Model predictive control of an autonomous underwater vehicle in an in situ estimated water current profile

Autonomous underwater vehicle control actuation is attained through the use of various methods, including propellors, jets and control surfaces. In order for a vehicle to achieve a desired trajectory and fulfil the mission goals successfully, the input of commands to the control subsystem is needed. Model predictive control (MPC) [2] relies on having a function which determines the future vehicle poses to a horizon given the present vehicle pose, and control actions during this time, and then minimising a cost function, such as the squared distance from the predicted to desired vehicle path. The advantage of MPC over other control methods like PID, Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) and its derivatives, is that very little hand tuning is required [10]. The method outlined in [9] allows simultaenous estimates of the vehicle pose and the water current profile in the direction of the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) beams, including small scale gradients in situ. The position, velocity, attitude and water current estimates from this localisation filter could be used to arrive at control commands in real-time to achieve the desired vehicle trajectory given the predicted water current acting on the vehicle and the vehicle pose for future states. Results in this paper show that even with large delays due to the MPC optimisation stage to arrive at control actions, the controller can accurately track the desired trajectory in the mean estimates from the localisation. The trajectory following accuracy is shown to be limited by the localisation error.

[1]  Stefan B. Williams,et al.  Water column current aided localisation for significant horizontal trajectories with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles , 2011, OCEANS'11 MTS/IEEE KONA.

[2]  P.J.H. Zillinger Molenaar Model predictive control to autonomous helicopter flight , 2007 .

[3]  Salah Sukkarieh,et al.  Efficient integration of inertial observations into visual SLAM without initialization , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[4]  L.L. Whitcomb,et al.  Preliminary results in experimental identification of 3-DOF coupled dynamical plant for underwater vehicles , 2008, OCEANS 2008.

[5]  Stefan B. Williams,et al.  Water column current profile aided localisation for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles , 2010, OCEANS'10 IEEE SYDNEY.

[6]  Peter W. Gibbens,et al.  Efficient Model Predictive Control Algorithm for Aircraft , 2011 .

[7]  J. P. Brown,et al.  Toward an improved understanding of thruster dynamics for underwater vehicles , 1995, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[8]  Eric Kunze,et al.  The Finescale Response of Lowered ADCP Velocity Profiles , 2002 .

[9]  Thor I. Fossen,et al.  Guidance and control of ocean vehicles , 1994 .

[10]  Stefan B. Williams,et al.  Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping and Dense Stereoscopic Seafloor Reconstruction Using an AUV , 2008, ISER.

[11]  Robert Sutton,et al.  Pure pursuit guidance and model predictive control of an autonomous underwater vehicle for cable/pipeline tracking , 2003 .

[12]  Frank Allgöwer,et al.  An Introduction to Nonlinear Model Predictive Control , 2002 .

[13]  M. Azimi-Sadjadi,et al.  ISOlation of Resonance in Acoustic Backscatter from Elastic Targets Using Adaptive Estimation Schemes , 1998 .

[14]  Hugh Durrant-Whyte,et al.  An approach to aid INS using time-differenced GPS carrier phase (TDCP) measurements , 2008 .