Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T10:22:21.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Feasibility Study of Applying Laser Line Scanning to AUV Hydrodynamic Parameter Identification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2018

Yu-Cheng Chou*
Affiliation:
(Institute of Undersea Technology, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan)
Madoka Nakajima
Affiliation:
(Institute of Undersea Technology, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan)
Hsin-Hung Chen
Affiliation:
(Institute of Undersea Technology, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan)

Abstract

Precise control is a key factor in enabling Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) to complete various underwater activities. The development of UUV control rules is mostly based on UUV dynamic models. However, such dynamic models contain unknown hydrodynamic parameters that need to be identified. This paper presents a new method, Laser Line Scanning for Hydrodynamic Parameter Identification (LSHPI), which integrates laser line scanning, decoupled dynamics, and evolutionary optimisation to identify the hydrodynamic parameters of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV). In this research, laser images, seen from an on board camera's perspective and created using Open Graphics Library (OpenGL), were used to validate LSHPI's feasibility. The accuracy of the AUV positions and Euler angles obtained by the laser image-based methods were investigated for each decoupled One-Dimensional (1D) motion and the influence of other motion disturbances on the accuracy of the obtained AUV positions or Euler angles was also evaluated. In addition, the accuracy of the surge-related hydrodynamic parameters obtained by LSHPI was investigated under different motion disturbances. Based on the hydrodynamic parameter identification results under different motion disturbances, LSHPI's feasibility was successfully validated.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Avila, J.J., Nishimoto, K., Sampaio, C.M. and Adamowski, J.C. (2012). Experimental investigation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of a remotely operated vehicle using a planar motion mechanism. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 134, 02160110216016.Google Scholar
Avila, J.P., Donha, D.C. and Adamowski, J.C. (2013). Experimental model identification of open-frame underwater vehicles. Ocean Engineering, 60, 8194.Google Scholar
Caccia, M., Indiveri, G. and Veruggio, G. (2000). Modeling and identification of open-frame variable configuration unmanned underwater vehicles. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 25, 227240.Google Scholar
Caccia, M. and Veruggio, G. (2000). Guidance and control of a reconfigurable unmanned underwater vehicle. Control Engineering Practice, 8, 2137.Google Scholar
Chen, H.-H. (2008). Vision-based tracking with projective mapping for parameter identification of remotely operated vehicles. Ocean Engineering, 35, 983994.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and Clauberg, B. (1993). Issues in the implementation of an indirect adaptive control system. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 18, 311318.Google Scholar
Fossen, T.I. (1994). Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. Wiley New York.Google Scholar
Gracias, N.R., Van Der Zwaan, S., Bernardino, A. and Santos-Victor, J. (2003). Mosaic-based navigation for autonomous underwater vehicles. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 28, 609624.Google Scholar
Martin, S.C. and Whitcomb, L.L. (2014). Experimental Identification of Six-Degree-of-Freedom Coupled Dynamic Plant Models for Underwater Robot Vehicles. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 39, 662671.Google Scholar
Nakamura, M., Asakawa, K., Hyakudome, T., Kishima, S., Matsuoka, H. and Minami, T. (2013). Hydrodynamic Coefficients and Motion Simulations of Underwater Glider for Virtual Mooring. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 38, 581597.Google Scholar
Negahdaripour, S. and Xu, X. (2002). Mosaic-based positioning and improved motion-estimation methods for automatic navigation of submersible vehicles. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 27, 7999.Google Scholar
Nomoto, M. and Hattori, M. (1986). A deep ROV Dolphin 3K: design and performance analysis. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 11, 373391.Google Scholar
Ridao, P., Tiano, A., El-Fakdi, A., Carreras, M. and Zirilli, A. (2004). On the identification of non-linear models of unmanned underwater vehicles. Control Engineering Practice, 12, 14831499.Google Scholar
Sivanandam, S. and Deepa, S. (2007). Introduction to genetic algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Smallwood, D.A. and Whitcomb, L.L. (2003). Adaptive identification of dynamically positioned underwater robotic vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 11, 505515.Google Scholar
Valeriano-Medina, Y., Martínez, A., Hernández, L., Sahli, H., Rodríguez, Y. and Cañizares, J. (2013). Dynamic model for an autonomous underwater vehicle based on experimental data. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, 19, 175200.Google Scholar
Wang, C.-C. and Cheng, M.-S. (2007). Nonmetric camera calibration for underwater laser scanning system. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 32, 383399.Google Scholar
Wright, R.S., Haemel, N., Sellers, G. and Lipchak, B. (2010). OpenGL SuperBible: Comprehensive Tutorial and Reference. Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar