i

Dynamic Modeling and Control of an Autonomous

Underwater Vehicle (AUV)
Submitted in partial fulfillment of degree of
Bachelor and Master of Technology in
Aerospace Engineering


By

Chintan S. Raikar
Roll no: 08d01007

Under the Guidance of
Prof. Leena Vachhani
Prof. Hemendra Arya

Department of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
June, 2013
ii

Abstract

In recent years, there have been intensive efforts toward the development of
underwater vehicles. Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) has potential application in
marine exploration, defense and reconnaissance and oil industry. The model of underwater
vehicles strongly affects the dynamic performance as well as accurate control, navigation
and guidance of underwater vehicles. Accurate modeling of underwater vehicle is therefore
of prime importance for precision control and execution of path planning missions. The
model of underwater vehicles strongly affects the dynamic performance as well as accurate
control, navigation and guidance of underwater vehicles. This work deals with dynamic
modeling and control of Matsya AUV in which the hydrodynamic derivatives are determined
both theoretically and experimentally, based on the assumption that the motions in
different directions are decoupled. The dynamic model generated has been verified
experimentally and dynamic model is linearized using Jacobian method. Various operating
points are chosen for linearization and a PID controller is developed to control the heave and
heading motions of vehicle on the linearized model. Comparison between linear and non
linear models has been reflected in the simulations.






iii

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Leena Vachhani and Prof.
Hemendra Arya for their constant guidance during the course of this project. I would like this
opportunity to deluge my deepest gratitude to them for giving me such an innovative and
challenging project. They have been always there to discuss about our ideas and their moral
support always encouraged me carrying out our project work.
I would also like to thank AUV-IITB team of IIT Bombay for their hard work and
dedication shown in development of Matsya underwater vehicle. I would thank Anay Joshi,
Sneh Vaswani for their constant help while conducting experiments. All the members of the
team have shown immense support for this project without which completion would not
have been possible. I would extend my gratitude towards my lab mates Satyaswaroop,
Shripad Gade, G Sai Jaideep from Controls and Dynamics Laboratory for very interesting
discussion regarding this topic.
At last I would like to acknowledge my parents for their constant moral support during
testing times. This project has added new dimension to my approach while working on
problems and I would take this experience to further goals and objectives in my career.







iv

Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2. Development of Dynamic Model ................................................................................... 5
2.1 Rigid Body Dynamics ................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Translational Motion .................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Rotational Motion ...................................................................................... 7
3. Derivation of Dynamic Matrices .................................................................................. 10
3.1 Mass and Inertia Matrix .......................................................................................... 10
3.2 Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix ............................................................................... 10
4. Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments ............................................................................ 12
4.1 Radiation Induced Forces ........................................................................................ 12
4.1.1 Added Mass and Inertia ............................................................................ 12
4.1.2 Added Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix ...................................................... 13
4.1.3 Hydrodynamic Damping ........................................................................... 14
4.1.3.1 Potential Damping ..................................................................... 15
4.1.3.2 Skin Friction ............................................................................... 15
4.1.3.3 Wave Drift Damping ................................................................... 15
4.1.3.4 Damping Due to Vortex Shedding .............................................. 15
4.1.4 Restoring Forces and Moments ................................................................. 16
5. Calculation of Hydrodynamic Derivatives ..................................................................... 17
5.1 Strip Theory for Estimating Hydrodynamic Derivatives .......................................... 17
6. Dynamic Model of Matsya 1.0 and Matsya 2.0 ............................................................. 20
7. Parameter Calculations for Matya ................................................................................ 22
7.1 Assumptions on AUV Dynamics ............................................................................. 22
7.2 Determination of Dynamic Model of Matsya ......................................................... 23
7.3 Propulsive Forces and Moments ........................................................................... 24
7.4 Estimation of damping Coefficients ....................................................................... 25
8. System Identification for calculation of damping parameters ...................................... 27
8.1 Evaluation of damping parameters for surge, heave and sway .............................. 28
v

8.2 Evaluation of damping parameters for roll, pitch and yaw axes ............................... 31
8.2.1 Pitch damping calculation ......................................................................... 32
8.2.2 Roll damping calculation ........................................................................... 33
8.2.3 Yaw damping calculation .......................................................................... 34
9. Validation of Dynamic Model ....................................................................................... 35
9.1 Heave Experiments .................................................................................................. 35
9.2 Surge Experiments ................................................................................................... 35
9.3 Sway Experiments .................................................................................................... 36
9.4 Open loop Roll experiments ..................................................................................... 36
9.5 Open loop Pitch Experiments ................................................................................... 37
9.6 Open loop surge and depth control ......................................................................... 38
9.7 Simultaneous Roll and pitch excitaion ...................................................................... 39
10. Linearization of Dynamic Model ................................................................................... 41
10.1 Formulation of Jacobian Matrix ............................................................................. 41
10.2 Jacobian for 6 DOF systems.................................................................................... 43
10.3 Linearization of dynamic model of Matsya 2.0 ....................................................... 44
10.4 Open loop simulation of linearized model .............................................................. 46
11. Controllability Analysis of Linear model ....................................................................... 54
11.1 Controllability ........................................................................................................ 54
11.2 Design of PID Controller for Depth control ............................................................. 55
11.3 Design of PID Controller for Yaw control ................................................................ 56
12. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 58
13. Future Work .................................................................................................................. 60
14. Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 61
15. Appendix1 ..................................................................................................................... 64

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Inertial earth fixed frame XYZ and body fixed frame X
0
Y
0
Z
0
for a rigid body ..................6
Figure 2 Matsya 1.0...................................................................................................................20
Figure 3 Matsya 2.0...................................................................................................................21
Figure 4 Curve fit for surge drag ................................................................................................30
Figure 5 Curve fit for sway drag .................................................................................................30
Figure 6 Curve fit for heave drag ...............................................................................................31
Figure 7 Open Loop Pitch response from wet tests ....................................................................32
Figure 8 Open loop roll stability from wet tests .........................................................................33
Figure 9 Open loop yaw identification .......................................................................................34
Figure 10 Damping Parameters .................................................................................................34
Figure 11 Open loop roll experiments ........................................................................................36
Figure 12 open loop pitch experiments ......................................................................................37
Figure 13 Simultaneous Surge and depth control .......................................................................38
Figure 14 Observed response for simultaneous heave and depth control ...................................39
Figure 15 Open loop simulation of simultaneous pitch and roll ..................................................39
Figure 16 Observed response for Simultaneous pitch and roll in open loop ................................40
Figure 17 Open loop roll performance by linearized model 2 .....................................................49
Figure 18 Surge and depth performance for linearized model ....................................................50
Figure 19 Open loop positive roll and negative pitch .................................................................51
Figure 20 Open loop roll with surge and pitch............................................................................52
Figure 21 Surge and Depth control with an initial positive pitch ................................................53
Figure 22 depth control comparison for linear and non linear model .........................................56
Figure 23 Yaw command of 90 degrees .....................................................................................57
Figure 24 Definition of Reference frames ...................................................................................65





vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Strip theory estimates for 2D surface ............................................................................18
Table 2 Dimensions and vehicle specifications for Matsya 1.0 and 2.0 .......................................21
Table 3 Hydrodynamic parameters for Matsya ..........................................................................24
Table 4 Damping Coefficients for Matsya ..................................................................................26
Table 5 Surge Drag force form wet tests ....................................................................................28
Table 6 Sway Drag force from wet tests ....................................................................................29
Table 7 Heave Drag force from wet tests ...................................................................................29
Table 8 Curve fitted parameters ................................................................................................31
Table 9 Open loop Heave tests ..................................................................................................35
Table 10 Open loop surge tests..................................................................................................35
Table 11 Open loop sway tests ..................................................................................................36
Table 12 Eigenvalues for linearized system for variable surge speeds ........................................45
Table 13 Eigenvalues for linearized system for variable surge speeds ........................................45
Table 14 Eigenvalues for linearized system for variable surge speeds ........................................46









viii

Nomenclature
AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

Body frame x co-ordinate

Body frame y co-ordinate

Body frame z co-ordinate

Angle of rotation about the x

B
axis

Angle of rotation about the y

B
axis

Angle of rotation about the x

B
axis

Body frame state vector

Inertial frame state vector
velocity state vector corresponding to the vehicle

1
Vector defining the linear velocities

2
Vector defining the angular velocities
Position along the x axis
Position along the y axis
Position along the z axis

1
Vector defining the position of vehicle

2
Vector defining the attitude in Euler angles

1
Position vector transformation matrix

2
Velocity vector transformation matrix
mass and inertia matrix
() Coriolis and centripetal matrix
() hydrodynamic damping matrix
gravitational and buoyancy vector
External force and torque vector

External force

0
Absolute angular momentum

0
Velocity of particle
ix

Time derivative in inertial frame
Time derivative in body frame
Angular velocity

centre of gravity vector

Mass density of a rigid body

0
External Moment
Force applied to vehicle along the x axis
Force applied to vehicle along the y axis
Force applied to vehicle along the z axis
Torque applied to vehicle along the x axis
Torque applied to vehicle along the y axis
Torque applied to vehicle along the z axis
The vehicles linear velocity along the x axis
The vehicles linear velocity along the y axis
The vehicles linear velocity along the z axis
vehicle roll rate
vehicle pitch rate
vehicle yaw rate

x co-ordinate of centre of gravity vector with respect to origin

y co-ordinate of centre of gravity vector with respect to origin

z co-ordinate of centre of gravity vector with respect to origin

x co-ordinate of centre of buoyancy vector with respect to origin

y co-ordinate of centre of buoyancy vector with respect to origin

z co-ordinate of centre of buoyancy vector with respect to origin

rigid body mass matrix

added mass matrix

rigid body Coriolis and centripetal matrix

added Coriolis and centripetal matrix

External force and torque vector of rigid body

x

Kinetic energy of vehicle

Kinetic energy of added mass

Force along the x axis due to added mass

Force along the y axis due to added mass

Force along the z axis due to added mass

Torque along the x axis due to added mass

Torque along the y axis due to added mass

Torque along the z axis due to added mass

Potential damping term

Damping due to skin friction

Damping due to wave drift

Damping due to vortex shedding

Linear damping matrix

Quadratic damping matrix

Speed of the vehicle

Reynolds Number
Characteristic length
Volume of fluid displaced

1
Position of thruster with respect to origin
PWM Pulse width modulation

Equilibrium state vector

Equilibrium values of , , , , ,
(t) Input vector
() Nominal input vector
System matrix
Control Matrix
Output Matrix
Feed forward matrix
Jacobian matrix
xi

Linear damping parameter in x-direction

Quadratic damping parameter in x- direction

Added inertia/mass in x-direction due to surge speed

, , , , , Non linear functions describing dynamic of AUV in , , , , ,

Controllability matrix
1

1.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) have an increasingly
pervasive role in underwater research and exploration [1]. These vehicles generally have a
streamlined, torpedo-shaped body, and are intended for long-distance missions where their
low drag enables high speeds and coverage of a large distance. Hydrodynamic ns are used
to direct the vehicle and rely on forward motion to generate the forces required to change
orientation. Some AUVs use a combination of ns and through-body thrusters for control of
the vehicle. Through-body thrusters enable orientation control at low speeds, while the ns
provide control at higher speeds. Examples of these AUVs include the NPS Aries [2], Otter[3],
and C-SCOUT [4]. Inspired from the above examples, Matsya is an autonomous underwater
vehicle (AUV) developed by a team of students at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
(IITB). Developed over a design cycle of seven months, Matsya is capable of localizing itself in
an underwater environment and complete some predefined real life tasks for the Robosub
2012 competition. The thesis investigates the Matsya prototype as a basic test bench for
design and validation of dynamic model and thereby conducts some experiments on real life
situations.
Underwater vehicles have immense applications such as underwater surveillance,
marine life exploration, pipe line repairs et al. Today, Indias interest in oil and gas
exploration and fisheries is well known [5]. Development of unmanned underwater vehicle is
crucial for future of oil and gas exploration. Whitecomb [6] says that low cost AUV and ROV
systems are about to replace manned hydrographic survey launches in deep sea exploration.
Besides these, the military applications of underwater vehicles are numerous especially in
underwater reconnaissance and intelligence gathering operations [6]. The Maya AUV of India
is a recent advancement by Defense and Research Organization (DRDO) in oceanographic
studies and environmental monitoring of coastal waters and estuaries [7].

2

Underwater vehicles are designed to work over large number of operating points.
Aircrafts and submarines are usually linearized about different constant forward speeds.
Linear control theory and gain scheduling techniques are applied to each of these operating
points. However, such models do not consider nonlinearities caused by quadratic drag and
lift forces. A linear approximation of non linearity will have both structural and parametric
non linearity which in case of mechanical systems is directly included in the model. This work
considers non linear modeling and control of autonomous underwater vehicles [7,8].
Most open-frame underwater vehicles have the following characteristics: two or three
symmetry planes, low operation velocities (< 1m/s), passively stable in roll and pitch angular
motions, and creeping and uncoupled motions. For this type of underwater vehicle, the 6-
DOF motion dynamic equations might be simplified [9]. As a result, an approximate
uncoupled scalar dynamic model is obtained which is sufficiently precise for control system
design.
The design and development of an autonomous undersea vehicle (AUV) is a
complex and expensive task. If the designer relies exclusively on prototype testing to
develop the vehicles geometry and controllers, the process can be lengthy and poses the
additional risk of prototype loss [10]. Every design iteration involves changes to the
prototype vehicle which may take days, followed by further testing. As a result, designers of
AUVs rely increasingly on computer modeling as a design tool [12], particularly for the initial
phases of vehicle development. An AUV simulation environment may include a number of
elements such as a collision detection module, a mission planner, a controller and a
dynamics model.
The function of the dynamics model is to represent the vehicles interaction with the
fluid in which it moves [11]. Use of such model allows the designer a means for determining
the inherent motion characteristics of a proposed vehicle before prototyping. Also, a
controller can be devised to improve the vehicles natural behavior. However, the usefulness
of the results is predicated on the ability to model the vehicle accurately when little or no
experimental data is available. This, in turn, requires a thorough understanding of the
vehicles dynamics which can be broken down into three sub-tasks:
3

i) Derivation of mathematical equation governing the motion of vehicle
ii) Determination of hydrodynamic characteristics of a vehicle
iii) The computational solution of the system of equations, for a known set of
control inputs, to obtain the ensuing motion
The hydrodynamic characteristics of AUVs have been quantified through the use of
hydrodynamic derivatives, which are determined using analytical, empirical or
experimental methods [12,13]. The hydrodynamic derivatives are coefficients in the
mathematical model which quantify the forces acting on the vehicle as a function of its
attitude and motion. A number of methods have been proposed for the determination of
hydrodynamic coefficients [12, 13]. They can be broadly classified into test-based and
predictive methods. The former include direct experimental determination based on wind-
tunnel or tow-tank model tests [22]; as well as testing of full-size captive vehicles [10].
System identification techniques [17, 18] are a less direct, but perhaps more efficient
test-based method and can be applied to free-swimming model or full-size vehicle
tests. An overriding disadvantage of the above methods is the need for a vehicle, as well
as laboratory or in-field testing facilities. These are often not available, either for
reasons of cost or, simply, because the vehicle has not yet been constructed. Predictive
methods offer an attractive alternative to test based methods when the vehicle is still
in the design stages, or when costs prohibit a full-scale testing program. Predictive
methods are most likely to yield reasonable results when applied to streamlined
vehicles since the behavior of these is more easily predicted [13, 16].
1.1 Outline of the report
Chapter 2 focuses on the theory behind development of dynamic using first principles.
Chapters 3 and 4 describe the definition of various parameters of the dynamic model and
discuss in detail about the hydrodynamic forces and moments exerted on the vehicle. The
evaluation of added inertia parameters of dynamic model and the assumptions involved
are outlined in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 reflects upon the Matysa vehicle of IIT Bombay and
its two variants. Chapter 7 describes the methods used to evaluate parameters for Matsya
4

1.0. Evaluation of damping parameters using basic system identification techniques have
been elaborately portrayed in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 includes the experimental results for
validation of dynamic model along with comparison with simulations. The dynamic model
is further linearized and stability analysis is shown in chapter 10. A basic PID controller
design and its results are discussed in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 and 13 describe the overall
brief conclusions from the project along with work that can be taken up in future.
The stage 1 of the project dealt mainly with understanding the development of
dynamic model and evaluation of the dynamic parameters. Methods to evaluate the added
inertia and damping parameters were surveyed. A crude program for simulation of AUV
dynamics as developed. Taking Matysa 1.0 as the test bench, dynamic model was
developed. However, much of damping parameters were taken from vehicles of similar
shape. The dynamic model was simulated for various open loop and closed loop
conditions.
For the second stage, focus was on accurate determination of parameters of dynamic
model. Hence, underwater tests have been conducted for evaluation of damping
parameters. Since, the development of new version of Matysa was in pipeline, all the
parameters have been reevaluated for Matsya 2.0. Also, underwater tests have been
conducted for validating the dynamic model of the vehicle. The dynamic model has been
linearized about various equilibrium points and its performance against non linear model
has been evaluated. A basic PID controller has been designed over the linear model for
control of depth and heading of the vehicle.






5

2.
Development of Dynamic Model
Dynamic modeling of an underwater vehicle consists of writing and solving the
equations which govern the vehicles motion in 3-D space. This is done by describing the
translational and rotational position and velocity of a vehicle-fixed coordinate frame relative
to an inertial coordinate frame (Earth). The dynamic model is derived from the Newton-Euler
motion equation and is given by,
+ + + = (1)
where is a mass and inertia matrix, () is a Coriolis and centripetal terms matrix,
() is a hydrodynamic damping matrix, () is the gravitational and buoyancy vector, is
the external force and torque input vector, and is the velocity state vector.
Newton Euler formulation based on Newtons second law relates mass , acceleration

and force

as:-

(2)
Eulers formulation is based on two axioms in terms of expressing Newtons second law
for law of conservation of linear momentum

and angular momentum

. Accordingly we
have the following:

(3)

(4)





6

2.1 Rigid Body Dynamics
For marine vehicles it is desirable to derive the equations of motion for an arbitrary
origin in locally body fixed frame of reference. Since, hydrodynamic and kinematic forces and
moments are given in body fixed frame B, the entire formulation is done in body frame B.

Figure 1 Inertial earth fixed frame XYZ and body fixed frame X
0
Y
0
Z
0
for a rigid body
Courtesy: Fossen, Thor I. "Guidance and control of ocean vehicles." New York (1994). Pg 22
2.1.1 Translational motion
Figure 1 represents a rigid body with its origin at O. The earth fixed frame is defined by
XYZ while body frame
0

0
is centered at origin O.
0
represents the position vector of
body frame witch respect to earth frame and

represents the position of centre of gravity

of rigid body with respect to body frame. Each particle on body has a velocity and position
vector with respect to origin 0.
From the figure 1, it is evident that,

=
0
+

5

7

Velocity of centre of mass is given by,

=
0
+

6
Relation between time derivatives of inertial and non inertial frames is given by,
= + (7)
Where is time derivative in Earth fixed frame of reference XYZ and is time derivative
in body frame of reference
0

0
, and is the angular velocity of body frame .
Thus from (6) and (7) and considering that
0
=
0

= 0 for a rigid body

=
0
+

8
Similarly acceleration vector can be found as:

=
0
+

(9)

=
0
+
0
+

(10)
Substituting in equation (2), we get

0
+
0
+

=
0
(11)
If origin of body frame B,
0

0
is chosen to coincide with vehicles centre of gravity,
we have

= 0 0 0

. Hence,
0
=

and
0
=

, equation (11) yields,

(12)
2.1.2 Rotational Motion
The absolute angular momentum
0
about origin O is defined in terms of

0
=

(13)
where

is the mass density of the rigid body.

(14)
But Total moment M, is defined as
8

0
=

(15)

0
=
0

(16)
The centre of gravity of vehicle is defined as,

=
1

(17)
Time derivative of

is given by,

=

(18)
From (16),(17) and (18) we have,

=
0

(19)
Absolute angular momentum can be written as,

0
= ( )

= (
0
)

(20)
But (
0
)

0
=

0
(21)
From definition of moment of inertia
0
,

=
0
(22)

0
=
0
+

0
(23)
Time derivative of
0
from (19) and using property described in (23)

=
0
+
0
+ (

)
0
+

0
+
0
(24)
Eliminating
0

from (19) and (24),

0
+
0
+

0
+
0
=
0
(25)
If origin of body frame B,
0

0
is chosen to coincide with vehicles centre of gravity,
we have

= 0 0 0

. Hence,
0
=

and
0
=

, equation (25) yields,

(26)
9

Finally, we can consolidate the above derivation by writing (12) and (26) in component
form where,

0
= , ,

=
1

0
= , ,

=
2


0
= , ,

=
1

0

0

= , ,

=
2

0

[ +

2
+
2
+

+ = (27)
[ +

2
+
2
+

+ = (28)
[ +

2
+
2
+

+ = (29)

+ (
2

2
)

+ = (30)

+ (
2

2
)

+ = (31)

+ (
2

2
)

+ = (32)

These equations are expressed in more compact form as:

(33)
Where = , , , , ,

is linear and angular velocity vector in body frame B and

= , , , , ,

is generalized vector of external forces and moments. The following

section will discuss in detail about each of these matrices. The following chapters describe
the derivation of these matrices and the additional forces on the vehicle due to motion in
fluid.
10

3.
Derivation of Dynamic Matrices
The dynamic model is derived from the Newton-Euler motion equation and is given by,
+ + + =
where is a mass and inertia matrix, () is a Coriolis and centripetal terms matrix,
() is a hydrodynamic damping matrix, () is the gravitational and buoyancy vector, is
the external force and torque input vector, and is the velocity state vector.
3.1 Mass and Inertia matrix
The mass and inertia matrix consists of a rigid body mass and an added mass,
respectively M
RB
and M
A

=

11

12

21

22
(34)
The rigid body mass term

can be written as,

=
+

(35)

0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0

0
0

(36)
3.2 Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix
Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix have contribution due to rigid body mass and added
mass and inertia.
=

(37)
These matrices are obtained through use of Kirchhoffs flow equation and property of
kinetic energy of a rigid mass.
11

Kinetic energy in quadratic form is given by, =
1
2

38
=
1

2

1
= , ,

2
= , ,

=
1
2

11

1
+
1

12

2
+
2

21

1
+
2

22

2
(39)
Kirchhoffs equation in flow in vector form are given by,

1
+
2

1
=
1
(40)

2
+
2

2
+
1

1
=
2
(41)

1
=
11

1
+
12

2
(42)

2
=
21

1
+
22

2
(43)

1
+
2

0
33

2
(44)
Substituting (42 & 43) in (44) we get,

2

2

45

0
0
0

+
0
0
0

0
0
0

(46)
The next chapter describes the various external hydrodynamic forces and moments
due to motion in fluid.

12

4.
Hydrodynamic Forces and Moments
An underwater vehicle may experience two classes of hydrodynamic forces:
Radiation Induced Forces:- Forces on the body when the body is forced to oscillate with
wave excitation frequency and there are no incident waves
Diffraction forces:- Forces on body when body is restrained from oscillating and there
are incident regular waves
4.1 Radiation Induced Forces
The radiation Induced forces can be identified as sum of the following parameters
a) Added mass due to inertia of surrounding fluid
b) Radiation induced damping
c) Restoring forces due to Weight and Buoyancy

4.1.1 Added Mass and Inertia
The concept of added mass and inertia is commonly misunderstood as finite amount
mass and inertia of fluid particles attached to the body of underwater vehicle which amount
to overall new mass and inertia of vehicle [19]. However, it should be understood as pressure
induced forces and moments due to forced harmonic motion of the body which is in
proportion to acceleration of body.
For completely submerged vehicles, added mass is constant. For any vehicle to pass
through water, it should induce motion in otherwise stationary fluid. This implies that in
order for the vehicle to move, the fluid particle should deviate and as a consequence the
fluid surrounding vehicle must possess some kinetic energy given as:

=
1
2

(47)
13

The added inertia matrix is defines as,

11

12

21

22
(48)

The contribution of added mass to dynamics of AUV is further confirmed on
substituting MA in equation (46). Further using the Kirchhoffs fluid dynamic equations in
component form,

(49)
The added inertia force

is given by,

+ +

2

+

) (50)
Each of the terms in equation (50) is a contribution of added inertia and added mass to
be reflected in dynamics of vehicle as given in equations (27 - 32).
4.1.2 Added Mass Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix
Similar to rigid body Coriolis matrix, the hydrodynamic added mass Coriolis matrix
satisfies the skew symmetric condition.

=
0
33
(
11

1
+
12

2
)
(
11

1
+
12

2
) (
21

1
+
22

2
)
(51)
14

0
0
0
0

2

0
0
0

3
0

1

0
0
0

1
0

0

2
0

3
0

3
0

1
0

1
0

(52)
Where,

1
=

2
=

+

3
=

1
=

(53)

1
=

1
=

4.1.3 Hydrodynamic Damping
Hydrodynamic Damping for underwater vehicles is mainly caused by the following
phenomena:

= Radiation induced potential damping due to forced body oscillations.

= Linear Skin friction due to laminar boundary layers and quadratic skin friction
due to quadratic boundary layers

= Wave drift damping

= Damping due to vortex shredding

=

54
However, it is difficult to give a general expression of hydrodynamic damping matrix

() and hence it is commonly written as,

=

(55)
where

is a linear damping matrix and

is non linear damping matrix account for

higher order terms.
15

4.1.4 Potential Damping
The radiation induced damping term is usually referred to as potential damping.
However, the contribution from potential damping terms is very small as compared to
dissipative terms like viscous damping for underwater vehicles. Potential damping is
prominent for surface vehicles such as ships. Hence, this work does not take into account for
potential damping. Also, it is very difficult to evaluate the contribution of potential damping
due to lack of proper theory and expensive experimental setups.
4.1.4.1 Skin Friction
Contribution due to skin friction is consideration with both laminar and turbulent
boundary layer contributing to drag on the vehicle. The laminar skin friction drag is the sole
contributor to the linear damping matrix.

(56)
4.1.4.2 Wave drift Damping
Like potential damping, wave drift mainly affects surface and shallow water vehicles.
Wave drift damping can be interpreted as added resistance for surface vehicles advancing in
waves. Wave drift damping force is proportional to square of significant wave height. Wave
drift mainly affects the surge motion of vehicle rather than sway and yaw motion.
4.1.4.3 Damping due to vortex shredding
In a viscous fluid frictional forces are present such that the total energy of system is not
conserved accounting for the frictional losses. The viscous force due to vortex shedding and
turbulent boundary layer is together modeled as non linear damping forces.

=
1
2

(57)
16

Where U is velocity of vehicle, A is the projected area and

is the drag
coefficient. The drag coefficient depends on Reynolds number

which is a function of
velocity, characteristic length D and viscosity of fluid .

(58)

||

||

||

||

||

||

(59)
4.1.5 Restoring Forces and Moments
In hydrodynamic terminology, gravitational and buoyant forces are called restoring
forces. Gravitational forces

act through center of gravity of the vehicle

while the buoyancy forces

act through center of buoyancy of vehicle.

Restoring force vector in matrix form is given by,
=

(60)
The forces mentioned above are in body frame of reference and are defined as follows,

=
1
1

2

0
0

=
1
1

2

0
0

(61)
Where = = and is the volume of fluid displaced which is same as
the volume of the vehicle for an underwater vehicle.
=

(62)

17

5.
Calculation of Hydrodynamic Derivatives
There are several methods that will produce results for hydrodynamic parameters
based on a given geometry. The methods include analytical, experimental, computational,
and semi-empirical approaches. The distinctions between the modeling methods are further
described below.
i) Analytical: - Analytical methods for determining model parameter values include
implementing strip theory or solving Laplace's equation [19].
ii) Experimental: - These studies include sea trials and tow-tank tests. These methods
are costly due to the expense of constructing scale vehicle models and operating
the experimental facility. Further, the added mass and inertia terms are difficult to
obtain from sea trials [10, 22].
iii) Computational: - Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) involve solving the Navier-
Stokes flow equations numerically using a computer. CFD programs are less
expensive than tow-tank and sea trial testing and more broadly applicable than
analytical methods, however they require an expert to grid the model and validate
the results [15].
iv) Semi-empirical: - These methods use experimentally derived guidelines for
estimating model parameter values for vehicles with generic shapes [13].
This study will use analytical strip theory for calculation of hydrodynamic parameters
for its simplicity and scalability to underwater vehicles.
5.1 Strip theory for estimating hydrodynamics
Strip theory, also known as slender body approximation, can be applied to slender
bodies in order to estimate the hydrodynamic parameters (such as added mass and inertia)
for a body using the 2D sectional properties. Strip theory can also approximate other
parameters in the equations of motion, such as damping coefficients. Strip theory takes the
18

hydrodynamic parameters of the 2D shape and integrates the parameters over the length of
the vessel [19,22]. The expressions for the hydrodynamic coefficients are as follows,

11
=

=
11
2
,

2

22
=

=
22
2
,

33
=

=
33
2
,
/2
/2

44
=

=
44
2
,
/2
/2
(63)

55
=

=
11
2
,
/2
/2

66
=

=
11
2
,
/2
/2

Proper calculated assumption of a 2D area for body has proven to give satisfactory
results.
Coefficient Circle Ellipse Square

11
2

2

2
4.75
2

22
2

2

2
4.75
2

33
2

2

2
4.75
2

Table 1 Strip theory estimates for 2D surface
= , 2 = , ,
As per data given in table 1, for applying the same model for a non circular, ellipsoidal
or square vehicle an equivalent square length must be found out before using the direct 2D
approximations. Since, the vehicle under study is MATSYA, it has a roughly rectangular prism
shape a hence, the equivalent square length will be,
2 = (64)
According to [13], the strip theory is modified to obtained much more accurate results,
hence a parameter
0
is defined,
19

0
=
2

(65)
Where is the length of the vehicle, and 2 is the length of equivalent square
Similarly parameter
1
is defined as

1
= 1.51 0.15
0
1 (66)
The added mass is then found by an empirical relation,

=
44
2
,
/2
/2
=
2

33
2
,
/2
/2
+
2

22
2
,
/2
/2
(67)

=
55
2
,
/2
/2
=
2

33
2
,
/2
/2
+
2

11
2
,
/2
/2
(68)

=
66
2
,
/2
/2
=
2

11
2
,
/2
/2
+
2

22
2
,
/2
/2
(69)










20

6.
Dynamic Model of Matsya 1.0 and Matsya 2.0
For the purpose of this project, Matsya 1.0 and Matsya 2.0 have been taken as baseline
vehicles over which dynamic modeling have to be implemented. This section focuses on
derivation of dynamic model of Matsya 1.0 and Matsya 2.0 and identification of the
hydrodynamic parameters. This section will differentiate the utility of the two vehicles
designed and developed by Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Team of IIT Bombay. Matsya
1.0 was designed to understand basic underwater navigation and control problems and
would only navigate in shallow waters while Matsya 2.0 is an advanced prototype with
objective of executing manipulation tasks.
The basic difference lies in the degrees of freedom of the two vehicles with 1.0 having
5 degrees of freedom and no control in sway direction.

Figure 2 Matsya 1.0
Matsya 2.0 has 6 cross body thrusters with control over 5 degrees of freedom. Since
the roll axis is inherently stable due to mechanical construction of vehicle, this degree of
freedom is not controllable via thrusters.
21


Figure 3 Matsya 2.0
Most of the experimental validation was performed on Matsya 2.0 with various open
validation experiments being conducted. The upcoming sections will discuss the calculations
of parameters for both the variants of Matsya and comparison between the two vehicles.
Parameters Matysa 1.0 Matsya 2.0
Mass 20.2 kg 23
Weight 197.96 N 225.4 N
Buoyancy 217.56 N 227.36 N
Centre of Gravity

0 0 0

0 0 0

Centre of Buoyancy

0 0 0.1

0 0 0.1

Length 1.0 m 0.891 m
Breadth 0.53 m 0.70 m
Height 0.42 m 0.46 m
Table 2 Dimensions and vehicle specifications for Matsya 1.0 and 2.0
22

7.

Parameter Calculations for Matsya

For the purpose of this project, Matsya 1.0 and Matsya 2.0 have been taken as baseline
vehicles over which dynamic modeling have to be implemented. This section focuses on
derivation of dynamic model of Matsya 1.0 and Matsya 2.0 and identification of the
hydrodynamic parameters.
7.1 Assumptions on AUV Dynamics
Obtaining the parameters of the dynamic model is a difficult time consuming process.
Therefore assumptions on the dynamics of the AUV are made to simplify the dynamic model
and to facilitate modeling. The following assumptions are made:
i) Relative less speed -- Lift forces are neglected because vehicle operates at very small
speed. The maximum speed of vehicle was analytically found to be 1 m/s while 0.6 m/s
for Matsya 2.0 and this was confirmed during underwater experiments (dry tests).
ii) AUV symmetric about three planes -- The AUV is symmetric about the x-z plane and
close to symmetric about the y-z plane. Although the AUV is not symmetric about the
x-y plane it is assumed that the vehicle is symmetric about this plane, therefore it is
assumed that the degrees of freedom are decoupled. The AUV can be assumed to be
symmetric about three planes since the vehicle operates at relatively low speed.
iii) The -frame is positioned at the center of gravity,

= 0 0 0

iv) No environmental disturbances The AUV is assumed to be working in clean
environments without any disturbances due to wind and gusts. As the vehicle operates
at depth below 5-6 meters, such assumptions may hold.
v) Decoupled degrees of freedom - Decoupling assumes that a motion along one degree
of freedom does not affect another degree of freedom. Decoupling is valid for the
model that does not include ocean currents since the AUV is symmetric about its three
planes, the off- diagonal elements in the dynamic model are much smaller than their
23

counterparts and the hydrodynamic damping coupling is negligible at low speeds.
When the degrees of freedom are decoupled the Coriolis and centripetal matrix
becomes negligible, since only diagonal terms matter for the decoupled model.

7.2 Determination of Dynamic model for MATSYA
Using the assumptions stated in 7.1 and applying analytical and computational tools
like Solidworks and ANSYS the dynamical model for Matsya is obtained. Following lists out
the obtained hydrodynamic and rigid body matrices:
1) Rigid mass and Inertia matrix

0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0

(70)
2) Coriolis and Centripetal matrix

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0

0

0
0

0
0
0

(71)
3) Restoring Forces
=

)
(

(72)
4) Added Inertia and Coriolis Matrix
As per the discussion in section 7.1 the added mass matrix has diagonal
elements with no contribution from off diagonal elements. Since, the speed of
24

vehicle is very low and having 3-axes plane of symmetry, such an approximation is
valid.

()

0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0

0
0

0
0

(74)
The hydrodynamic parameters were calculated as per strip theory
approximation discussed in section 6.1.

Parameters Matsya 1.0 Matsya 2.0

-5.26 -12.39

-4.39 -20.39

-8.8 -20.39

-0.1209 -0.019

-0.74 -0.117

-0.43 -0.112
Table 3 Hydrodynamic parameters for Matsya
7.3 Propulsive Forces and Moments
The vector of propulsion forces and moments depends on specific configuration
of actuators such as propellers and rudders. Considering that this study considers a
vehicle based on thrusters and without any control surfaces, the force and torque vector
is defined by,
=

(75)

25

The dimension

depends on the number of thrusters and is mapping matrix

which defines the position of the individual thrusters. A mapping matrix for Matsya 1.0 is
given by,
=

0
0
1
0

1
0

0
0
1

2
0

0
0
1

3
0

1
0
0
0
0

4

1
0
0
0
0

(76)
For Matysa 2.0
=
1
4
2
3
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
T T
T T
x x
y y
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

(
(

(77)
No dynamic model of thruster is done since it is very fast response system as compared
to AUV. However, the forward and backward thrust of vehicle is not the same for same
power consumption. Hence, during the simulation of dynamic model a separate
compensation is included for generation of thrust force.
7.4 Estimation of Damping Coefficients
As per the discussion in section 5.1.3, a major contribution to drag of vehicle is due
to skin friction and cortex shedding. The generalized drag coefficient for a body is given as

=
2

(78)
Where is a drag coefficient and is the projected surface area. Drag coefficient is
a function of shape of the body, viscosity of fluid and Reynolds number.

0
+

2
(79)

0
is a function of body shape and independent of velocity, whereas

2
is
dependent on projected surface area and velocity of body and is used as non linear
26

damping coefficient as described in section (5.1.3). Following table lists out the damping
parameter for Matsya 1.0.
Damping Parameter Matsya 1.0

0.82

1.05

1.05

0.01

0.013

0.015

||
1.37

||
2.28

||
3.28

||
4.48e-3

||
6.08e-3

||
6.08e-3
Table 4 Damping Coefficients for Matsya
Some of the damping coefficients may not be obtained analytically due to complex analysis
involved. Hence, these were derived for Matysa 1.0 from vehicles [13, 15] of similar mass and
shape. However, as seen in Stage 1 of the project the data was erroneous and led to false
results. The following section used system identification techniques for calculation of damping
parameters for Matsya 2.0.






27

8.
System identification for calculation of damping parameters
System identification is the art and science of building mathematical models of
dynamic systems from observed input-output data [24]. To validate the dynamic model of
the AUV, the mass and damping parameters used in the dynamic model need to be
estimated. System identification of a dynamical system generally consists of the following
four steps
1. Data acquisition
2. Characterisation
3. Identification/estimation
4. Verification
The first and most important step is to acquire the input/output data of the system to
be identified. Acquiring data is not trivial and could be very much laborious and expensive.
This involves careful planning of the inputs to be applied so that sufficient information about
the system dynamics is obtained. If the inputs are not well designed, then it could lead to
insufficient or even useless data. The second step defines the structure of the system, for
example, type and order of the differential equation relating the input to the output. This
means selection of a suitable model structure. The third step is identification/estimation,
which involves determining the numerical values of the structural parameters, which
minimise the error between the system to be identified, and its model. Common estimation
methods are least squares (LS), instrumental-variable (IV), maximum-likelihood (MLE) and
the prediction-error method (PEM) [25,26].
The final step, verification, consists of relating the system to the identified model
responses in time or frequency domain to instill confidence in the obtained model. Residual
(correlation) analysis, Bode plots and cross-validation tests are generally employed for model
validation [27].
28

Decoupling between the degrees of freedom is used to treat every degree of freedom
separately.

+

+

(80)
Where

represents mass and inertia associated with considered degree of freedom

and

and

are linear and quadratic damping parameters,

are gravity and buoyancy

forces while

is term representing external forces.

To determine the behavior of the AUV, all the parameters in the above equation need
to be known. The input force/torque

is assumed to be known and can be calculated

directly from duty cycle/voltage measurements. The gravity and buoyancy matrix is known
from underwater neutral buoyancy tests. Both the rigid body inertia and added inertia are
known as described in previous sections. The remaining parameters

and

which are
unknown can be obtained through static and dynamic experiments.
8.1 Evaluation of damping parameters for surge, heave and sway
Drag force was computed in both directions for surge and heave degrees of freedom
using wet tests in swimming pool of IIT Bombay. In the equation (80), only the drag
parameters are unknown. The inertia, body forces and external forces have been modeled in
previous sections. Hence, the vehicle is tested at various surge, sway and heave speeds to
record the acceleration and velocities. The data is recorded at a sampling rate of 2 Hz. The
following tables lists the results of the experiments conducted.
Velocity
(m/s)
Drag Force (N)
Surge Forward Surge Backward
0.1 2.12 2.23
0.2 4.78 5.35
0.3 7.65 8.62
0.5 19.6 22.1
Table 5 Surge Drag force form wet tests
29


Velocity
(m/s)
Drag Force (N)
Sway Left Sway Right
0.1 4.46 4.97
0.2 8.77 10.52
0.35 16.33 19.6
Table 6 Sway Drag force from wet tests

Velocity
(m/s)
Drag Force (N)
Heave Down Heave Up
0.1 3.15 3.19
0.2 7.1 7.42
0.3 12.7 13.8
0.4 19.6 22.4
Table 7 Heave Drag force from wet tests
It is observed that the maximum speed achievable is along the surge direction while both
heave and sway direction have higher drag forces.
First a quadratic fit of the data is made in Matlab, which estimates the unknown
terms of the drag force equation
=
1

2
+
2
+
3
(81)
Where
1
is the quadratic damping term,
2
is the linear damping term and
3
is the
equation offset for basic fitting.
30


Figure 4 Curve fit for surge drag



Figure 5 Curve fit for sway drag
31


Figure 6 Curve fit for heave drag

Quadratic Fit
parameter
Surge Sway Heave

1
73.91 29.2 73.75

2
10.53 34.34 18.07

3
1.648 0.734 0.5875
Table 8 Curve fitted parameters
8.2 Evaluation of damping parameters for roll, pitch and yaw axes
For deducing parameters for roll pitch and yaw, the open loop roll and pitch stability
experiments were conducted. The open loop pitch and roll response recorded are illustrated
in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Also the pitch and roll rates were recorded using IMU data and
substituting all the values in equation (80) the damping parameters for roll, pitch and yaw
was calculated.



32

8.2.1 Pitch damping calculation

Figure 7 Open Loop Pitch response from wet tests
Following data was seen during open loop pitch response:-
= 1 =
2

= 1.897

2

= 2.45 = 1

= 0.0826

2

Using system Identification technique, we evaluated

= .
||
= .








-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
i
t
c
h


a
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
time
33

8.2.2 Roll damping Calculation

Figure 8 Open loop roll stability from wet tests
Following data was seen during open loop roll response:-
= 0.34 = 1.7381

= 0.0347

2

= 1.34 = 0.2635

= 0.0008

2

Using system identification technique, we evaluated

= .
||
= .

15, 0
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
R
o
l
l

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
time
34

8.2.3 Yaw damping calculation

Figure 9 Open loop yaw identification
The yaw damping coefficients are found in a similar manner,

= .
||
= .

Parameters Values

-1.153

||
73.91

34.34

||
29.2

18.07

||
73.75

4.5

||
2.23e-3

4.06

||
8.68e-1

1.02

||
1.08e-3
Figure 10 Damping Parameters
35

9.
Validation of Dynamic model
Through the open loop experiments conducted in Chapter 8, the damping parameters
were successfully identified. Thus, all the parameters of the model described in Chapter 3
with suitable assumptions as explained in Chapter 7 have been identified. We validate the
dynamic model by conducting some open loop experiments and corresponding simulation of
the dynamic model.
9.1 Heave Experiments
The open loop heave was tested by giving various combinations of 10 bit PWM input to
the heave thrusters. The maximum limit on PWM input is 512. The table lists the observed
and simulated settling speeds for various combinations.
PWM Observed Speed (m/s) Simulated Speed (m/s)
100 0.11 0.135
200 0.24 0.22
300 0.31 0.29
Table 9 Open loop Heave tests
The maximum observed speed in heave direction was 0.36 m/s
9.2 Surge Experiments
PWM Observed Speed (m/s) Simulated Speed (m/s)
100 0.20 0.21
200 0.25 0.31
400 0.4 0.45
500 0.5 0.5
Table 10 Open loop surge tests
36

9.3 Sway Experiments
PWM Observed Speed (m/s) Simulated Speed (m/s)
100 0.1 0.21
200 0.19 0.31
400 0.4 0.45
500 0.5 0.5
Table 11 Open loop sway tests
9.4 Open loop Roll experiments
Roll control was tested by giving a set initial deflection on 40 degrees and the
corresponding response was recorded from the IMU data. In dynamic model simulation a
similar simulation was performed. The settling time and the peaks recorded were found to
match to a great extent.

Figure 11 Open loop roll experiments
37

9.5 Open loop Pitch experiments
Open loop pitch performance was tested by giving a set initial deflection of 40 degrees
and the corresponding response was recorded from the IMU data. In dynamic model
simulation a similar simulation was performed. The settling time and the peaks recorded
were found to match to a great extent.

Figure 12 open loop pitch experiments
The simulation results obtained have matched the performance shown by vehicle in
the experiments. The experiments were carried for variety of pitch and roll angles and the
data obtained matched the simulation results.




38

9.6 Open loop surge and depth control

Figure 13 Simultaneous Surge and depth control
For open loop surge and heave, it was observed in the simulation that the vehicle
initially pitches before to settling to the required depth. Similar experiments were performed
in underwater tests there was indeed a pitch and surge axis coupling which gave rise to
inherent pitching of vehicle while surge and depth control were simultaneously activated.
39


Figure 14 Observed response for simultaneous heave and depth control
9.7 Simultaneous roll and pitch excitation

Figure 15 Open loop simulation of simultaneous pitch and roll
40


Figure 16 Observed response for Simultaneous pitch and roll in open loop











41

10.
Linearization of Dynamic Model
Though the dynamics of underwater vehicle system is highly coupled and non-linear in
nature, decoupled linear control system strategy is widely used for practical applications. In
modeling systems, we see that nearly all systems are nonlinear, in that the differential
equations governing the evolution of the system's variables are nonlinear. However, most of
the theory we have developed has centered on linear systems. To design a linear control
system, first it is necessary obtain a linear model of the system to which these techniques will
be applied. The model is linearized over a set of surge speeds ranging from (0.1 m/s 0.5
m/s). We can heave and sway speed as in general they will be very less compared to surge
speed. However, to prevent the loss of generalization, linearization is done on all surge,
heave and sway axis. The state vector for equilibrium is given as:-

Where

are the equilibrium values of , , , , , respectively.

For equilibrium,

= 0 to ensure stability of vehicle. Due to inherent mechanical roll

and pitch stability we cannot have a non-zero p, q as an equilibrium point. So having a
equilibrium point will non-zero pitch rate and roll rate is not sustainable and system itself is
not stable at this points and the neighborhood region. Also having a non-zero yaw rate is not
feasible, as AUVs specifically used a tight yaw control for navigation which requires yaw rate
to settle to zero.
1) Equilibrium about surge :-

0 0 0 0 0

2) Equilibrium about sway :-

= 0

0 0 0 0

3) Equilibrium about heave :-

= 0 0

0 0 0

10.1 Formulation of Jacobian Matrix
In this section we develop Jacobian linearization of a nonlinear system," about a
specific operating point, called an equilibrium point.
42

Consider a non linear equation given by:-
= , , (82)
Suppose for a given nominal input (), there is a nominal state trajectory denoted by
(), we have,

= , , (83)
For the case of equilibrium,

, , = 0 (84)
When the initial state or inputs deviate from nominal state or inputs, we have
=
0
+ (85)
=
0
+ (86)
We will obtain a linear perturbation model to approximately describe x(t). Linear
model is simpler, easier to analyze and provides more insights.
We write the perturbed state as,
= + (87)
=

(88)

= , , , . (89)
= +, , + , , (90)
Now using Taylor series expansion,
( ), , (t) ( ), , (t)
1 1
( ( ), , ( )) ( ( ), , ( )) | ( ) | ( )
H.O.T
n n
i i
x t t u j x t t u k
j k
j k
f f
f x t t u t f x t t u t x t u t
x x
o o
= =
c c
= + +
c c
+


The higher order terms vanish as and vanish. Thus we have,

+ (91)
43

=

,,
=

,,

Equation (91) is more famously known as Jacobian linearization of non linear system.
10.2 Jacobian for 6 DOF system
The Jacobian matrix for 6-DOF system of equation defined in Chapter 3, is given by
= , , , , , +
1

= , , , , , +
2

= , , , , , +
3
(92)
= , , , , , +
4

= , , , , , +
5

= , , , , , +
6

where , , , , , are the functions describing the dynamic model of the vehicle.
=

93






44

10.3 Linearization of dynamic model of Matsya 2.0
1) Case 1:- Linearization about constant surge speeds
Computing the Jacobian matrix for the 1
st
case where nominal point is non zero velocity
in surge direction:-
=

| |
2 0 0 0 ( ) 0
0 ( ) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
u u u
v
w
p
q
r
X X u B W
Y B W
Z
K
M
N

(94)
The complete linearized model can be represented as follows:-
1 1
20.53 147.8 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 34.34 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 18.07 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
( ) ( )
0 0 0 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4.06 0 0.35 0.35 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1.02
A A
u u u
v v
w w
M M M M
p p
q q
r r

= + + +

( ( (
( ( (
( ( (
( ( (
( ( (
( ( (
( ( (
( ( (

1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0 0 0.23 0.23 0 0
T
T
T
T
T
T
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (

(95)
1
cos cos cos sin sin sin cos sin sin cos cos cos 0 0 0
sin cos cos cos sin sin sin cos sin sin cos sin 0 0 0
sin cos sin cos cos 0 0 0
(M M )
0 0 0 1 sin tan cos tan
0 0 0 0 cos si
A
x
y
z
u u | | | | u
u | | u | u | u |
u u | | u
| u | u
|
|
u

+
+

= +

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

n
sin cos
0 0 0 0
cos cos
u
v
w
p
q
r
|
| |
u u
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

(

(96)
This is of the state space form,
= +
= +
Where A is the Jacobian Matrix, B is control Matrix, C is the output matrix. D is zero
matrix for the dynamic model derived above.
45

The eigenvalues for above Jacobian is [75.43, 34.34, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02]
and are all negative. Hence the linearization results in a stable system. The table below
represents the eigenvalues for different surge speeds.
Surge Speed Eigenvalues Stable/Unstable
0.1 [16.31, 34.34, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.2 [31.09, 34.34, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.3 [45.87, 34.34, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.5 [75.43, 34.34, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
Table 12 Eigenvalues for linearized system for variable surge speeds
Case 2:- Linearization about constant sway speed
=

| |
0 0 0 ( ) 0
0 2 ( ) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
u
v v v
w
p
q
r
X B W
Y Y v B W
Z
K
M
N

Sway Speed Eigenvalues Stable/Unstable
0.1 [1.53, 40.18, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.2 [1.53, 46.02, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.3 [1.53, 51.86, 18.07, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
Table 13 Eigenvalues for linearized system for variable surge speeds




46

Case 3:- Linearization about constant heave speed
=

0 0 0 ( ) 0
0 ( ) 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
u
v
w ww
p
q
r
X B W
Y B W
Z Z w
K
M
N

Heave Speed Eigenvalues Stable/Unstable
0.1 [16.31, 34.34, 23.91, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.2 [16.31, 34.34, 29.75, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
0.3 [16.31, 34.34, 35.59, 4.5, 4.06, 1.02] Stable
Table 14 Eigenvalues for linearized system for variable surge speeds
10.4 Open Loop Simulations of Linearized model
The linearized model developed is simulated in open loop environment for different
combination of inputs and compared with the non linear counterpart.










47

1) Open loop pitch performance:-
i) Model 1:- linearization about non zero surge speed

Figure 14 Open pitch performance by linearized model 1
ii) Model 2:- linearization about non zero sway speed

Figure 15 Open pitch performance by linearized model 2
48

iii) Model 3:- linearization about non zero heave speed

Figure 16 Open pitch performance by linearized model 3
2) Open loop roll performance:-
i) Model 1:- linearization about non zero surge speed

Figure 17 Open loop roll performance by linearized model 1
49


ii) Model 1:- linearization about non zero sway speed

Figure 17 Open loop roll performance by linearized model 2
iii) Model 1:- linearization about non zero heave speed

Figure 18 Open loop roll performance for linearized model 3
50

Open loop roll performance of linear system exactly matches with the open loop roll
stability performance of non linear system. All linearized models (1,2,3) show exactly similar
performance. This is because, in linearized model all the axes are essentially decoupled and
hence there is no effect of a non-zero surge velocity on pitch or roll motions. In the upcoming
results, only the performance of linear model 1 would be shown as other models have
exactly same performance.
3) Simultaneous surge and depth performance

Figure 18 Surge and depth performance for linearized model
The coupling between pitch and surge axis as found in non linear system is not
replicated in linear model. This is due neglecting of various Coriolis and centripetal terms
during the linearization process.
51

4) Miscellaneous simulations
i) Open loop positive roll and negative pitch

Figure 19 Open loop positive roll and negative pitch






52

ii) Open loop surge with roll and pitch

Figure 20 Open loop roll with surge and pitch







53

iii) Surge and depth control with initial pitch condition

Figure 21 Surge and Depth control with an initial positive pitch
Most of performance in surge, heave and sway direction is satisfactory. However,
coupling between pitch, surge and depth is not replicated in the linearized model.
As the model is linear and stable (eigenvalues are negative), we can go about the
design of a linear controller for pitch, yaw and depth axis.




54

11.
Controllability analysis of linear model
The linear model of underwater vehicle is very stable as seen from the eigenvalue
evaluation in tables 11 to 13. In this section, we proceed to check the controllability and
observability of the states. The system is represented in state space form as defined in
equation (95 96).
11.1 Controllability
The state of a system, which is a collection of the system's variables values, completely
describes the system at any given time. In particular, no information in the past of a system
will help in predicting the future, if the states at the present time are known.
For a linear system defined by,
= +
The controllability matrix is given by,
=
2
.
1
(97)
If the determinant of controllability matrix , is non-zero then all the states of the
system are controllable
Controllability for linearized model 1:-
For the system designed, controllability matrix is given by,
0.0014 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.0007 0 0 0 0
0 0 0.0013 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0.0122 0
0 0 0 0 0 0.0266
C
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(

(98)
The 4
th
row of the matrix is a zero row which implies that 4
th
state ie roll rate is not
55

controllable. However, due good dynamic stability of roll axis it should not pose a problem.
Underwater vehicle in general do not use a roll maneuver for their missions.
Controllability for linearized model 2:-
0.0185 0 0 0 0.0001 0
0 0.0004 0 0 0 0
0 0 0.0013 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0.0122 0
0 0 0 0 0 0.0266
C
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(

(99)
The second linearized model also gives the same result. Since, the model is linear and
more or less captures the overall system dynamics, a simple linear PID controller could be
used for basic depth and heading control.

11.2 Design of PID controller for depth control
Converting the dynamic model from state space to classical laplace domain we have
the following transfer function:-
=
.
+ .
(

)
Hence a linear PID control can be used in series with the plant transfer function:-
Constraints involved while design were as follows:-
i) Settling time < 30 seconds
ii) Peak overshoot < 20 %
Nichols Ziegler tuning method has been used. In this first a step response of plant
transfer function is evaluated the various parameters in designing of controller.
The tuned PID parameters for linear model are

= 345,

= 1023

= 20.34
The same PID controller was applied on non linear model and responses are recorded
as shown in figure 22.
56


Figure 22 depth control comparison for linear and non linear model
The linear model has an overshoot of 18% for a depth setpoint of 1 meter. However,
the non linear model does not exhibit such an overshoot. Moreover, the settling time for non
linear model is 50% more. This is due to neglection of Coriolis terms which induced pitch and
depth coupling. Hence the thrust force is not complete used for reaching to particular depth.
Thus, as described in Chapter 10 the coupling between depth and pitch is not evident in
linearized model and observed in the above simulation.

11.3 Design of PID controller for yaw control
A similar controller is developed for heading direction. The following figure shows
result for yaw command of 90 degrees. The yaw transfer function is given by,

=
0.06036
+ 0.2677
(
3

4
)

57

The constraints used for designing were
1) Settling time < 20 seconds
2) Peak overshoot < 10%

Figure 23 Yaw command of 90 degrees
Both the constraints werent achieved as attaining the peak overshoot would increase
the settling time. Hence, attaining the settling time was used as a hard constraint. The
simulation results show similar responses for linear and non linear model.
Consolidating the observations from the experiments and the simulations, we find that
linearized model was able to capture dynamics of vehicle to a large extent. However, it fails
to capture the pitch and heave motion coupling. This may due to neglection of quadratic
damping and coriolis terms that were neglected during process of linearization.


58

12.

Conclusion

A comprehensive study of kinematic and dynamic model of generalized underwater
vehicle has been performed. For the purpose of validation of the study Matsya AUV has been
chosen as a test bench platform. The following assumptions are made to the dynamic model:
the AUV moves with a relatively low speed, there is symmetry about the three planes, the
body-fixed frame of the AUV is positioned at the center of gravity. With these assumptions
decoupling the degrees of freedom is possible, where only the surge, heave and yaw degrees
of freedom will be controlled. Since one is dealing with a decoupled model only the
mass/inertia and damping terms need to be estimated.
Estimation of added mass/inertia is done using strip theory and was found to be a
match with AUVs comparable to size and weight of MATSYA. Similarly drag analysis has been
performed for identification of damping parameters. In first stage of the project, the
damping parameters were taken of vehicles of same size as MATYSA. However, that lead to
incorrect modeling of vehicle and the open loop results were erroneous. Hence, a basic
system identification technique is employed during modeling of Matsya 2.0. Wet tests were
conducted to record data for different experiments. The pressure sensor and IMU data is
used as an aid to find the drag forces on vehicle. Thus, the entire model was successfully
identified. Validation of model has been done by performing various open loop stability
experiments. The overall data obtained from experiments has found to be good match with
simulations performed on the dynamic model.
For design of controller, initially the model was linearized using Jacobian linearization
technique. Stability analysis of linearized model has been done and the system is found to be
completely stable. A basic PID controller for depth and heading is designed and comparison
between its application to linear and non linear model is shown. The response for depth
control shows the difference in two models implying the non-linearities due to Coriolis and
damping terms havent been incorporated in the linear model. Also, the coupling effect
59

between depth and pitch is not reflected in the linear model. Hence, the linearization of
depth axis would have to be done about transient points rather than a settled depth. This will
include non zero pitch angle while attaining a particular depth.




















60

13.

Future Work
An accurate dynamic model is helpful to design the navigation, guidance, and control
systems for underwater vehicles. The coefficients of underwater vehicle model are generally
obtained experimentally through the underwater tests. However, the tests are generally
lengthy, complex and expensive. As a consequence, the modeling and identification using
only on-board sensor data without requiring tests for underwater vehicles has been
considered, and a great deal of identification methods are studied.
The dynamic model developed during this work has been tested and validated over
various open loop experiments. The Matsya 2.0 is a fully developed vehicle and can be used
as a base platform for research on underwater vehicle dynamics and control. The current
model does not incorporate the effect of waves and tidal motion. Also, small effect due to
drag of Ethernet wire connected to ground station has not been included.
Higher level controllers can be implemented to reduce the coupling between pitch and
depth as a future work. This would require development of a non linear controller. The drag
tests conducted were evaluated in the steady state. More accurate data on drag of the
vehicle would be obtained, if the drag data is available for transient state as well. The added
inertia parameters have been derived analytically using approximation of vehicle to
rectangular box. Experiments to validate these parameters are very complicated and
expensive. However, a greater insight would be obtained.
Also, linearization of model could be tried using feedback linearization technique which
would account coupling between depth and pitch axes. Higher number of tests should be
conducted to validate the controller as well.



61

14.

Bibliography
1. Koslow, Tony. "The silent deep: the discovery, ecology, and conservation of the deep sea."
Oceanography 23.1 (2007): 228.
2. Marco, D., Healey, A., Current Developments in Underwater Vehicle Control and
Navigation: The NPS ARIES AUV, Oceans 2000, 2000, Vol. 2, pp. 1011-1016.
3. Wang, H., Marks, R., McLain, T., Fleischer, S., Miles, D., Sapilewski, G.,Rock, S., Otter: A
Testbed Submersible for Robotics Research, Proceedings of ANS 95, 1995.
4. Curtis, T., Perrault, D., Williams, C, Bose, N., C-SCOUT: A General-Purpose AUV for
Systems Research, Underwater Technology 2000, 2
5. Biswas, S. K. "Rift basins in western margin of India and their hydrocarbon prospects with
special reference to Kutch basin." AAPG Bulletin 66.10 (1982): 1497-1513.
6. Kinsey, James C., Ryan M. Eustice, and Louis L. Whitcomb. "A survey of underwater vehicle
navigation: Recent advances and new challenges." IFAC Conference of Manoeuvering and
Control of Marine Craft. 2006.
7. Fossen, Thor I. "Non linear modeling and control of underwater vehicles, Diss.,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1987
8. LA Gonzalez, Design, Modeling and control of autonomous underwater vehicle, BE
Thesis, The University of Western Australia
9. Vervoort, J. H. A. M. "Modeling and Control of an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle."
University of Technology Eidenhoven, November 2008
10. Zhao, Side, and Junku Yuh. "Experimental study on advanced underwater robot control."
Robotics, IEEE Transactions on 21.4 (2005): 695-703.
11. Fossen, Thor I. "Guidance and control of ocean vehicles." New York (1994).
12. Chin, Cheng, and Michael Lau. "Modeling and testing of hydrodynamic damping model for
a complex-shaped remotely-operated vehicle for control." Journal of Marine Science and
Application 11.2 (2012): 150-163.
62

13. Long, Jianjun, et al. "Estimation of added mass and drag coefficient for a small remotely
operated vehicle." Information and Automation, 2008. ICIA 2008. International Conference
on. IEEE, 2008.
14. Wang, Wei, and Christopher M. Clark. "Modeling and simulation of the VideoRay Pro III
underwater vehicle." OCEANS 2006-Asia Pacific. IEEE, 2007.
15. Avila, J. Julca, M. Saito, J. C. Adamowski, F. K. Takase, and N. Maruyama. "Modelling and
Identification of Yaw Motion of an Open-frame Underwater Robot." Journal of Intelligent
and Robotic Systems 66(1-2): 37-56 (2012)
16. Stokey, R. P., Roup, A., von Alt, C., Allen, B., Forrester, N., Austin, Kukulya, A.
Development of the REMUS 600 autonomous underwater vehicle Proceedings of
MTS/IEEE (pp. 1301-1304). IEEE.
17. Naeem, W., Robert Sutton, and John Chudley. "System identification, modelling and
control of an autonomous underwater vehicle." Maneuvering and Control of Marine Craft
2003 (MCMC 2003): A Proceedings Volume from the 6th IFAC Conference, Girona, Spain,
17-19 September 2003. Elsevier Science Limited, 2004.
18. Pereira, Javier, and Alec Duncan. "System identification of underwater vehicles."
Underwater Technology, 2000. UT 00. Proceedings of the 2000 International Symposium
on. IEEE, 2000.
19. Salvesen, Nils, E. O. Tuck, and Odd Faltinsen. "Ship motions and sea loads." Trans. SNAME
78 (1970): 250-287.
20. Zhao, Side. Advanced control of autonomous underwater vehicles. Diss. University of
Hawaii at Manoa, 2004.
21. Evans, Jason, and Meyer Nahon. "Dynamics modeling and performance evaluation of an
autonomous underwater vehicle." Ocean engineering 31.14 (2004): 1835-1858.
22. Ross, Andrew, Thor I. Fossen, and Tor Arne Johansen. "Identification of underwater vehicle
hydrodynamic coefficients using free decay tests." IFAC Conference on Control
Applications in Marine Systems, Ancona, Italy. 2004.
23. J. Yu, A. Zhang , X. Wang. Development in Identification of Underwater Vehicles (2003)
ir.sia.cn
63

24. Ljung, Lennart. "Perspectives on system identification." Annual Reviews in Control 34.1
(2010): 1-12.
25. A.Budiyono, Model predictive control for autonomous underwater vehicle, Indian
Journal of Marine Geo-Sciences, Vol 40(2), April 2011, pp191-199
26. Liu, Jian-cheng, Xue-min Liu, and Yu-ru Xu. "Application of ML to system identification for
underwater vehicle." Journal of Marine Science and Application 1.1 (2002): 21-25.
27. Prestero, Timothy Timothy Jason. Verification of a six-degree of freedom simulation model
for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2001.




















64

15. APPENDIX 1
Euler Angles, Reference Frames and State Representation
Euler angles relate two coordinate systems in terms of orientation, i.e. the orientation
of the -frame with respect to the -frame. The transformation of the position, velocity and
acceleration vector from the -frame to the -frame is presented in the following
subsections [11].
15.1 Reference Frames and State Vectors
Two reference frames are introduced to model the AUV, a world-fixed reference frame
and a body-fixed reference frame . The W-frame is coupled to the world, where the
-axis points to the north, and the y-axis to the east and the z-axis to the center of the earth.
The B-frame is coupled to the vehicle, where the x-axis points to the forward direction, the -
axis to the right of the vehicle and the z-axis vertically down. The - frame and the -frame
are depicted in Figure 1; note the direction of every axis, where the degrees of freedom
(DOF) of the -frame

are named , , , , ,
axes respectively. The origins of the W-frame and B-frame are defined as

and

respectively.
Let, the body frame vector be given as,

,
=

65


Figure 24 Definition of Reference frames

A state space representation is defined to provide a compact way to model and analyze
the AUV. The vector notation includes the position vectors and for the B and W-frame;
the velocity vectors and & for the and -frame, respectively
=

Let,
1
= , ,

2
= , ,

1
= , ,

2
= , ,

66

15.2 Position Vector Transformation
The position of the AUV can be described with the same position vector in the and
-frame and a transformation of the position vector is not needed. The origin of the and
-frames have the same position in the surge, sway and heave DOF and the position is always
described relative to an initial position. Although, the positions of the and -frame in the
roll, pitch and yaw DOF can be different. The W-frame has the orientation of the earths
magnetic field while the -frame has the orientation of the vehicle [11].
15.3 Velocity Vector Transformation
The velocity vector consists of linear and angular velocities, the linear velocity vector can
be transformed from the B-frame into the W-frame with the use of

1
=
1

1

Where
1

2
is a transformation matrix which is related through functions of Euler angles: roll
(), pitch() and yaw(). The transformation matrix is obtained through simple rotation of
Frame B with respect to frame W.
Let X
3
Y
3
Z
3
be the coordinate system available by translating earth fixed coordinate
system XYZ (W frame) parallel to itself until its origin matches B frame system
i) X
3
Y
3
Z
3
is rotated by yaw angle about the Z
3
axis to give X
2
Y
2
Z
2

ii) X
2
Y
2
Z
2
is rotated by pitch angle about the Y
2
axis to giveX
1
Y
1
Z
1

iii) X
1
Y
1
Z
1
is rotated by roll angle about the X
1
axis to give X
0
Y
0
Z
0
which is the
body fixed coordinate system
Thus, the rotation sequence is written as,

2
=
,

=
1 0 0
0
0

,

=
0
0 1 0
0

,

=
0
0
0 0 1

67

2
=
+ +
+ +



Similarly, the angular velocity vector
2
=

is transformed to Euler sate vector

2
= [

] as follows:

2
=
2

2

The orientation of body fixed frame B with respect to world frame W is given as:-

2
=

0
0
+
,

0
+
,

0
0

=
2
1

2
1

2
=
1 0
0
0

2
=
1
0
0 / /

J
2
(
2
) is undefined for pitch angle = 90
0
, however generally underwater vehicles may not
operate close to this singularity.