J.: DTNSDC revised standard submarine equations of motion. Technical report, US Department of Defense (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fossen, T.I.: Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fossen, T.I.: Marine Control Systems: Guidance, Navigation and Control of Ships and Underwater Vehicles. Marine Cybernetics, Trondheim (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gertler, M., Hagen., G.: Standard equations of motion for submarine simulation. Technical report, US Department of Defense (1967)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodman, A.: Experimental techniques and methods of analysis used in submerged body research. Technical report, US Department of Defense (1960)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Healey, A.J., Papoulias, F.A., Cristi, R.: Design and experimental verification of a model based compensator for rapid AUV depth control. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Unmanned Untethered Submersible Technology, pp. 458–474 (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hegrenaes, Ø., Hallingstad, O., Jalving, B.: Comparison of mathematical models for the HUGIN 4500 AUV based on experimental data. In: International Symposium on Underwater Technology. UT 2007 - International Workshop on Scientific Use of Submarine Cables and Related Technologies 2007, pp. 558–567. Tokyo, Japan (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, T., Liu, H., Groves, N., Forlini, T., Blanton, J., Gowing, S.: Measurements of flows over an axisymmetric body with various appendages (DARPA SUBOFF Experiments). In: Proceedings of the 19th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Seoul, South Korea (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humphreys, D., Watkinson, K.: Prediction of acceleration hydrodynamic coefficients for underwater vehicles from geometric parameters. Technical report, Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory (1978). (NCSL TR 327-78)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Imlay, F.: The complete expressions for added mass of a rigid body moving in an ideal fluid. Technical report, US Department of Defense (1961)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, J., Kim, K., Choi, H., Seong, W., Lee, K.: Estimation of hydrodynamic coefficients for an AUV using nonlinear observers. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 27(4), 830–840 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kinsey, J., Whitcomb, L.: Preliminary field experience with the DVLNAV integrated navigation system for manned and unmanned submersibles. In: Proceedings of the 1st IFAC Workshop on Guidance and Control of Underwater Vehicles. GCUV ’03, pp. 82–89. New Port, South Wales, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marco, D., Healey, A.: Surge motion parameter identification for the NPS Phoenix AUV. In: Proceedings International Advanced Robotics Program IARP 98, pp. 197–210. University of South Louisiana (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martin, S.: Advances in six-degree-of-freedom dynamics and control of underwater vehicle. Ph.D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Baltimore, MD (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin, S.C., Whitcomb, L.L.: Preliminary results in experimental identification of 3-DOF coupled dynamical plant for underwater vehicles. In: Proceedings of IEEE/MTS Oceans’2008, pp. 1–9. Quebec City, Canada (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mishra, V., Vengadesan, S., Bhattacharyya, S.: Translational added mass of axisymmetric underwater vehicles with forward speed using computational fluid dynamics. J. Ship Res. 55(3), 185–195 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perrault, D., Bose, N., O’Young, S., Williams, C.D.: Sensitivity of AUV added mass coefficients to variations in hull and control plane geometry. Ocean Eng. 30(5), 645–671 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sarkar, T., Sayer, P., Fraser, S.: A study of autonomous underwater vehicle hull forms using computational fluid dynamics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 25(11), 1301–1313 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smallwood, D., Whitcomb, L.L.: Preliminary identification of a dynamical plant model for the jason 2 underwater robotic vehicle. In: Proceedings of IEEE/MTS Oceans’2003, pp. 688–695. San Diego, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smallwood, D.A., Whitcomb, L.L.: Adaptive identification of dynamically positioned underwater robotic vehicles. IEEE Trans. Control Sys. Technol. 11(4), 505–515 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Huffel, S., Vandewalle, J.: The Total Least Squares Problem: Computational Aspects and Analysis. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whitcomb, L., Yoerger, D.: Development, comparison, and preliminary experimental validation of nonlinear dynamic thruster models. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 24(4), 481–494 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maritime Systems Division, U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center PacificSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, G.W.C. Whiting School of EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations