actuators

Article
Control Allocation Design for Torpedo-Like Underwater
Vehicles with Multiple Actuators
Yung-Yue Chen *, Chun-Yen Lee, Ya-Xuan Huang and Tsung-Tso Yu *

Faculty of Systems and Naval Mechatronic Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1,
University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan; [email protected] (C.-Y.L.); [email protected] (Y.-X.H.)
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.-Y.C.); [email protected] (T.-T.Y.)

Abstract: For solving the transformation problem between the desired nonlinear control laws and
installed actuators’ input commands of torpedo-like underwater vehicles, one closed-form control
allocation method is proposed in this article. The goal of this study is to optimally distribute the
desired nonlinear control law to each single actuator installed on the torpedo-like underwater vehicle.
The first step of this proposed control allocation method is to arrange the required types, numbers,
and positions of the installed actuators and then build up the thrust configuration matrix for the
developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle. In this step, the desired nonlinear control law can be
optimally distributed to output commands of installed actuators based on the optimization method.
Next, through collecting the input and output data of each installed actuator by practical experiments,
the mathematical transformation of input and output commands of each installed actuator can be
found. For verifying performance of this proposed control allocation method, simulations with the
robust trajectory tracking design of a torpedo-like underwater vehicle with four fins, four rudders,
and one thruster are executed in this investigation.



Keywords: torpedo-like underwater vehicle; control allocation; closed-form design


Citation: Chen, Y.-Y.; Lee, C.-Y.;
Huang, Y.-X.; Yu, T.-T. Control
Allocation Design for Torpedo-Like
1. Introduction
Underwater Vehicles with Multiple
Actuators. Actuators 2022, 11, 104. Various underwater vehicles have been developed to serve different purposes. For
https://doi.org/10.3390/ example, a box-shaped underwater vehicle is usually designed to perform tasks at low
act11040104 speed since the shape of the underwater vehicle would produce massive drag forces, while
on the other hand, it is generally attached with thrusters along all the control dimensions
Academic Editor: André Preumont
to gain high maneuverability and precise position control. Additionally, with the above
Received: 20 December 2021 advantages, the box-shaped underwater vehicle is good at performing tasks such as seafloor
Accepted: 25 March 2022 mining or marine creature observation. Meanwhile, the torpedo-like underwater vehicle
Published: 29 March 2022 which is the research target of this paper has the following features. First of all, the hull
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle is streamlined allowing it to perform tasks at high
with regard to jurisdictional claims in speed and greatly reduce the drag force of the underwater vehicle. Secondly, in order
published maps and institutional affil- to further reduce the drag force while moving, the torpedo-like underwater vehicle is
iations. usually mounted with thrusters along the forward direction and several fins and rudders
to control the heading angle of the underwater vehicle. The last thing to mention is that the
torpedo-like underwater vehicle is not controllable without speed, since the forces needed
to change the heading direction are produced by fins and rudders which are not sensitive
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. at low speed, but disadvantages such as this could be mended by adding a tunnel thruster
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. on the hull of the underwater vehicle. As the features mentioned above, the torpedo-like
This article is an open access article underwater vehicle is suitable for performing tasks at high speed or low speed with low
distributed under the terms and energy consumption, such as seafloor mapping and long-time automatic control. The
conditions of the Creative Commons
realm of the autonomous underwater vehicle is very useful and prospective, and hence
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the guidance/control laws of the different types of the autonomous underwater vehicles
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
have been developed through many methods. In the past decade, several nonlinear control
4.0/).

Actuators 2022, 11, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/act11040104 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/actuators

Actuators 2022, 11, 104 2 of 24

laws based on the sliding mode control concept were proposed for the trajectory tracking
problems of underwater vehicles [1–3]. These studies delivered satisfactory trajectory
tracking performances based on the linearized model or the simplified model, with only
heading and surge dynamics of underwater vehicles. In practice, the common way to guide
the underwater vehicle is the line of sight (LOS) guidance method [4]. Through changing
the heading way of the underwater vehicle toward the desired tracking point and using
the propeller to move to the desired location, the control law derived from the LOS method
reduces the desired control dimensions, which makes the derivation easier and reduces the
number of actuators that the underwater vehicle needs. However, the deficiency of control
dimensions would lead to inaccurate tracking results in certain directions and unexpected
attitude of the underwater vehicle. To achieve precise positioning and accurate attitude
control, all the degrees of freedom (surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, yaw) must be taken into
consideration. Instead, the full control of the underwater vehicle requires more actuators to
be realized, and the control law derivation is much more complicated; hence, in practice,
how to balance the control design and usage of actuators for controlled underwater vehicles
simultaneously become an important and tricky issue. Control allocation verification
perhaps is the solution of this problem because feasibility of a well-developed control law
for underwater vehicles in real situations can be verified through whether distribution
of the desired control command to inputs of actuators can be executed properly. To the
best knowledge of the authors, limited research which investigates control law designs
for underwater vehicles simultaneously take models of actuators into account in the past
decade [5–9]. However, to put the derived control laws into practice, taking account of
actuators in control designs of underwater vehicles is important and necessary. Until now,
only very few control laws of vehicles integrated related control allocation methods because
the complexity and difficulty are highly upgraded when integrating the control law and
power allocation method. Generally, the more practical way to overcome this problem is to
separate the derivation of the control law and control allocation process. Control allocation
methods for vehicles have been summarized in [10–13], but no numerical simulations or
practical results were delivered in these contributions. Some of these numerical searching
methods, including the redistributed pseudo inverse method [14], linear programming
method [15,16], and quadratic programming method [17], are roughly introduced for the
designs of specific underwater vehicles. Mathematically, the redistributed pseudo inverse
method has the advantage of fast calculation for the real-time realization of power allocation
methods, but this is not a globally optimal design. As to the linear programming method
and quadratic programming method, they currently possess support of several software
programs, such as MATLAB, Mathematica, etc. Researchers and engineers of control system
designs of underwater vehicles can conveniently use the well-developed tools of these
two numerical searching methods to find out an optimal power allocation solution for the
controlled underwater vehicle in each control moment. However, for achieving a real-time
calculation for these two solution searching methods, ultra-high speed calculators are
always required in practice. Based on these revealed reasons, a power allocation method
which simultaneously has an easy-to-implement structure, i.e., closed-form design, and a
global optimization property is proposed in this investigation for transforming the desired
control commands into inputs of actuators.

2. Mathematical Model and the Desired Control Law for Torpedo-Like

Underwater Vehicles
2.1. Problem Formulation
2.1.1. Dynamics of Underwater Vehicle and Robust Control Law
The proposed torpedo-like underwater vehicle with 4 fins, 4 rudders, and 1 non-
rotatable thruster is shown in Figure 1.

Nội dung chính

 2. Mathematical Model and the Desired Control Law for Torpedo-Like Underwater
Vehicles
2.1. Problem Formulation
2.1.1. Dynamics of Underwater Vehicle and Robust Control Law
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 The proposed torpedo-like underwater vehicle with 4 fins, 4 rudders, and 1 non-ro-
3 of 24
tatable thruster is shown in Figure 1.

Theproposed
Figure1.1.The
Figure proposedtorpedo-like
torpedo-likeunderwater
underwatervehicle
vehiclewith
with4 4fins,
fins,44rudders,
rudders,and
and11non-rotatable
non-rotatable
thruster.
thruster.

AccordingtotoFossen
According Fossen [12],
[12], thethe mathematical
mathematical model
model of discussed
of the the discussed torpedo-like
torpedo-like un-
underwater vehicle can be formulated as follows:
derwater vehicle can be formulated as follows:
.
ηη == JJ(η)v
(η)v
. (1)
(1)
+ vC+(vC(v)v
Mv M )v + D
+ D(v)v++gg(η)
( v ) v (η) = τ(ee)+) τ+d τd
= τ(

where vector ηη is the position

wherevector position and andEuler
Eulerangle
anglevector
vectorofof the
the underwater
underwater vehicle
vehicle with
with re-
respect
spect toearth
to the the earth
frame, frame, the vector
the vector v stands
v stands for the
for the linear
linear andand angular
angular velocity
velocity vector
vector of
of the
underwater
the underwatervehicle
vehiclewithwith respect to thetobody-fixed
respect the body-fixedframe,frame,
and theand
transition matrix between
the transition matrix
between η z,
η = [x, y, = [x, θ, z,ψ]φT, θand
ϕ, y, , ψ]Tvand
= [u,v υ, w, υ,
= [u, p, w,
q, p, T asTlisted in Table 1 is J(η). The matrix M
r] q, r] as listed in Table 1 is J(η). The matrix
represents the mass and inertia matrix of
M represents the mass and inertia matrix of the underwaterthe underwater vehicle, C(v)
vehicle, is the
C(v) Coriolis
is the and
Coriolis
centripetal
and matrix,
centripetal D(v)D(v)
matrix, is theis hydrodynamic
the hydrodynamic damping matrix,
damping and g(η)
matrix, andisg(η)
the is
gravitational
the gravi-
and buoyancy
tational vector. τ(e)
and buoyancy ∈R6τ(e)∈R
vector. is the desired H ∞ control
6 is the desired law applied
H∞ control to control
law applied the torpedo-
to control the
like underwater
torpedo-like vehicle to
underwater track atodesired
vehicle track atrajectory, and τ(e) is
desired trajectory, andalso theisdesired
τ(e) also thetarget that
desired
the control
target allocation
that the control seeks to achieve.
allocation seeks to is the ocean
τdachieve. τd is environmental disturbances.
the ocean environmental disturb-
ances.
Table 1. The notation for torpedo-like underwater vehicles.

Table 1. The notation for torpedo-like

Linearunderwater
and vehicles.
Positions and Forces and
DOF
Angular Velocities Euler Angles Moments
Linear and Angular Positions and Forces and
1 DOF
Motions in the x-direction (surge) u x Euler Angles X
Velocities Moments
2 Motions in the y-direction (sway) υ y Y
Motions in the x-direction
3 Motions in the z-direction
1 (heave) w u z x ZX
4 (surge)
Rotations about the x-axis (roll) p φ K
5 Motions
Rotations about the y-axis in the y-directionq
(pitch) θ M
6
2
Rotations about the z-axis (yaw) r
υ y N
Y
(sway) ψ
Motions in the z-direction
3 By referring to [18], the desired H ∞ control
w law τ(e), which isz derived using the
Z robust
(heave)
control concept, is chosen as below for the control allocation design of the torpedo-like
Rotations about the x-axis
4
underwater vehicle in Figure 1. p ϕ K
(roll)
Rotations about the y-axis τ(e) = J(η)−q1 (τe +ζ(e)Θf ) (2)
5 θ M
(pitch)
where the vector eabout
Rotations is thethe
trajectory
z-axis tracking error vector between the torpedo-like underwa-
6 r ψ N
ter vehicle and the desired
(yaw) trajectory ηd and defined as the following:
 . . 
η −ηd
e= (3)
η −ηd

Term τe in Equation (2) is designed to eliminate the external disturbance, i.e., ocean
current. As to the fuzzy logic term ζ(e)Θf , it is developed to deal with the perturbed
uncertainties of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle.
. .
τe = −2λ2 Γ−1 λ2 (η−ηd ) + λ1 (η−ηd )


(4)
 Term τe in Equation (2) is designed to eliminate the external disturbance, i.e., ocean
current. As to the fuzzy logic term ζ(e)Θf, it is developed to deal with the perturbed un-
certainties of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle.

Actuators 2022, 11, 104

τe = −2λ2Γ−1 ( λ2 (η-
 η d ) + λ1 (η- ηd )) 4 of(4)
24

 = 2λ Z −1ζT ( e)( λ (η-

Θ  η d ) + λ1 ( η- ηd )) (5)
f 2 2
. . .
= 2λ2 Z−1 ζTpositive
Θf designable


where λ1, λ2 , Γ, and Z are η−ηd ) + λ1or
(e) λ2 (parameters (η− ηd ) definite vectors, and
positive (5)
ζ(e)
whereis the fuzzy
λ1 , λ architecture matrix.
2 , Γ, and Z are designable positive parameters or positive definite vectors, and
ζ(e) is the fuzzy architecture matrix.
2.1.2. Control Allocation Design
2.1.2.The
Control
mainAllocation Design
design target of this investigation is to develop effective control allocation
methods The main
whichdesign target ofand
can precisely thisoptimally
investigation is tothe
convert develop effective
desired controlcontrol
law in allocation
Equation
methods which can precisely and optimally convert the desired control law
(1) into installed actuators’ inputs. The overall control allocation procedure for the studied in Equation (1)
into installedunderwater
torpedo-like actuators’ inputs.
vehicle The overall control
is illustrated allocation
in Figure 2. Fromprocedure
Figure 2, itfor the studied
is easy to find
torpedo-like
out underwater
that the proposed methodvehicle is illustrated
integrates optimalincontrol
Figure allocation
2. From Figure
methods 2, and
it is aeasy to
trans-
find out that
formation the proposed
of input and output method
commands integrates
of the optimal
installedcontrol allocation
actuators to generatemethods and
applicable
a transformation
turning angles and ofPWM
input (pulse-width
and output commands
modulation) of signal
the installed
based on actuators to generate
the H∞ control law
applicable turning angles and PWM (pulse-width modulation) signal based
τ ( e ) = J ( η ) ( τ e + ζ ( e ) Θ f ) to drive the torpedo-like underwater vehicle to precisely
-1 on the H∞
control law τ(e) = J(η)−1 (τe +ζ(e)Θf ) to drive the torpedo-like underwater vehicle to
track desired trajectory η d .
precisely track desired trajectory ηd .

The flow
Figure 2. The flow chart
chart of
of the
the control
control allocation
allocation procedure
procedure for the torpedo-like underwater vehicle
with multiple actuators.

2.2. Actuator
2.2. Actuator Models
Models
The mathematical
The mathematical relationship
relationship between
between the
the desired
desired control
control law
law τ(e) and the
τ(e) and the output
output
command vector f of the installed actuators, including turning angles of fins, turning
command vector f of the installed actuators, including turning angles of fins, turning an-
angles of rudders, and thrust of the thruster of the controlled underwater vehicle, could be
gles of rudders, and thrust of the thruster of the controlled underwater vehicle, could be
presented as follows.
presented as follows.
τ(e) = Tf (6)
 τ(e) = Tf T (6)
f = Fpb Fsb Fub Fdb Fps Fss Fus Fds FT (7)
T
 Fpb Fsb Fub Fdb Fps Fss Fus Fds FT 
f = output (7)
where Fpb , Fsb , . . . ,FT are  
commands of the installed actuators.
T represents the thrust configuration matrix of the actuators, which indicates how
the overall actuator control commands perform on the underwater vehicle and can be
expressed as

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
 

 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 

 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 
T=  (8)

 dypb dysb −dzub −dzdb dyps dyss −dzus −dzds 0 

 −d xpb −d xsb 0 0 −d xps −d xss 0 0 dzT 
0 0 d xub d xdb 0 0 d xus d xds −dyT
where dypb , dysb , . . . , and dyT are the distances from the positions of each single installed
actuator to the center of gravity of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle.

3. Control Allocation Methods for Torpedo-Like Underwater Vehicles

Based on the mathematical relationship between the desired control command τ(e)
and output commands f of the installed actuators in Equation (6), an analytically optimal
searching method is developed to find out the optimal output command vector f* which
can precisely convert the output commands of the installed actuators into the desired
control command τ(e), the method is shown in the following.
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 5 of 24

Least Squares Optimization Method

As the above mentions, the control allocation method aims to distribute the desired
control law τ(e) to the installed actuators of the torpedo-like underwater vehicles and
meanwhile minimizes the overall energy consumption of all the actuators. The mathemati-
cal representation of the control allocation problem of the torpedo-like underwater vehicles
could be stated as follows: n o
min fT Pf
f (9)
s.t. τ(e) − Tf = 0
where P∈R9 × 9 is the weighting matrix of power consumption which is positive definite.
This kind of problem is called least squares optimization, and it can be solved by using the
Lagrange multiplier.
Define the Lagrangian:

L(f, λ) = fT Pf + λT (τ − Tf) (10)

where λ is a vector of Lagrange multipliers, which is introduced to convert the constrained

problem into an unconstrained problem. Differentiating Equation (10) with respect to f and
λ, it yields
∂L
= 2Pf − TT λ= 0 (11)
∂f
∂L
= τ − Tf = 0 (12)
∂λ
From Equation (11), it gives
1
f = P−1 T T λ (13)
2
From Equations (12) and (13), it yields

1 −1 T
τ= TP T λ (14)
2
The vector of Lagrange multipliers λ can be derived from Equation (14):
−1
λ = 2(TP−1 TT ) τ (15)

Substituting Equation (15) into Equation (13), the analytical output command vector
of the actuator f could be solved as follows:
−1
f = P−1 TT (TP−1 TT ) τ (16)

From the mathematical derivations, the optimal solution of f* , which is the output
vector of the installed actuators, can be analytically found based on Equation (16). For
practical applications, the transformation between outputs and inputs of the installed
actuators should be further discussed.

Remark 1: The weighting matrix P of Equation (16) is generally set up as an identity

matrix I∈R9 × 9 because the efficiency of all installed actuators is equal practically. However,
for specific control purposes, which intend to emphasize stern control or bow control of
torpedo-like underwater vehicles, adjustments of P are required. The guideline for selecting
P is suggested as follows:
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 6 of 24

Assume P has the following form:

 
p11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 0
 p22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 0
 0 p33 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 0
 0 0 p44 0 0 0 0 0 

P= 0 0 0 0 p55 0 0 0 0
 

 0 0 0 0 0 p66 0 0 0
 

 0 0 0 0 0 0 p77 0 0
 

 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p88 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p99

If more control forces and torques are demanded to be generated from stern rudders
and fins, values of p55 , p66 , p77 , and p88 should be smaller than p11 , p22 , p33 , and p44 .
Inversely, larger control forces and torques can be generated to the bow part of the controlled
torpedo-like underwater vehicle based on giving smaller values to p11 , p22 , p33 , and p44 .
Assume the mapping between outputs and inputs of the installed actuators can be
presented as
f = Ku (17)
where K∈R9 × 9 is the force coefficient matrix of the installed actuators and u∈R9×1 is the
actuator input command vector. The force coefficient matrix K and the actuator input
command vector u will be detailed below.
Construction of the force coefficient vector of the installed actuators K depends on
configuration and types of installed actuators. The main thruster, which is non-rotatable,
is usually mounted on the aft of the controlled underwater vehicle to produce propulsive
forces along the x axis and pushes the torpedo-like underwater vehicles forward in this
study; hence, the relationship between the thruster’s input and output can be described
by FT = k T u T . Furthermore, rudders and fins are the key apparatus to steer the torpedo-
like underwater vehicles. Rudders provide forces in the y axis to control sway and roll
of the torpedo-like underwater vehicles; meanwhile, fins produce forces in the z axis to
manipulate heave and roll of the underwater vehicles. Forces generated by rudders and
fins are related to the traveling speed of the torpedo-like underwater vehicles, and the
relationships between generated forces, traveling velocity, and turning angle of rudders
and fins are as follows:
1
L = ρAv2f CL δ (18)
2
1
D = ρAv2f CD δ (19)
2
where L is the lift force of fins or rudders, D is the drag force of the rudders, ρ stands for
the density of the water, A means the reference area of fins and rudders, and vf is the flow
velocity relative to fins or rudders, and in the underwater vehicle case, it usually means the
traveling speed of the vehicle, or linear velocity along the x-direction. It is clear that the
fins and rudders need flow velocity or traveling speed to generate forces. CL and CD stand
for the lift coefficient and drag coefficient, which could be measured through experiments,
and δ is the attack angle of fins and rudders. The schematic diagrams of the fin and rudder
operations are shown in Figures 3 and 4 as follows.
Because there are four fins, four rudders, and one non-rotatable thruster installed in
this torpedo-like underwater vehicle, the vector of control forces generated by actuators,
including thrusters, rudders, and fins as above mentioned can be expressed as:
 T
u = δpb δsb δub δdb δps δss δus δds δT (20)
where δpb , δsb , . . . , δds are turning angles of fins and rudders, and u T is the PWM command
signals. We can regard these variables as inputs of actuators.
 the density
velocity of thetowater,
relative A rudders,
fins or means the andreference area of fins and
in the underwater rudders,
vehicle case, and vf is the
it usually flow
means
velocity relative to fins or rudders, and in the underwater vehicle case, it usually
the traveling speed of the vehicle, or linear velocity along the x-direction. It is clear that means
the fins
the traveling speed ofneed
and rudders the vehicle, or linear
flow velocity velocity along
or traveling speed the x-direction.
to generate It isCclear
forces. that
L and CD
the fins
stand forand
the rudders need flow
lift coefficient velocity
and drag or traveling
coefficient, whichspeed
couldtobegenerate
measuredforces.
throughCL and CD
exper-
stand for the lift coefficient and drag coefficient, which could be measured
iments, and δ is the attack angle of fins and rudders. The schematic diagrams of the finthrough exper-
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 iments,
and rudder δ is the attack
andoperations angle of
are shown in fins and 3rudders.
Figures and 4 asThe schematic diagrams of the
follows.
7 of 24
fin
and rudder operations are shown in Figures 3 and 4 as follows.

Figure
Figure3.3.The
Theschematic
schematicdiagram
diagramof
offins.
fins.
Figure 3. The schematic diagram of fins.

Figure 4. The schematic diagram of rudders.

Figure 4. The schematic diagram of rudders.
Figure 4. The schematic diagram of rudders.
The force coefficient vector of the installed actuators K can be expressed as below:
Because there are four fins, four rudders, and one non-rotatable thruster installed in
Because there
this torpedo-like are four
 fins, four rudders, and one non-rotatable thruster
underwater

byinstalled in
k pb vehicle,
0 0the vector
0 0of control
0 0 forces
0 generated
0 actuators,
this torpedo-like
including underwater
thrusters, rudders,
 0 and vehicle, the vectormentioned
of control can
forces generated by actuators,
k sbfins0as above
0 0 0 0 be
0 expressed
0  as:
including thrusters, rudders,
 0 and fins as above mentioned can be expressed as:
 
 0 k ub 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 0 0 0 k db 0 0 0 0 0 
 
K= 0 0 0 0 k ps 0 0 0 0  (21)
 
 0 0 0 0 0 k ss 0 0 0
 

 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 k us 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 k ds 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kT

where k pb = 12 ρA pb v2f CLpb δpb , k sb = 12 ρAsb v2f CLsb δsb , . . . ,k ds = 12 ρAds v2f CLds δds and k T can
be approximated as either a constant value or a nonlinear function.
It is worth noticing that the closed-form solution of the actuator input command
vector, which implies a real-time control design is obtained, could be analytically derived
for power allocation design of the trajectory tracking problem of torpedo-like underwater
vehicles as follows:
−1
u = K−1 f = K−1 P−1 TT (TP−1 TT ) τ (22)

4. Implementation for a Torpedo-Like Underwater Vehicle

The following figures show the prototype of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle
developed and named “AUV Lab 611” by the Autonomous Vehicle Lab of National Cheng
Kung University, which aims to perform underwater missions. This underwater vehicle
 4. Implementation for a Torpedo-Like Underwater Vehicle
The following figures show the prototype of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle de-
veloped and named “AUV Lab 611” by the Autonomous Vehicle Lab of National Cheng
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 8 of 24
Kung University, which aims to perform underwater missions. This underwater vehicle
contains one fixed thruster and one pair of fins and rudders at the stern, and one pair of
fins and rudders near the bow.
contains one fixed thruster and one pair of fins and rudders at the stern, and one pair of
Figures 5 and 6 show
fins the positions
and rudders near the of all the actuators.
bow.
Figures 5 and 6 show the positions of all the actuators.

22, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25

Side view of the developed underwater vehicle.

Figure 5. Side viewFigure
of the5.developed underwater vehicle.

Figure 6. Top view of the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle.

Figure 6. Top view of the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle.
4.1. The Specifications of the Underwater Vehicle
4.1. The Specifications
Theof following
the Underwater Vehicle
table shows the detailed specifications of this developed torpedo-like
underwater
The following vehicle.the
table shows Twenty percent
detailed of modelingofuncertainties
specifications this developed weretorpedo-like
added for physical
parameters: mass m, moment of inertia Ix , moment of inertia
underwater vehicle. Twenty percent of modeling uncertainties were added for physicalIy , and moment of inertia Iz ,
listed in Table 2, during the trajectory tracking period.
parameters: mass m, moment of inertia Ix, moment of inertia Iy, and moment of inertia Iz,
listed in Table Table
2, during the trajectory
2. Parameters tracking
of the controlled period. underwater vehicle.
torpedo-like

Parameter Value
Table 2. Parameters of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle.
Total length L 1.54 m
Parameter Nose length a Value 0.15 m
Midbody length b 1.14 m
Total length L Tail length c
1.54 m 0.25 m
Nose length a Hull diameter d 0.15 m 0.16 m
Midbody length b Mass m 1.14 m 14.56 kg
Buoyancy B 27.13 kg
Tail length c Moment of inertia Ix 0.25 m 0.072 kg·m2
Hull diameter d Moment of inertia Iy 0.16 m 12.02 kg·m2
Mass m Moment of inertia I z 14.56 kg 12.02 kg·m2
Buoyancy B 27.13 kg
Moment of From
inertia 0.072 kg ⋅ m
theIxspecifications of the developed underwater vehicle,
2 it is clearly noticed that
the torpedo-like underwater vehicle is not in the neutral buoyancy condition since the
Moment of inertia Iy 12.02 kg ⋅ m2

Moment of inertia Iz 12.02 kg ⋅ m2

From the specifications of the developed underwater vehicle, it is clearly noticed that
the torpedo-like underwater vehicle is not in the neutral buoyancy condition since the
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 9 of 24

center of gravity does not coincide with the center of buoyancy; meanwhile, the weight of
the underwater vehicle is lighter than the buoyancy. In summary, when the torpedo-like
underwater vehicle is put in the water, it would be tilted and float up to the surface. To
avoid this problem, the proper way is to add extra weights on this developed torpedo-like
underwater vehicle and adjust its center of gravity to the center of buoyancy.

4.2. The Configuration Matrix of the Torpedo-Like Underwater Vehicle

The configuration matrix of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle is related to the
distance from the position of the actuators to the center of gravity.
From Figures 5 and 6, it is obvious that this developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle
is driven by four fins and four rudders and one fixed thruster. Considering the center of
gravity as the zero point, the specifications of the actuators could be represented as Table 3.

Table 3. The related specifications of fins and rudders of the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle.

Actuator Position (cm) Generated Force Control Command

Port bow fin (39, −16, 0) [0 0 −Fpb ] δpb (degree)
Starboard bow fin (39, 16, 0) [0 0 −Fsb ] δsb (degree)
Upward bow rudder (39, 0, −16) [0 Fub 0] δub (degree)
Downward bow rudder (39, 0, 16) [0 Fdb 0] δdb (degree)
Port stern fin (−57, −16, 0) [0 0 −Fps ] δps (degree)
Starboard stern fin (−57, 16, 0) [0 0 −Fss ] δss (degree)
Upward stern rudder (−57, 0, −16) [0 Fus 0] δus (degree)
Downward stern rudder (−57, 0, 16) [0 Fds 0] δds (degree)
Thruster (−80, 0, 0) [FT 0 0] uT (PWM)

Following the derivations of Equations (7) and (8) above, the thrust configuration for
this real developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle could be presented as

τ(e) = Tf  
Fpb
 Fsb 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
  
 Fub 
 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0  
 Fdb
 
−1 −1 0 0 −1 −1 0 0 0  (23)
 
=  Fps

16 −16 16 −16 16 −16 16 −16 0 
 
 Fss
 
39 39 0 0 −57 −57 0 0 0 
 
 
Fus
−57 −57
 
0 0 39 39 0 0 0  
 Fds 
FT

Derived from Equation (23), the thrust configuration matrix is in full rank, which
means all directions of the underwater vehicle could be controlled, and meanwhile, the
dimension of the generated control force vector is larger than the degrees of freedom
that the desired control law wants to control, which will lead this investigation to an
over-actuated control allocation problem.

4.3. The Actuator Model of the Underwater Vehicle

The discussed torpedo-like underwater vehicle in this investigation is driven by four
fins, four rudders, and one fixed thruster. The mathematical presentation of these actuators
could be formulated as mapping like Equation (17).

f = Ku (24)

The force coefficient matrix K could be obtained by gathering input control commands
and measuring generated control forces through simulations and practical tests.
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 10 of 24

4.3.1. The Hydrodynamics Model of Fins and Rudders

According to the discussion of the actuator model in Equations (18) and (19), the
generated forces of the fins and rudders are expressed as
1
L= ρAv f 2 CL δ (25)
2
1
D = ρAv f 2 CD δ2 (26)
2
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
The density of water ρ was 997 kg/m and the fin and rudder reference areas A11ofofthe 25
torpedo-like underwater vehicle prototype in our lab were 0.008 m2 , and the lift coefficient
CL and drag coefficient CD are related to the shape of the fin and rudder. The fins and
rudders of the discussed torpedo-like underwater vehicle was designed based on the fin
force of
shape these−
NACA adopted
0012 type,finswhich
and rudders
had a chordcould be predicted
length of 8 cm. precisely using
The lift force anda the
software pro-
drag force
gram called Xfoil. The Xfoil software program calculation needs
of these adopted fins and rudders could be predicted precisely using a software program to input the shape of the
fin and rudder along with the Reynolds number, and the Reynolds number
called Xfoil. The Xfoil software program calculation needs to input the shape of the fin and is determined
by the kinematic
rudder along with viscosity of the number,
the Reynolds fluid, velocity
and theof Reynolds
the fluid, and the chord
number length. by the
is determined
kinematic viscosity of the fluid, velocity of the fluid, and the chord length.
vfc
Re = (27)
v f νc
Re = (27)
ν
where vf is the fluid velocity, c is chord length, and υ is the kinematic viscosity. The desired
where vf isspeed
traveling the fluid
of thevelocity, c is chord
underwater length,
vehicle andbetween
was υ is the 1kinematic
and 3 m/s viscosity.
and theThe desired
kinematic
traveling
viscosity of speed of thewas
the water 9.7937 × 10
underwater vehicle
−7 m /s.was between 1 and 3 m/s and the kinematic
2

viscosity of the
Define the water
lift andwas 9.7937
drag × 10−as
constants
7 m2 /s.
follows:
Define the lift and drag constants as follows:
2L
k L = 2L 2 = C Lδ (28)
k L = ρ Au2 = CL δ (28)
ρAu
2D
k = 2D = C δ 2 (29)
k D D= ρ A u2 2= CDDδ2 (29)
ρAu
Through calculation,
Through calculation,the theReynolds
Reynoldsnumbernumberofofthe thefin
finand
and rudder
rudder lies
lies around
around 80,000
80,000 to
to 245,000, and the Xfoil prediction outputs the lift and drag constants
245,000, and the Xfoil prediction outputs the lift and drag constants with respect to turning with respect to
turning angles and the results are shown
angles and the results are shown in Figures 7 and 8. in Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. The lift constant kLL with

with respect to turning angle δδ..
respect to

By using the approximation method for Figures 7 and 8, the lift coefficient and drag
coefficient could be estimated as
CL = 0.1090 (30)
0.0002 , |δ| ≤ 13◦

CD = (31)
0.0007 , 13◦ < |δ| < 15◦
 Actuators 2022, 11, 104 11 of 24

Hence, CLpb , CLsb , . . . ,CLds of the force coefficient vector of the installed actuators K
Figure
in 7. The (21)
Equation lift constant kL with
can be all respect
set up to turning angle δ.
as 0.1090.

Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

C L = 0.1090 (30)

 0.0002 , δ ≤ 13°
CD =  (31)
0.0007 , 13°< δ < 15°

Hence, CLpb , C L sb ,…, C L d s of the force coefficient vector of the installed actuators K
in Equation (21) can be all set up as 0.1090.
Figure 8. The drag constant kD
D with
with respect
respect to
to turning angle δδ..
turning angle
4.3.2. The Actuator Model of the Thruster
4.3.2.By
The Actuator Model of the Thruster
Theusing
fixedthethruster
approximation
on the method for torpedo-like
discussed Figures 7 and underwater
8, the lift coefficient
vehicleand dragT200
is the
The fixed
coefficient couldthruster
be on the
estimated asdiscussed torpedo-like underwater vehicle
Thruster made by the Blue Robotics company. This thruster was controlled by the timeis the T200
Thruster made by the Blue Robotics company. This thruster was controlled by the time
interval of input square signals, and the company provides practical test data of the
interval of input square signals, and the company provides practical test data of the thruster
thruster and illustrates the relation between the input time interval and the output gener-
and illustrates the relation between the input time interval and the output generated forces
ated forces as in Figure 9.
as in Figure 9.

9. The
Figure 9.
Figure The generated
generatedforce
forcewith
withrespect toto
respect time interval
time (PWM)
interval using
(PWM) linear
using approximation.
linear approximation.
The relation between PWM signals and generated forces is roughly linear, and the
The relation between PWM signals and generated forces is roughly linear, and the
mathematical presentation of the thruster could be expressed as
mathematical presentation of the thruster could be expressed as
FT = k T u T (32)
FT = kTuT (32)
The force coefficient kT could be roughly approximated based on the relation in
The
Figure 9: force coefficient kT could be roughly approximated based on the relation in Fig-
ure 9: k T = 0.0072 (33)
A more precise way to approximate the = 0.0072
k T thruster model is using a radial basis function (33)
network to approximate the relationship between the input PWM signals and the generated
forces
Aas k T (Φw
more ). From
precise wayFigure 10, it is easy
to approximate to find out
the thruster thatisthe
model proposed
using a radialradial
basisbasis
function
network to approximate the relationship between the input PWM signals and thethe
function network can precisely approximate the behavior between input and output of gener-
ated forces as kT ( Φw) . From Figure 10, it is easy to find out that the proposed radial basis
thruster. The detailed derivation is given in Appendix A. Through setting the inputs as
measured generated forces and outputs as PWM signals, then a radial basis function net-
function
work can network can precisely
be constructed approximate
to continuously calculatethe
PWMbehavior
signal between
when the input
controland output of
allocation
the thruster. The detailed derivation is given in Appendix
gives the generated force that the thruster should produce. A. Through setting the inputs
as measured generated forces and outputs as PWM signals, then a radial basis function
network can be constructed to continuously calculate PWM signal when the control allo-
cation gives the generated force that the thruster should produce.
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 12 of 24

Figure10.
Figure 10. The
The generated
generatedforce
forcewith
withrespect
respecttototime
timeinterval
interval (PWM)
(PWM) using
using radial
radial basis
basis function net-
function
work approximation.
network approximation.

4.4. Control Allocation Verification for a Torpedo-Like Underwater Vehicle

4.4. Control Allocation Verification for a Torpedo-Like Underwater Vehicle
The simulation of the control allocation assumes that the torpedo-like underwater
vehicleThe simulation
travels forward of the speed
at low control
andallocation assumes
the fluid speed that
on fins andthe torpedo-like
rudders underwater
is equal to the
vehicle travels forward at low speed and the fluid speed on fins
traveling speed forward. Since the torpedo-like underwater vehicle travels at low speed, and rudders is equal to
the small drift angle could be ignored, and furthermore, the attack angle of the fins and at low
the traveling speed forward. Since the torpedo-like underwater vehicle travels
speed, the
rudders small
could be drift angleascould
regarded be ignored,
the turning angle and furthermore,
of the fins and ruddersthe attack angle
because of of
thethe fins
and rudders
neglect could
of drift anglebe[13].
regarded as the
Moreover, theturning angleofofthe
drag forces thefins
finsand
andrudders
ruddersare because
small of the
compared
neglect oftodrift
lift forces, so theMoreover,
angle [13]. moments produced
the drag by the drag
forces of the force
finsare
andignored in this
rudders are small
simulation. Dimensions of the desired control is 6 degrees of freedom
compared to lift forces, so the moments produced by the drag force are ignored (surge, sway, heave, in this
roll, pitch, and
simulation. yaw), and the
Dimensions of detailed specifications
the desired control isof the torpedo-like
6 degrees of freedomunderwater
(surge,vehicle
sway, heave,
are presented in Table 2, and actuators are presented in Table 3. From the configuration
roll, pitch, and yaw), and the detailed specifications of the torpedo-like underwater vehi-
matrix of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle in Equation (23), it is clear to see that the
cle are presented in Table 2, and actuators are presented in Table 3. From the configuration
thruster controls only the surge way. Fins and rudders control the rest of the dimensions,
matrix
so of theallocation
the control torpedo-like underwater
procedures could be vehicle in as
clarified Equation (23), it
the following is clear to see that the
steps:
thruster controls only the surge way. Fins and rudders control the rest of the dimensions,
Step 1. Solve the control allocation of the fins and rudders.
so the
Step 2. control allocation
Calculate procedures
the angle of fins andcould be clarified as the following steps:
rudders.
Step3.1. Calculate
Step Solve thethecontrol allocation
drag forces of the
of the fins andfins and rudders.
rudders by using Equation (26).
Step 4.
Step 2. Calculate the thruster force by the
Calculate the angle of fins and rudders.desired control law and compensation of
Step 3. drag forces.
Calculate the drag forces of the fins and rudders by using Equation (25).
Step
Step5.4. Calculate
Calculate thethe
PWM signalforce
thruster of thebythruster by using
the desired the radial
control basis
law and function
compensation of
network.
drag forces.
StepAs
5. the Calculate
above arrangement,
the PWM for verifying
signal of the the performance
thruster by usingofthe
thisradial
control allocation
basis function net-
design, a
work.H ∞ control law in Equation (2) and a sliding mode control [19] were adopted for
guiding the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle, and here one trajectory tracking
As the
case was above
selected arrangement,
to test forcontrol
the proposed verifying the performance
allocation method. of this control allocation
design, a H∞ control law in Equation (2) and a sliding mode control [19] were adopted for
Scenario
guiding 1the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle, and here one trajectory tracking
caseIn
was selected
Scenario to test
1, the the proposed
developed control
torpedo-like allocation vehicle
underwater method. starts with an initial
speed 0.5 m/s forward, and the designated waypoints which will be connected as a smooth
and continuous
Scenario 1 trajectory using the cubic spline method are listed in Table 4.
The initial conditions of the developed underwater vehicle are as follows:
In Scenario 1, the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle starts with an initial
speed 0.5 m/s forward, and y, z,designated
(x,the ϕ, θ, ψ) = (0.05, 0, 5, 0, 0,
waypoints 0) will be connected as a smooth
which
and continuous trajectory (u,
using
υ, w,the cubic
p, q, spline
r) = (0.5, 0, 0,method
0, 0, 0) are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Waypoints for Scenario 1.

No. Waypoints (x, y, z) (m) No. Waypoints (x, y, z) (m)

1 (4, 0, 5) 6 (60, 0, 9.8)
2 (20, 0.75, 5.3) 7 (70, −5, 9)
3 (30, 5, 7) 8 (80, −8, 7)
4 (40, 8, 9) 9 (90, −5, 5.4)
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 13 of 24

Table 4. Waypoints for Scenario 1.

No. Waypoints (x, y, z) (m) No. Waypoints (x, y, z) (m)

1 (4, 0, 5) 6 (60, 0, 9.8)
2 (20, 0.75, 5.3) 7 (70, −5, 9)
3 (30, 5, 7) 8 (80, −8, 7)
4 (40, 8, 9) 9 (90, −5, 5.4)
5 (50, 5, 9.8) 10 (100, −0.85, 5.5)

The control parameters of the nonlinear H ∞ control law are chosen as Table 5.
Table 5. The control parameters of the nonlinear H ∞ control law.

Parameter Value
λ1 4
λ2  4 
0.3103 0 0 0 0 0
Γ

 0 0.3103 0 0 0 0 


 0 0 0.3103 0 0 0 


 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 

 0 0 0 0 0.0441 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0.0441
1 0 0 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0 0 0 
Z  
 0 0 1 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 1 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 1

The derived sliding mode control law has the following form:
.. . . .
τ(η) = M(η)(ηd − λf1 e − λf2 e) + C(η)η + D(η)η + g(η) − ksc sgn(s) (34)

τ(e)=J(η)−1 τ(η) (35)

.
s = e + ks e (36)
where values of control parameters: λf1, λf2, ksc , and ks are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Control parameters of the sliding mode control law.

Parameter Value
λf1 4
λf2 4
ksc 7
ks 4

In this simulation, the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle was controlled

by the H ∞ control law in Equation (2) and a sliding mode control, respectively. The
tracking histories are illustrated in the following picture. The red dashed line is the desired
trajectory, the green line is the tracking result of the nonlinear H ∞ control law, and the blue
line is the tracking result of the sliding mode control law. From Figure 11, the controlled
torpedo-like underwater vehicle precisely tracks the desired trajectory with a steady state
velocity 2 m/s.
The tracking errors of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle are shown in
Figures 12 and 13. Obviously, there is an initial offset of −3.95 m between the first waypoint
and the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle in the x-axis, and this position error
converges to near zero exponentially. From Figure 12, the nonlinear H ∞ control law
outperforms the sliding mode control in position tracking ability. In addition, attitude
tracking errors with respect to pitch and yaw directions of the controlled torpedo-like
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 14 of 24
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25

underwater vehicle converged quickly and bounded within ±0.5◦ in a steady state for two
control laws, even as it was directly affected by induced forces and torques of time-varying
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25
ocean currents, and the sliding mode control law has better tracking performances in pitch
and yaw directions.

Figure 11. Trajectory tracking history of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle based on
sliding mode control law (blue line) and the proposed nonlinear H∞ control law (green line) for
Scenario 1.

The tracking errors of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle are shown in
Figures 12 and 13. Obviously, there is an initial offset of −3.95 m between the first way-
point and the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle in the x-axis, and this position
error converges to near zero exponentially. From Figure 12, the nonlinear H∞ control law
outperforms
Figure
Figure 11. the sliding
11.Trajectory
Trajectory modehistory
tracking control
tracking ofinthe
history position
thetracking
controlled
of ability.
torpedo-like
controlled Inunderwater
addition, underwater
torpedo-like attitude
vehicle basedvehicle
on based on
tracking
sliding errorscontrol
mode with respect to pitch
law (blue line)and
and yaw
thedirections
proposedofnonlinear
the controlled torpedo-like
H∞ control un- line) for
law (green
sliding mode control law (blue line) and the proposed nonlinear H
derwater1.vehicle converged quickly and bounded within ±0.5° in a steady state∞for two control law (green line) for
Scenario
Scenario 1.
control laws,
The tracking errors of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle are shown in
Figures 12 and 13. Obviously, there is an initial offset of −3.95 m between the first way-
point and the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle in the x-axis, and this position
error converges to near zero exponentially. From Figure 12, the nonlinear H∞ control law
outperforms the sliding mode control in position tracking ability. In addition, attitude
tracking errors with respect to pitch and yaw directions of the controlled torpedo-like un-
derwater vehicle converged quickly and bounded within ±0.5° in a steady state for two
control laws, even as it was directly affected by induced forces and torques of time-vary-
ing ocean currents, and the sliding mode control law has better tracking performances in
pitch and yaw directions.

(a)

Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 25

(b) (a)

(c)
Figure 12. Histories of the position tracking errors of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle:
Figure 12. Histories of the position tracking errors of the controlled torpedo-like
(a) x-axis, (b) y-axis, and (c) z-axis.
underwater vehicle:
(a) x-axis, (b) y-axis, and (c) z-axis.
 (c)
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 15 of 24
Figure 12. Histories of the position tracking errors of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle:
(a) x-axis, (b) y-axis, and (c) z-axis.

(a)

Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25

(b)

(c)
Figure13.
Figure 13.Histories
Historiesofofthe
theattitude
attitudetracking
trackingerrors
errorsofofthe
thetorpedo-like
torpedo-likeunderwater
underwatervehicle:
vehicle:(a)
(a)roll
roll
direction,(b)
direction, (b)pitch
pitchdirection,
direction,and
and(c)(c)yaw
yawdirection.
direction.

Thesailing
The sailingvelocity
velocityofofthethecontrolled
controlledtorpedo-like
torpedo-likeunderwater
underwatervehicle
vehicleasasshown
showninin
Figure
Figure1414based
basedononthe
thesliding
slidingmode
modecontrol
controllaw
lawand
andthe nonlinearHH
thenonlinear ∞ ∞control
control law.
law.ItItisis
easy
easytotofind
findout that
out thethe
that sliding mode
sliding control
mode lawlaw
control possesses a quick
possesses convergence
a quick rate in
convergence thein
rate
transient period.
the transient period.
The desired control forces that precisely guide the developed torpedo-like underwater
vehicle to track the desired trajectory based on the sliding mode control law and the
nonlinear H ∞ control law are illustrated as Figures 15–20. These figures reveal the facts
that control forces and torques generated by the sliding mode control law to guide the
 (c)
Figure 13. Histories of the attitude tracking errors of the torpedo-like underwater vehicle: (a) roll
direction, (b) pitch direction, and (c) yaw direction.
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 16 of 24
The sailing velocity of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle as shown in
Figure 14 based on the sliding mode control law and the nonlinear H∞ control law. It is
easy to find underwater
torpedo-like out that the vehicle
sliding are
mode control
larger than law possesses
those a quick H
of the nonlinear convergence rate in
∞ control law
the transient period.
during the trajectory tracking period.

Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 25

Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 25
Figure14.
Figure 14.The
Thevelocities
velocitiesofofthe
the controlled
controlled torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehicle
vehicle withwith respect
respect to sliding
to sliding
mode control
mode controland
andthe
thenonlinear
nonlinear ∞ control
H ∞Hcontrol law,
law, respectively.
respectively.

The desired control forces that precisely guide the developed torpedo-like underwa-
ter vehicle to track the desired trajectory based on the sliding mode control law and the
nonlinear H∞ control law are illustrated as Figures 15–20. These figures reveal the facts
that control forces and torques generated by the sliding mode control law to guide the
torpedo-like underwater vehicle are larger than those of the nonlinear H∞ control law dur-
ing the trajectory tracking period.

Figure
Figure 15.Surge
Figure15.
15. Surgeforces
Surge forces
forces of
ofof the
the
the developed
developed
developed torpedo-like
torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater
underwater vehicle
vehicle
vehicle with
withwith respect
respect
respect to theto to the
the
sliding sliding
sliding
mode
mode control
control law
law and
and the
the nonlinear
nonlinear HH∞ ∞ control
control
mode control law and the nonlinear H ∞ control law.
law.
law.

Figure 16. Sway forces of the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle with respect to the sliding
Figure16.
Figure 16.Sway
Swayforces
forces
of of
thethe developed
developed torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehiclevehicle with to
with respect respect to the sliding
the sliding
mode control law and the nonlinear H∞ control law.
modecontrol
mode controllaw
law and
and thethe nonlinear
nonlinear H∞ H ∞ control
control law. law.
 Actuators 2022, 11, 104 17 of 24
Figure 16. Sway forces of the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle with respect to the slid
mode control law and the nonlinear H∞ control law.

3. Page 17 of the published paper should be corrected. Figure

Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 o

Figure17.
Figure 17.Heave
Heave forces
forces of the
of the developed
developed torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehicle
vehicle with with
respect respect
to the to the slid
sliding
mode control law and the nonlinear
mode control law and the nonlinear H control law.
∞ H∞ control law.

Figure18.18.
Figure RollRoll moments
moments ofdeveloped
of the the developed torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehicle withvehicle
respect with
to the respect
sliding to the s
Please lay it flat as below.
ing mode
mode control control law
law and theand the nonlinear
nonlinear Hlaw.
H ∞ control ∞ control law.

Figure 19.Pitch
Figure19. Pitchmoments
moments of of
thethe
developed
developedtorpedo-like underwater
torpedo-like vehicle
underwater with respect
vehicle to the to the s
with respect
sliding mode control law and the nonlinear H control
ing mode control law and the nonlinear∞H control law. law.
∞
 Actuators 2022, 11, 104 18 of 24
Figure 19. Pitch moments of the developed torpedo-like underwater vehicle with respect to the slid-
ing mode control law and the nonlinear H∞ control law.

Figure 20.
Figure 20. Yaw
Yaw moments
momentsof ofthe
thedeveloped
developedtorpedo-like
torpedo-likeunderwater
underwater vehicle
vehicle with
with respect
respect to to
thethe slid-
sliding
ing mode
mode control
control law law
and and
the the nonlinear
nonlinear H H∞ control
control law.
law.
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW ∞ 20 of 25

According to thethe design

designtarget
targetofofthis
thisinvestigation,
investigation,these
thesesixsix control
control forces
forces should
should be
be converted
converted intointo
thethe input
input commands
commands of actuators
of actuators u. For
u. For achieving
achieving this this design
design target,
target, the
the proposed
method,
proposed control
because
control allocation
efficiency
allocation of method
all
method was
installed
was adoptedto to
actuators
adopted make
are
make thetransformation
assumed
the transformation
be equal, theofofτ(e),
τ(e),
weighting
which
matrix was generated
P forgenerated
which was via two
the optimization adopted control
methodcontrol
via two adopted laws
in Equation and
laws and u for
(22)uisfor the
selectedcontrolled
as
the controlled torpedo-like
torpedo-like
underwater
underwater vehicle.
vehicle.Based
Basedononthe the
design procedures
design of the of
procedures proposed optimization
the proposed method,
optimization
 1 0 are
because efficiency of all installed actuators 0 assumed
0 0 0 be0equal, 0  the weighting matrix P
for the optimization method in Equation  (22) is selected as 
 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 0 
1 00 00 10 00 00 00 00


 0 01 0 0 0 
01 0 0 0
P = (37)
 0 00 0 

01 00 00 01 00 00
 0 0  
 
0 1 0 0 0 0
 0 00
P= 0 0 0 0  0 1 0 (37)
  0 0 1 
 0 0 0
 0 00 00 00 000 10 00 01
   
 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Through the developed control allocation method, the generated forces of each fin
and Through
rudderthecould
developed
be control
solvedallocation method,
in real the generated
time, and the forcesinput
of each commands
fin and
rudder could be solved in real time, T and the input commands
u = δ pb δ sb δ ub δ db δ ps δ ss δ us δ ds uT  could
T be computed using u = K−1−f1. The
u = δpb δsb δub δdb δps δss δus δds u T could be computed using u = K f.
simulation
The simulationresults with
results respect
with tototwo
respect twoadopted
adopted control lawsare
control laws areshown
showninin Figures
Figures 21–28.
21–28.

Figure 21. The

Figure 21. The port
portstern
sternfin
finangles
anglesofofthe
thecontrolled
controlled torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehicle
vehicle for two
for two control
control
laws, respectively.
laws, respectively.
 Actuators 2022, 11, 104 19 offor
Figure 21. The port stern fin angles of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle 24 two con
laws, respectively.

Actuators
Actuators 2022,
2022, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 21
21 oo
Figure22.22.The
Figure The starboard
starboard stern
stern fin angles
fin angles of the of the controlled
controlled torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehicle for
vehicle for two
controllaws,
control laws, respectively.
respectively.

Figure
Figure23.23.
Figure 23.
TheThe
The upward
sternstern
upward
upward rudderrudder
stern rudder angles
angles
angles of of
of the
the controlled
the controlled torpedo-liketorpedo-like
controlled torpedo-like underwater
for two vehicle
underwater
underwater vehicle vehicle
two
two control
control
control laws,
laws, respectively.
respectively.
laws, respectively.

Figure
Figure 24.
Figure24.
24. The
The
The downward
downward
downward sternstern rudder
rudder
stern anglesangles
rudder of
of the
the controlled
of the controlled
angles torpedo-like
torpedo-like
controlled underwater
underwater
torpedo-like vehicle for vehicle
underwater vehicle
two
two control
control laws,
laws, respectively.
respectively.
two control laws, respectively.
 Actuators 2022, 11, 104 20 of 24 vehicle
Figure 24. The downward stern rudder angles of the controlled torpedo-like underwater
two control laws, respectively.

Actuators
Actuators 2022,
2022, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 22
22 of
of
Figure25.
Figure 25.The
The port
port bow
bow fin fin angles
angles ofcontrolled
of the the controlled torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
underwater vehicle forvehicle for two con
two control
laws,
laws,respectively.
respectively.

Figure
Figure 26.
Figure26. The
26.The
The starboard
starboard
starboard bow
bowbow fin
fin angles
of theof
angles
fin angles of the
the controlled
controlled
controlled torpedo-like
torpedo-like
torpedo-like underwater
vehicle for vehicle
underwater
underwater vehicle
two for
for tt
control
control laws,
controllaws,
laws, respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

27.The
Figure 27.
Figure
Figure 27. Theupward
The upward
upward bow rudder
bow
bow angles
rudder
rudder of theof
angles
angles controlled
of the torpedo-like
the controlled
controlled underwater
torpedo-like
torpedo-like vehicle for vehicle
underwater
underwater two
vehicle for
for tt
control
control laws, respectively.
control laws,
laws, respectively.
respectively.
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 21 of 24
Figure 27. The upward bow rudder angles of the controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle for two
control laws, respectively.

Figure 28.
Figure 28. The
The downward
downwardbow bowrudder
rudderangles
anglesofof
thethe
controlled torpedo-like
controlled underwater
torpedo-like vehicle
underwater for for
vehicle
two control
two control laws,
laws, respectively.
respectively.

FromFrom
simulation resultsresults
simulation of the turning angles ofangles
of the turning fins andof rudders
fins andinrudders
the above,in the
theturning
above, the
angles of the fins and rudders all lie in the range of the limitations,
turning angles of the fins and rudders all lie in the range of the limitations, which which means the de-
means
sired
the
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
controlcontrol
desired commandscommands τ(e) could τ(e)be carried
could out by all
be carried outinstalled actuatorsactuators
by all installed properly. The
23 of 25 properly.
reason
The for vertically
reason longlong
for vertically results nearnear
results 0 s of
0 sFigures 21–28
of Figures is: “The
21–28 initial
is: “The tracking
initial errors,
tracking errors,
especially for x axis, and pitch and yaw directions in Figures 12
especially for x axis, and pitch and yaw directions in Figures 12 and 13 are larger than and 13 are larger than
others when the guided torpedo-like underwater vehicle tracks the first waypoint”.
othersBywhen the the
applying guidedradialtorpedo-like
basis function underwater ( Φw) totracks
network kTvehicle replacethekfirstand
T
waypoint”.
using
By applying the radial basis function network k T (Φw) to replace k T and using the
the relationship
relationship FT =
FT = ( Φw)u) uTT, ,the
k Tk(TΦw thecontrol
control commands
commands ofofthe thethruster
thrusterforfor
twotwo
control
control laws
laws could
could be plotted
be plotted as Figure
as Figure 29, , respectively.
29respectively.

Figure 29.
Figure 29.The
Thecommand
commandhistories of the
histories of thruster for two
the thruster forcontrol laws, respectively.
two control laws, respectively.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In
In this
thisinvestigation,
investigation, a systematical
a systematicaldesign process
design for thefor
process control allocation
the control problem problem
allocation
of a torpedo-like underwater vehicle was proposed, and promising
of a torpedo-like underwater vehicle was proposed, and promising control control allocation per-allocation
formances were delivered finally. In this study, the control allocation problem was for-
performances were delivered finally. In this study, the control allocation problem was
mulated as an optimization problem of converting the desired control commands of a
formulated as an optimization problem of converting the desired control commands of
well-developed nonlinear H∞ control law and a sliding mode control law into input com-
amands
well-developed
of actuators, nonlinear
including one H ∞thruster
controlinlaw and
the aft a sliding
part, modeatcontrol
four rudders the stern,lawandinto input
commands of forward
four fins at the actuators,
partincluding one thruster
of the controlled in theunderwater
torpedo-like aft part, four rudders
vehicle. at the stern, and
The closed-
four
formfins at theofforward
solutions part
this control of the controlled
allocation problem weretorpedo-like underwater
solved analytically. vehicle.for
Simulations The closed-
form solutions
the proposed of this
control controlmethod
allocation allocation
were problem
examined werebased solved
on a realanalytically.
torpedo-like un- Simulations
derwater
for vehicle named
the proposed control“AUV Lab 611”.
allocation Simulation
method wereresults revealbased
examined the fact
onthat control
a real torpedo-like
commands generated
underwater by two “AUV
vehicle named controlLab
laws611”.
for precisely
Simulationachieving
resultsthe giventhe
reveal trajectory
fact that control
tracking mission
commands can be optimally
generated and properly
by two control laws converted into all
for precisely installed the
achieving actuators
givenoftrajectory
the controlled
tracking missiontorpedo-like underwater
can be optimally andvehicle.
properly converted into all installed actuators of the
controlled torpedo-like underwater vehicle.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.-Y.C. and C.-Y.L.; methodology, Y.-Y.C. and C.-Y.L.;
software, Y.-X.H. and T.-T.Y.; validation, Y.-Y.C.; formal analysis, Y.-Y.C.; writing—original draft
preparation, Y.-Y.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.-Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 22 of 24

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.-Y.C. and C.-Y.L.; methodology, Y.-Y.C. and C.-Y.L.;
software, Y.-X.H. and T.-T.Y.; validation, Y.-Y.C.; formal analysis, Y.-Y.C.; writing—original draft
preparation, Y.-Y.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.-Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Actuators 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 25
Appendix A
Derivation of Radial Basis Function Network
Give a set of input data into an unknown system:
then the unknown system generates
n a set of output data:o
xi : xi ∈ R N , iN= 1, 2, . . . , N
{yi : yi ∈ R , i = 1, 2,..., N } (A1)
(A2)
then the unknown system generates a set of output data:
With the discrete data sets
n {(xi, yi), i = 1, 2, …, N}, a function
o could be solved to repre-
yi : yi ∈ R N , i The
sent the unknown system by interpolation. = 1, unknown
2, . . . , N system could be expressed
(A2)as
F ( x ) = y i , i = 1, 2 , ..., N (A3)
With the discrete data sets {(xi , yi ), ii = 1, 2, . . . , N}, a function could be solved to repre-
sent the unknown
Radial system byisinterpolation.
basis function The unknown and
a method of interpolation, system
the could be form
general expressed asthe
is like
below: F ( x ) = y , i = 1, 2, . . . , N (A3)
i i

Radial basis function is a method φ ( x − xofc j interpolation,

), j = 1, 2,..., Mand the general form is like (A4)
the below:
Term xc is the center of the x − xc jbasis
φ(kradial k), j = function,
1, 2, . . . ,and
M ||•|| represents the Euclidean
(A4)
2-norm. In other words, the radial basis function stands for the relativity between the data
Term xc is the center of the radial basis function, and ||•|| represents the Euclidean
point and the center of the radial basis function, and a common choice of the radial basis
2-norm. In other words, the radial basis function stands for the relativity between the data
function is Gaussian function:
point and the center of the radial basis function, and a common choice of the radial basis
function is Gaussian function: 2
x − x c
j
2
φ ( x − xc j ) = exp( k x− − xc j k2 ), j = 1, 2,..., M (A5)
φ(k x − xc j k) = exp(− 2σ ) , j = 1, 2, . . . , M (A5)
2σ2
whereσσisisthe
where theradius
radiusofofthe
theGaussian
Gaussian function:
function:

FigureA1.
Figure A1.The
Theconcept
conceptofofthe
theradial
radialbasis
basis function.
function.

The picture above shows the concept of the radial basis function interpolation, and
the unknown system in Equation (A3) could be expressed as
M
F ( xi ) =  w φ(
j
xi − xc j ) (A6)
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 23 of 24

The picture above shows the concept of the radial basis function interpolation, and
the unknown system in Equation (A3) could be expressed as
M
F ( xi ) = ∑ w j φ(k xi − xc j k) (A6)
j =1

Applying the measured input and output data sets into Equation (A6), a matrix form
for presenting the relationship of input and output data is obtained as follows:
φ11 φ12 · · · φ1M
    
w1 y1
 φ21 φ22 · · · φ2M  w2   y2 
Φw =  . ..  ..  =  ..  (A7)
    
.. ..
 .. . . .   .   . 
φN1 φN1 · · · φN M wM yN

Matrix Φ is called the interpolation matrix; if N = M and Φ is non-singular then the

weighting matrix could be obtained:
w = Φ −1 d (A8)

If N 6=M, then use the pseudo-inverse instead:

−1
w = (Φ T Φ) ΦT d (A9)

By using the calculated weighting vector w in Equations (A8) or (A9), a radial basis
function network can be constructed.

References
1. Fernandez, R.A.S.; Grande, D.; Martins, A.; Bascetta, L.; Dominguez, S.; Rossi, C. Modeling and Control of Underwater Mine
Explorer Robot UX-1. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 39432–39447. [CrossRef]
2. Hussain, N.A.A.; Ali, S.S.A.; Ovinis, M.; Arshad, M.R.; Al-Saggaf, U.M. Underactuated Coupled Nonlinear Adaptive Control
Synthesis Using U-Model for Multivariable Unmanned Marine Robotics. IEEE Access 2019, 8, 1851–1865. [CrossRef]
3. Valeriano, Y.; Fernandez, A.; Hernandez, L.; Prieto, P. Yaw Controller in Sliding Mode for Underwater Autonomous Vehicle. IEEE
Lat. Am. Trans. 2016, 14, 1213–1220. [CrossRef]
4. Gonzalez-Garcia, A.; Castaneda, H. Guidance and Control Based on Adaptive Sliding Mode Strategy for a USV Subject to
Uncertainties. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2021, 46, 1144–1154. [CrossRef]
5. Chachada, M.; Vachhani, L.; Kartik, V. Empirical waypoint navigator for over actuated autonomous underwater vehicle using
novel kinematic-dynamic controller pair and control allocation techniques. In Proceedings of the 2016 Indian Control Conference
(ICC), Hyderabad, India, 4–6 January 2016; pp. 354–361. [CrossRef]
6. Chin, C.S.; Lau, M.W.S.; Low, E.; Seet, G.G.L. A Cascaded Nonlinear Heading Control with Thrust Allocation: An Application
on an Underactuated Remotely Operated Vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and
Mechatronics, Bangkok, Thailand, 1–3 June 2006; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
7. Ji, S.; Jang, J.; Jeong, J.; Kim, Y. The H∞ controller design including control allocation for marine vessel. In Proceedings of the
2012 12th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, Jeju Island, Korea, 17–21 October 2012; pp. 1905–1907.
8. Shen, C.; Shi, Y.; Buckham, B. Lyapunov-based model predictive control for dynamic positioning of autonomous underwater
vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), Beijing, China, 27–29 October
2017; pp. 588–593. [CrossRef]
9. Yu, C.; Xiang, X.; Wilson, P.; Zhang, Q. Guidance-Error-Based Robust Fuzzy Adaptive Control for Bottom Following of a
Flight-Style AUV with Saturated Actuator Dynamics. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2019, 50, 1887–1899. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Johansen, T.A.; Fossen, T.I. Control allocation—A survey. Automatica 2013, 49, 1087–1103. [CrossRef]
11. Oppenheimer, M.W.; Doman, D.B.; Bolender, M.A. Control allocation for over-actuated systems. In Proceedings of the 2006 14th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Ancona, Italy, 28–30 June 2006; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
12. Fossen, T.I.; Johansen, T.A. A survey of control allocation methods for ships and underwater vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2006
14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Ancona, Italy, 28–30 June 2006; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
13. Fossen, T.I.; Johansen, T.A. A Survey of Control Allocation Methods for Ships and Underwater Vehicles. Underw. Veh. 2009,
110–128. [CrossRef]
14. Khan, H.Z.I.; Rajput, J.; Ahmed, S.; Sarmad, M.; Sharjil, M. Robust control of overactuated autonomous underwater vehicle.
In Proceedings of the 2018 15th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), Islamabad,
Pakistan, 9–13 January 2018; pp. 269–275. [CrossRef]
Actuators 2022, 11, 104 24 of 24

15. Soylu, S.; Buckham, B.J.; Podhorodeski, R.P. Robust Control of Underwater Vehicles with Fault-Tolerant Infinity-Norm Thruster
Force Allocation. Oceans 2007, 1–10. [CrossRef]
16. Yinghao, Z.; Jiangfeng, Z.; Yueming, L.; Yushan, S.; Lei, W.; Shuling, H. Research on reconstructive fault-tolerant control of an
X-rudder AUV. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey, Monterey, CA, USA, 19–23 September 2016; pp. 1–5.
[CrossRef]
17. Tolstonogov, A.; Kostenko, V. AUV thrust allocation with variable constraints. Adv. Syst. Sci. Appl. 2017, 17, 1–8.
18. Yi-Sheng, Y. Design of Adaptive Fuzzy Guidance Law for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles: Mixed H2/H∞ Approach; National Cheng
Kung University: Tainan, Taiwan, 2020.
19. Ke, S.; Jinchuan, Z.; Hai, W.; Xueqian, W.; Renquan, L.; Zhihong, M. Tracking Control of a Linear Motor Positioner Based on
Barrier Function Adaptive Sliding Mode. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 7479–7488. [CrossRef]