Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

1

Control of an Unmanned Surface Vehicle with
Uncertain Displacement and Drag
Wilhelm B. Klinger, Ivan R. Bertaska, Karl D. von Ellenrieder and M. R. Dhanak

Abstract— Experimental testing of an unmanned surface vehicle (USV) has been performed to evaluate the performance of two lowlevel controllers when displacement and drag properties are time-varying and uncertain. The USV is a 4.3 meter long, 150 kilogram
wave adaptive modular vessel (WAM-V) with an inflatable twin hull configuration and waterjet propulsion. Open loop maneuvering
tests were conducted to characterize the dynamics of the vehicle. The hydrodynamic coefficients of the vehicle were determined through
system identification of the maneuvering data and were used for simulations during control system development. The resulting
controllers were experimentally field tested on-water. Variable mass and drag tests show that the vehicle is best controlled by a model
reference adaptive backstepping speed and heading controller. The backstepping controller developed by Liao et. al (2010) is modified
to account for an overprediction of necessary control action and motor saturation. It is shown that when an adaptive algorithm is
implemented for the surge control subsystem of the modified backstepping controller, the effects of variable mass and drag are mitigated.
Index Terms—Adaptive Control, Unmanned Vehicles, Parameter Uncertainty

I. INTRODUCTION

A

N understanding of a vehicle’s maneuverability and dynamic performance characteristics is important for the development
of an automatic control system that will command its motion and can also serve as a guide for the future design of similar

vehicles. A potential application of unmanned surface vehicles (USV’s) is the automatic launch and recovery (ALR) of an
autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) [27], [29], [33], [34]. A good closed loop controller for a USV used in such operations
needs to allow for the changes in displacement and vehicle resistance associated with launch/recovery of the AUV payload. While
gain-scheduling or other methods may be used when an AUV is either completely onboard the USV, or after it has been launched,
the transition time during launch/recovery requires special considerations in developing automatic controllers because the
magnitude and direction of the drag force due to the AUV and any associated docking/recovery system may be unpredictable.
Several alternatives for speed and heading control of a small twin-hulled unmanned surface vehicle with time-varying and
uncertain displacement and drag are presented. Experimental on-water test results are presented for a USV under the variable and

Manuscript received Month day, 2015. This work was supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research under Grant N000141110926, managed by K. Cooper.
I. R. Bertaska gratefully acknowledges the support of the Link Foundation Ocean Engineering and Instrumentation Ph.D. Fellowship Program. W. Klinger, I.
Bertaska, K. D. von Ellenrieder and M. R. Dhanak are with the Department of Ocean & Mechanical Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Dania Beach, FL
33004-3023 USA (phone:+1-954-924-7232; fax:+1-954-924-7270; e-mail: ellenrie@fau.edu).

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

2

uncertain displacement and drag conditions expected during an ALR. The main scholarly outcomes of this work are the
development and experimental validation of low level automatic control systems for a USV during an ALR as it transitions from
carrying to towing an AUV, and also after deploying the AUV and operating independently.
The paper is organized as follows. Background for ALR and adaptive control for USVs is presented in Section II. The particulars
of the vehicle, including its design and instrumentation, are described in Section III. In Section IV, we characterize the maneuvering
performance of the vehicle. We develop controls oriented state space models of the vehicle through the system identification of
experimental data in Section V. Three control alternatives for speed and heading control are explored in Section VI. In Section
VII, we compare the controller’s performance for time-varying and uncertain displacement and drag conditions. Finally, in Section
VIII, some concluding remarks are given regarding the implications of our results.
II. RELATED WORK
There have been a substantial number of studies on the nonlinear control of ships, boats, and unmanned surface vehicles,
including [5],[39] ,[15],[10],[21],[17],[24]. However, as pointed out in [5] and [8], there is a lack of comprehensive and practical
control laws that are robust to the uncertainties in vessel dynamics and large disturbances associated with actual on-water
conditions. Additionally, as elaborated upon in [5], few studies attempt experimental implementation on real USV platforms.
Recent work in controls for unmanned surface vehicles incorporate nonlinearities within the equations of motion to produce
nonlinear control algorithms that are able to achieve a wider performance envelope than their linear counterparts [4]. These include
tracking and setpoint control utilizing sliding mode methods, as in [6] and [25], as well as integrator backstepping as proposed in
[19]. Although various algorithms have been put forward, few have had the opportunity to be validated on full-size USVs in the
presence of environmental disturbances and equipped with traditional navigation sensors, rather than lab-based analogs (e.g.
overhead cameras in lieu of compass/GPS/IMU sensor suite) [9]. Some exceptions include [39],[8],[7],[9],[35],[31], [32], and [3].
In [39], the authors used the backstepping method using feedback linearization and Lyapunov’s direct method to create a speedscheduled algorithm that was field-tested on a USV in riverine operations. In [3], a sliding mode controller was developed for an
amphibious surface vehicle navigating the transitional area between the shore and open ocean, where breaking waves cause large
nonlinearities that may not be adequately modeled in situ. Automatically generated behaviors for USVs were presented in [8], [7],
and [40] where three setpoint controllers were proposed and validated in the field. A controller from this paper is incorporated here
in Section VI.
Adaptive control is also an active area of research for unmanned marine vehicles. Skjetne et al. used adaptive control to
determine the added mass hydrodynamic coefficients while performing free-running maneuvering experiments in [36] to create a
nonlinear maneuvering model suited to either tracking or dynamic positioning control. The methods behind backstepping and
adaptive control were combined in [23], using a Nomoto-like steering model that neglected the coupling of yaw rate with sway

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

3

velocity commonly found in USVs. A recent method of handling uncertain displacement and drag terms is presented in [4], where
model predictive control is used to stabilize the vehicle’s course under large mass variations upwards of 50%. It should be noted
that the authors used a linearized model for plant dynamics, which may not fully capture the dynamics of the vehicle at high speeds.
Aguiar and Hespanha proposed an approach utilizing supervisory switching control to handle parametric uncertainties in an
underactuated marine vehicle [1]. Although favorable simulation results were presented for both an underactuated hovercraft and
an AUV, the use of finite number of system models could potentially lead to large errors if parameters’ range is infinite. Aguiar
and Pascoal extended this work in parametric uncertainty in [2], where an adaptive backstepping controller was derived to estimate
poorly modeled hydrodynamic parameters in an AUV with an unconventional hull form. Kragelund et al [22] proposed three
different adaptive controllers – a gain scheduled PID controller, a model reference adaptive controller and an 𝐿1 adaptive controller
– tested on a SeaFox USV to mitigate the effects of the transitional region between displacement and planing modes of operations.
The work presented here extends the results of previous studies to include the effects of the adaptive control on course-keeping
relating to vehicle bearing, as well as using a nonlinear controller derived from a nonlinear maneuvering model.
III. THE WAM-V USV14
A. Overview
The WAM-V USV14 (Fig. 1) is a twin hull pontoon style vessel designed and built by Marine Advanced Research, Inc. of
Berkeley, CA USA. The vessel structure consists of two inflatable pontoons, two motor pods, a payload tray, and two supporting
arches. The WAM-V class of vehicles is designed to provide a stable platform that can mitigate the effects of waves [11], [16],[30].
The vehicle’s physical characteristics are shown in TABLE I. The WAM-V demonstrates appreciable motion in surge, sway, and
yaw during operation, but can only apply control force and torque in surge and yaw. Because the steering scheme can only actuate
in two of the three appreciable degrees of freedom, the USV is underactuated.

Fig. 1: The WAM-V USV14 Unmanned Surface Vehicle underway in the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW).

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

4

TABLE I
PRINCIPLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WAM-V14 USV. THE LOCATION OF THE “KEEL” IS TAKEN AS
THE BOTTOM OF THE PONTOONS. W.R.T. IS AN ACRONYM FOR THE PHRASE “WITH RESPECT TO”.

Parameter
Length Overall (L)
Length on the Waterline (LWL)
Draft (aft and mid-length)(lightship)
Beam Overall (BOA)
Beam on the Waterline (BWL)
Depth (keel to pontoon skid top)
Area of the Waterplane (AWP)
Centerline-to-centerline Side Hull Separation (B)
Length to Beam Ratio (L/B)
Volumetric Displacement (∇) (lightship)
Mass (𝑚)
Longitudinal Center of Gravity (LCG) w.r.t.
aft plane of engine pods

Value
4.29 [m]
3.21 [m]
0.127 and 0.105 [m]
2.20 [m]
2.19 [m]
0.39 [m]
1.1 [m2]
1.83 [m]
2.34
0.34 [m3]
150 [kg]
1.27 [m]

B. Waterjet Propulsion System
The waterjet configuration is similar to that found on the stock version of the WAM-V USV12 [41], except that each of the
USV14 motor pods contains an electric-powered motor, rather than a gasoline-powered engine. The motor pods attach aft of the
inflatable pontoons with a hinged connection at the bottom and a flexible O-ring connection at the top, which allows rotation about
the bottom connection. The design is meant to ensure the motor pods’ continuous alignment with the water, despite vehicle pitching
motion, which maintains flow through the waterjets. Each motor is powered by eight lithium polymer batteries, wired in parallel,
that provide a nominal voltage of 22.2 V. The motors are NeuMotors 2230, and are rated for a maximum of 22,000 RPM. The
nozzles of the waterjet have been fixed so that they point directly aft, and the vehicle is steered using differential thrust. The
waterjet reversing buckets are not used, such that thrust is only developed in the forward direction.
C. Guidance, Navigation, and Control Electronics
In order to conduct development and testing of autonomous control for the WAM-V USV14, a guidance, navigation and control
(GNC) system is implemented. The GNC system is housed in a plastic, water-resistant box and contains a motherboard, singleboard computer, inertial measurement unit (IMU) with global positioning system (GPS) capability, tilt-compensated digital
compass, radio frequency (RF) transceiver, and pulse width modulation (PWM) signal generator. A detailed summary of the GNC
system can be found in [7] and [26]. For the purpose of this project, the key components of the GNC system are the sensor suite
(IMU/GPS and digital compass), single-board computer, and RF transceiver. The IMU/GPS is an XSENS MTi-G sensor , which
is used to measure the position and orientation of the USV during operations. This information is relayed to the single board
computer, where the low level control code is implemented, and maneuvering data are logged. The GPS is specified to provide up
to 2.0 meter accuracy, depending on weather and satellite availability. The digital compass is used to record vehicle heading and

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

5

has a resolution of 0.1 degrees. The RC receiver allows the user the option of maneuvering the USV under remote manual control
or by autonomous navigation. A hand-held remote control is used both for operating the thrusters and reversing buckets and also
for switching between RC and autonomous modes.
IV. MANEUVERING CHARACTERISTICS
Maneuvering tests were performed in sheltered, calm water sections of the US Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) in Dania Beach
and Hollywood, FL USA. The vehicle experienced only minor wind-generated waves. Wind speed and direction were collected
during all testing. Wind-generated forces and moments do not appear to have had any effect on the test results.
The total weight (displacement) of the system will affect both the inertial properties and, through changes in hull submergence
(draft), the hydrodynamic resistance of the vehicle. Thus, the maneuvering characteristics are dependent on how heavily laden the
vehicle is. Here, three different loading conditions (total vehicle displacements), which have been termed “slick”, “lightship” and
“full displacement”, were tested:


Slick: The vehicle displacement with only GNC hardware onboard – the minimum loading to run autonomously. This
configuration includes neither the simulated ALR retrieval mechanism, nor the AUV mock-up (see Section VII.A). The
total displacement is approximately 150 kg.



Lightship: The vehicle displacement with both the GNC hardware and the simulated ALR retrieval mechanism aboard,
but not the AUV mock-up. This arrangement would correspond to the loading condition of the USV after a launch and
before a recovery of the AUV. The ALR system has a mass of approximately 70 kg, so that the total displacement of the
vehicle is about 220 kg.



Full Displacement: The loading condition with the GNC hardware, simulated ALR retrieval mechanism, and AUV
mock-up aboard. This corresponds to the weight of the USV before and after the ALR procedure. To simulate the weight
of the AUV, an additional mass of 26 kg is added to the lightship system, such that its total displacement is about 246 kg.

A. Acceleration Tests
Acceleration tests were conducted to obtain the steady state speeds associated with the available range of motor commands. The
vehicle started in a stationary position, with the surge and sway velocities, and the yaw rate as close to zero (as possible on the
water), and was accelerated to a specified throttle command on both motors for 60 seconds. The test was conducted for a throttle
range of 60-100%. Preliminary experimental results for the slick acceleration test are presented in [20]. Fig. 2 shows the results of
two full throttle acceleration tests for the lightship (no AUV in payload) and full displacement (AUV in payload) vehicle conditions.
It can be seen from the data in Fig. 2 that the maximum surge velocity of the vessel decreases as the payload is increased. The
average maximum surge speed for the lightship and full displacement cases is 2.8 m/s and 2.5 m/s, respectively.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

6

a)

b)

Fig. 2: Vehicle surge velocity for two full throttle acceleration tests using the automatic control box with preprogrammed motor
commands. Vehicle conditions were: a) Lightship and b) Full Displacement.
The results of the acceleration tests provided a means to approximate a forward drag model for each displacement condition of
the vessel. In order to relate motor commands to drag, a bollard-pull test was conducted. The test consisted of tethering the WAMV USV14 to a fixed object (a pier) with a scale in line with the tether. The speed of the motors was slowly increased to full throttle;
the maximum force measured is 𝑇wj_max = 204 Newtons. Repetitions of this test at multiple throttle commands indicated that thrust
scales linearly with motor command when the forward speed of the vessel is zero. The results of the bollard-pull test were then
incorporated into a linear model for thrust output as a function of input motor command. As the vehicle was tethered during these
tests, the effect of surge speed on thrust production is ignored in this model:
𝑇wj =

𝑛
𝑇
.
𝑛max wj_max

(1)

Here 𝑛 is the commanded motor speed in Hz; 𝑛⁄𝑛max can be interpreted as a commanded percentage of the maximum thrust. Using
this linear model, experiments were conducted at steady state forward speeds 𝑢, where it was assumed that the USV was operating
at the “thrust equals drag” condition. With a drag model composed of both quadratic and linear terms, the thrust equals drag 𝐷
condition would give:

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158
𝑇wj_max

𝑛
= 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| 𝑢|𝑢| + 𝑋𝑢 𝑢.
𝑛max

7

(2)

𝑋𝑢|𝑢| and 𝑋𝑢 were then determined from curvefits to the experimental data in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Surge direction drag model for the WAM-V USV14 in three displacement conditions: a) slick, b) lightship, and c) fulldisplacement. The points represent steady state values of thrust equals drag (𝐷) for a given speed (𝑢).
Because (1) neglects the effect of surge speed on thrust developed, the drag model does not capture the characteristic variation of
drag with surge speed that might be expected, e.g. 𝐷~𝑢2 . However, use of the 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| and 𝑋𝑢 terms found from these experiments
should intrinsically reproduce the surge speed effects when the desired thrust is determined using (1).

1) Alternative Thruster Models
A second possible thruster model, which has been developed as an analog to conventional propeller models, was also explored.
In conventional propellers, the curves of thrust coefficient
𝐾𝑇 ≡

𝑇𝑝
,
𝜌𝑛2 𝑑 4

versus advance ratio
𝐽≡

𝑢
,
𝑛𝑑

are approximately linear such that
𝐾𝑇 (𝐽) = −𝛼1 𝐽 + 𝛼2 .
Here, 𝑇𝑝 is propeller thrust, 𝑑 is propeller diameter, 𝜌 is water density and 𝛼1 , 𝛼2 > 0 are constants. Using this model the thrust
can be rewritten as
𝑇𝑝 = −𝛼1
or

𝑢
𝜌𝑛2 𝑑 4 + 𝛼2 𝜌𝑛2 𝑑 4 ,
𝑛𝑑

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

8

𝑇𝑝 = 𝑎1 (𝜌𝑑 3 )𝑢𝑛 + 𝑎2 (𝜌𝑑 4 )𝑛2 .
Here the thrust developed varies quadratically with the rotational rate of the propeller and linearly with the surge speed of the
vessel. The authors have not come across similar waterjet models in the literature, but it seems that such a model might be
appropriate. Examining a representative plot of waterjet pump head coefficient 𝐶𝐻 vs. capacity coefficient 𝐶𝑄 (Fig. 4), one can see
that an almost linear, relation exists between the pressure head coefficient
𝐶𝐻 ≡

𝑔𝐻
,
(𝑛𝑑)2

(where 𝑔 is gravitational acceleration, 𝐻 is the pressure head across the waterjet, and 𝑑 is the diameter of the waterjet impeller) and
the capacity coefficient
𝐶𝑄 ≡

𝑄𝑓
,
𝑛𝑑 3

(where 𝑄𝑓 is the volumetric flow rate through the waterjet). Note that 𝐶𝐻 and 𝐶𝑄 are often combined with measured waterjet pump
data to estimate the steady state waterjet impeller shaft speed (see [12], for example).

Fig. 4: Example pump diagram showing pump efficiency 𝜂𝑃 and head coefficient 𝐶𝐻 ≡ 𝑔𝐻/(𝑛𝑑)2 as a function of the capacity
coefficient 𝐶𝑄 ≡ 𝑄𝑓 /𝑛𝑑 3 . 𝑛=shaft revolutions per second, 𝑑 = impeller diameter (reproduced from [13]).
Following a similar development as used above for a conventional propeller, we have
𝐶𝐻 (𝐶𝑄 ) = −𝛼1 𝐶𝑄 + 𝛼2 ,
which can be rewritten as
𝜌𝑔𝐻 = −𝛼1

𝜌𝑄𝑓
(𝑛𝑑)2 + 𝛼2 𝜌(𝑛𝑑)2 .
𝑛𝑑 3

Scaling the volumetric flow rate through the waterjet as 𝑢𝑑 2 , and assuming that the thrust generated is proportional to the pressure
head across the waterjet multiplied by the square of the characteristic diameter of the waterjet we get

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

𝑇wj ~𝜌𝑑 2 [−𝛼1

9

𝑢𝑑 2
(𝑛𝑑)2 + 𝛼2 (𝑛𝑑)2 ],
𝑛𝑑 3

which has the same form as the thrust developed on a propeller
𝑇wj ~𝑎1 (𝜌𝑑 3 )𝑢𝑛 + 𝑎2 (𝜌𝑑 4 )𝑛2 .
Curvefits of this relation to the data collected during our field tests indicate that the model works well for the lightship condition,
but does not match as well for the slick or full displacement conditions. This waterjet thrust model may be appropriate in certain
circumstances and appears to be worthy of additional investigation.
B. Maneuvering Tests
A modified on-water zig-zag test was conducted to obtain motion data. The traditional zig-zag test specifies rudder commands
for a certain heading range [18], but for a vehicle steered using differential thrust, the test must be conducted by varying the motor
speeds. Motor commands were alternated between 0 and 100% power, with the motors 180o out of phase. Each motor setting was
held for 7 seconds. Trajectory and yaw rate (𝑟) results for three tests in the lightship condition are shown in Fig. 5. Yaw rate is of
interest when conducting the zig-zag test because it is later used in model development, specifically in determining the maneuvering
coefficients pertaining to how fast the vessel changes heading. This concept is explored further in Section V. Several runs of each
maneuvering test were carried out to show a convergence of the results and to inspire confidence in the results before using them
to develop the dynamic model of the vehicle.

a)

b)

Fig. 5. a) Trajectory and b) yaw rate time histories for three zig-zag tests conducted in the lightship displacement condition.
The maximum yaw rate was 13 deg/s. In a) the starting position is marked by the circle at the origin.
V. SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
A. Equations of Motion
Data collected from the acceleration and zig-zag tests in Sections IV.A and IV.B, respectively, were used to develop three degree
of freedom state space maneuvering models for the vehicle in full displacement and lightship displacement conditions. Following
the notation developed in [13] and [14], a three degree of freedom (surge, sway, and yaw) vehicle model is used, as presented in

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

10

[20] and [21], where
𝑴𝒗̇ + 𝑪(𝒗)𝒗 + 𝑫(𝒗)𝒗 = 𝝉

(3)

𝑇
𝜼̇ = [𝑥̇ 𝑦̇ 𝜓̇] ,

(4)

and
𝒗 = [𝑢 𝑣 𝑟]𝑇 .

(5)

Here, the 𝜼̇ describes the vehicle’s North (𝑥̇ ) East (𝑦̇ ) linear velocities and the Z-axis angular velocity (𝜓̇) in an inertial reference
frame (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝜓). 𝒗 contains the vehicle surge velocity (𝑢), sway velocity (𝑣) and yaw rate (𝑟) in the body fixed frame. Fig. 6
illustrates the two coordinate systems and the motor forces acting on the vehicle.

Fig. 6. Top view of WAM-V USV14 with body-fixed coordinate system overlaid. 𝑥𝑏 and 𝒚𝒃 denote vessel surge and
sway axes, respectively. 𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 and 𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 denote the port and starboard waterjet thrust.
The transformation matrix for converting from body-fixed to earth-fixed frames is given by:
cos 𝜓
𝑱(𝜼) = [ sin 𝜓
0

− sin 𝜓
cos 𝜓
0

0
0].
1

(6)

𝑴 is an inertia tensor that is the sum of a rigid body mass matrix, 𝑴𝑹𝑩 , and an added mass matrix, 𝑴𝐴 :
𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇
𝑴 = 𝑴𝑹𝑩 + 𝑴𝐴 = [ 0
−𝑚𝑦𝐺

0
𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇
𝑚𝑥𝐺 − 𝑁𝑣̇

−𝑚𝑦𝐺
𝑚𝑥𝐺 − 𝑌𝑟̇ ],
𝐼𝑧 − 𝑁𝑟̇

(7)

where, 𝑚 denotes the mass of the USV-AUV system, 𝑥𝐺 and 𝑦𝐺 represent the coordinates of the vessel center of mass in the bodyfixed frame, and 𝐼𝑧 denotes moment of inertia about the 𝑧𝑏 -axis. Several of the terms in the mass matrix utilize SNAME (1950)
[38] nomenclature for representing a force or moment created by motion in a specific degree of freedom, where 𝑋 and 𝑌 correspond

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

11

to force in the 𝑥𝑏 and 𝑦𝑏 directions, respectively, and 𝑁 denotes a moment about the 𝑧𝑏 -axis (vertical axis). The subscript on each
coefficient denotes the cause of the force/moment. It is pertinent to note that the added mass in the surge direction is modeled as
16% of the total mass of the vehicle, whereas theoretically the value should be less than 5%. This change is made so that the
simulation outputs a forward acceleration curve that matches the experimental data.
𝑪(𝒗) is a Coriolis matrix, which includes the sum of a rigid body (𝑪𝑅𝐵 ) and added mass (𝑪𝐴 ) matrix:

𝑪(𝒗) = 𝑪𝑅𝐵 + 𝑪𝐴

=

+

0
0
−𝑚(𝑥𝐺 𝑟 + 𝑣)
0
0
−𝑚(𝑦𝐺 𝑟 − 𝑢)]
[
𝑚(𝑥𝐺 𝑟 + 𝑣) 𝑚(𝑦𝐺 𝑟 − 𝑢)
0
𝑌𝑣̇ 𝑣 + (

𝑌𝑟̇ +𝑁𝑣̇
2

0

0

0

0

200
−𝑋𝑢̇ 𝑢

𝑋𝑢̇ 𝑢

0

𝑌𝑟̇ +𝑁𝑣̇

−𝑌𝑣̇ 𝑣 − (
[
200

2

)𝑟

)𝑟

(8)

]

The model designates the body-fixed origin at the center of gravity and assumes horizontal symmetry, making 𝑥𝐺 = 0 and 𝑦𝐺 = 0.
The factor of 1/200 in the upper-rightmost and lower-leftmost matrix positions of 𝑪𝐴 was applied during model development to
better fit the experimental data and does not appear in [13] and [14]. This scale factor was necessary to fix an issue with the
simulation where the USV could not pull out of a turn after one had been initiated, even with maximum torque applied. The original
scale factor was 2 to represent each demihull, and was manually incremented until the turning behavior of the simulation model
was deemed acceptable. 𝑫(𝒗) is the summation of linear and nonlinear drag matrices:
𝑫(𝒗) = 𝑫𝒍 + 𝑫𝑛

(9)

where,
𝑋𝑢
𝑫𝒍 = − [ 0
0

0
𝑌𝑣
𝑁𝑣

0
𝑌𝑟 ]
𝑁𝑟

(10)

and,
𝑋𝑢|𝑢| |𝑢|
0
0
𝑌𝑣|𝑣| |𝑣| + 𝑌𝑣|𝑟| |𝑟| 𝑌𝑟|𝑣| |𝑣| + 𝑌𝑟|𝑟| |𝑟| ].
𝑫𝒏 = − [ 0
0
𝑁𝑣|𝑣| |𝑣| + 𝑁𝑣|𝑟| |𝑟| 𝑁𝑟|𝑣| |𝑣| + 𝑁𝑟|𝑟| |𝑟|

(11)

The surge direction drag terms 𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 and 𝐷𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 are modeled using a polynomial curve fit derived from experimental testing. A
coordinate transformation is carried out to obtain the velocities of each individual pontoon hull because they are offset from the
CG. These transformed velocities are used in the drag model below as 𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 and 𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 :
𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 = (

𝑋𝑢|𝑢|
⁄ ) |𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 |𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 + (𝑋𝑢⁄ ) 𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡
2
2

(12)

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158
𝐷𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 = (

12

𝑋𝑢|𝑢|
⁄ ) |𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 |𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 + (𝑋𝑢⁄ ) 𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑
2
2

(13)

The values of 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| and 𝑋𝑢 vary based on the displacement condition of the vehicle and are shown in TABLE II. Incorporating the
moment created by the two drag forces 𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 and 𝐷𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 , the term
(14)

(𝐷𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 − 𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 )𝐵/2
is added to the yaw moment (not modeled in 𝑫).
Finally, 𝝉 is a vector of the forces and moments generated by the port and starboard waterjets:
𝜏𝑥
(𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 + 𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 )
𝜏
𝝉 = ( 𝑦) = [
].
0
𝜏𝑧
(𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 − 𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 )𝐵/2

(15)

As shown in Fig. 6, 𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 and 𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 denote the thrust from the port and starboard waterjets, respectively, and 𝐵/2 is the transverse
distance from the centerline of the vessel to the centerline of each hull. The forces caused by wind and waves are neglected.
TABLE II
SURGE DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR THE WAM-V USV14.

Displacement Condition
Slick
Lightship
Full Displacement

𝑋𝑢|𝑢|
-5.8722
-6.9627
-2.6693

𝑋𝑢
50.897
55.771
47.341

The amount of thrust that must allocated to each waterjet can be determined by solving (15) to find
𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 𝜏𝑥 /2 + 𝜏𝑧 /𝐵 and 𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 = 𝜏𝑥 /2 − 𝜏𝑧 /𝐵.

(16)

The thrust developed on each waterjet is modeled using the linear relation between commanded waterjet motor speed and thrust
output from equation (1).
B. Simulation Results
In order to determine the accuracy of the mathematical model presented above and to determine the hydrodynamic coefficients
in the added mass matrix (7), Coriolis matrix (8), and drag matrices (10), (11), the experimental zig-zag and acceleration data are
overlaid with simulation results for matching motor input. The values of the hydrodynamic coefficients were manually adjusted
until the simulation results qualitatively matched the experimental data.
For the lightship condition, the straight-line acceleration data were compared against simulation results for three separate waterjet
operating speeds: 𝑅𝑃𝑀 = {0.8𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 0.9𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑅𝑃𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 }. Fig. 7-Fig. 10 display final results of the surge drag model in the
vehicle’s equations of motion. Specifically, the parameters that were identified to fit the experimental data were: 𝑋𝑢̇ , 𝑋𝑢 , and 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| .
𝑋𝑢 and 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| characterize the steady state surge velocity of the vehicle during the acceleration test (the flat area of the curves
between 20 and 60 seconds on the figures below). Each steady state surge speed for the three test cases was tabulated and the results

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

13

were fitted to a quadratic polynomial, as explained in Section IV.A. The equations displayed in Fig. 3 are of the form:
𝑋𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 + 𝐷𝑠𝑡𝑏𝑑 = 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| 𝑢|𝑢| + 𝑋𝑢 𝑢,

(17)

where 𝑋𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 denotes drag in the vessel’s surge direction. As the submerged hull form and wetted surface area varies with
displacement, 𝑋𝑢 and 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| also vary with displacement. The term 𝑋𝑢̇ affects the transient behavior during acceleration/deceleration,
i.e. between 0-10 seconds/past 60 seconds. 𝑋𝑢̇ affects the slope of the simulation surge velocity curve during those beginning and
end time periods.

Fig. 7. Lightship surge histories for full throttle acceleration tests. Three experimental tests are shown, each at different initial
conditions: 𝑢 = 0, 0.3, 0.9 m/s. Three simulation results are overlaid with initial conditions corresponding to field tests.

Fig. 8. Lightship surge histories for 90% throttle acceleration tests. Three experimental tests are shown, each at different initial
conditions: 𝑢 = 0.13, 0.54, 0.75 m/s. Three simulation results are overlaid with initial conditions corresponding to field tests.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

14

Fig. 9. Lightship surge histories for 80% throttle acceleration tests. Three experimental tests are shown, each at different initial
conditions: 𝑢 = 0.44, 0.8, 0.8 m/s. Two simulation results are overlaid with initial conditions corresponding to the field tests.
Results for the full displacement acceleration tests are displayed in Fig. 10-Fig. 14. When comparing the results, which cover
the upper 40% of the vessel’s motor operating limits and the two displacement conditions of interest in the ALR mission, one can
conclude that the surge model of the WAM-V USV14 is adequately identified in the case of straight line forward motion.

Fig. 10. Full displacement surge histories for full throttle acceleration tests. Two experimental tests are shown, each at
different initial conditions: 𝑢=0.5, 0.67 m/s. Two simulation results are overlaid with corresponding initial conditions.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

15

Fig. 11. Full displacement surge histories for 80% throttle acceleration tests. Two experimental tests are shown, each at the
initial condition: 𝑢=0.5 m/s. One simulation result is overlaid with the same initial condition.

Fig. 12. Full displacement surge histories for 60% throttle acceleration tests. Two experimental tests are shown, each at the
initial condition: 𝑢=0.13 m/s. One simulation result is overlaid with the same initial condition.

It can be noted that in Figs. 7-12 the experimental data show the boat accelerating faster when thrust is applied than it decelerates
when thrust is removed. However, the simulations show the boat decelerating about as quickly as it accelerates. The reason for this
is because, when moving, the real vehicle creates a wake of fluid traveling in the same direction as the vehicle. When thrust is
removed and the vehicle starts to decelerate, the inertia of the fluid in the wake causes the fluid to pile up against the stern, pushing
against the vehicle in the forward direction and slowing its deceleration.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

16

Unfortunately, a simple quadratic drag model cannot capture this wake effect. Instead the relative rates of acceleration and
deceleration are governed by the relative magnitude of the thrust and surge speed prior to acceleration/deceleration. One can see
this from the equation of motion in the surge direction, which can be simplified as:
1
𝑚𝑢̇ = 𝑇 − 𝜌𝑢2 𝐶𝐷 𝐴𝑓 ,
2
where 𝑇 is the constant thrust applied, 𝐶𝐷 is a drag coefficient and 𝐴𝑓 is the frontal area of the hulls. This can be rewritten as

𝑢̇ =

𝑇 𝑏 2
− 𝑢 .
𝑚 𝑚

When the vehicle reaches a steady state speed 𝑢𝑠𝑠 , the acceleration is zero it can be seen that
𝑇
𝑢𝑠𝑠 = √ .
𝑏
When thrust is initially applied, the acceleration is
𝑢̇ =

𝑇 𝑏 2
− 𝑢 ,
𝑚 𝑚 0

where 𝑢0 is the initial velocity. As the surge speed increases the acceleration decreases to zero. After the vehicle has reached a
steady state speed, at the instant that thrust is removed, the deceleration is
𝑢̇ = −

𝑏 2
𝑇
𝑢𝑠𝑠 = − .
𝑚
𝑚

Thus, one can see that, for the model, the magnitude of the initial acceleration is smaller than that of the initial deceleration when
the model has some initial velocity. It may be possible circumvent this issue by including a switching added mass term in the surge
equation of motion to produce the desired result. Since the bow is finer than the transom, one would expect the added mass
associated with acceleration 𝑚𝑎1 to be smaller than that of deceleration 𝑚𝑎2 . One could implement an equation, such as:
𝑚𝑎 =

1 + sgn(𝑢̇ )
1 − sgn(𝑢̇ )
𝑚𝑎1 +
𝑚𝑎2 ,
2
2

so that
𝑚 , 𝑢̇ > 0
𝑚𝑎 = { 𝑎1
𝑚𝑎2 , 𝑢̇ < 0

A plot of acceleration and deceleration shows that this could produce a result similar to what would be expected (Fig. 13).
However, it is conventional to use a single added mass coefficient for both acceleration and deceleration. From a practical
standpoint, it does not appear to be critical for the purposes of controller design, which is the main focus of the current study.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

17

Fig. 13. Acceleration and deceleration with switching added mass term. The added mass for deceleration was made
significantly larger than that of acceleration.
Now that verification of the model’s straight line dynamics have been presented, the turning dynamics are addressed by
examining the results of simulated zig-zag maneuvers. Fig. 14 shows an example comparison between the measured and simulated
yaw rate for the zig-zag maneuver at 100% throttle. Based on the results of this and other yaw rate experiment/simulation
comparisons, it was concluded that the dynamic model captures the turning dynamics of the vessel sufficiently well to be used for
the design of a speed and heading controller for the ALR mission.

Fig. 14. Yaw rate data for the lightship 100% throttle zig-zag maneuver. Maximum experimental and simulated yaw rate is
observed to be 13.2 deg/s.
Several assumptions are carried forward into the control system design process. First, it is assumed that the speed of the vessel
is accurately predicted during straight line transits (i.e. when heading error has stabilized around zero) and that the surge velocity
will be underestimated when heading error is large and hence the vehicle will turn aggressively to minimize the heading error. The

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

18

second assumption about the model is that heading is accurately determined. Considering that the intent of this project is the
development and implementation of an appropriate controller for the ALR mission, knowing that the speed and heading of the
dynamic model can be trusted, or its errors anticipated, allows the search for a more accurate model to stop. The final values for
the hydrodynamic coefficients used in the model are given in TABLE III. The middle column of this table contains the nondimensional factors that are applied to the dimensional terms derived using strip theory and principles of drag for cylinders
(𝑁𝑟 , 𝑌𝑟, 𝑌𝑣 ). They are the correction factors for the disparity between theoretical vehicle dynamics and experimental data. In TABLE
III: 𝜌 is water density, 𝑇 is the draft, 𝐶𝑑 is the drag coefficient for a lateral cylinder (𝐶𝑑 = 1.1), and 𝐵ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙 is the beam of the
individual pontoon hulls.
TABLE III
HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS FOR THE WAM-V USV14

Coefficient Name

Non-Dimensional Factor

Dimensional Term

𝑁𝑣̇

2.5

𝑁𝑟̇

1.2

[(𝐿 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺)3 + 𝐿𝐶𝐺 3 ]
4.75
𝐵ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙 4
−{
𝜋𝜌
𝑇 + 𝜋𝜌𝑇 2
}
2
2
3

𝑋𝑢̇

0.075

−𝑚

𝑌𝑟̇

0.2

𝑌𝑣̇

0.9

−𝜋𝜌𝑇 2

−𝜋𝜌𝑇 2

[(𝐿 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺)2 + 𝐿𝐶𝐺 2 ]
2

[(𝐿 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺)2 + 𝐿𝐶𝐺 2 ]
2
−𝜋𝜌𝑇 2 𝐿

𝑋𝑢

See Fig. 3.
𝐿
𝐵ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙
𝐵ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙 2 𝜋𝑇𝐿
− 0.1
+ 0.016 (
) ](
)
𝑇
𝑇
𝑇
2

𝑌𝑣

0.5

𝑁𝑟

0.02

−𝜋𝜌√(𝑢2 + 𝑣 2 )𝑇 2 𝐿2

𝑁𝑣

0.06

−𝜋𝜌√(𝑢2 + 𝑣 2 )𝑇 2 𝐿

𝑌𝑟

6

−𝜋𝜌√(𝑢2 + 𝑣 2 )𝑇 2 𝐿

−40𝜌|𝑣| [1.1 + 0.0045

𝑋𝑢|𝑢|

See Fig. 3.

𝑌𝑣|𝑣|

1

𝑌𝑣|𝑟|

1

𝑌𝑟|𝑣|

1

𝑌𝑟|𝑟|

1

−𝜌𝑇𝐶𝑑 𝐿
−𝜌𝑇

1.1
[(𝐿 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺)2 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺 2 ]
2
Same as 𝑌𝑣|𝑟|

−𝜌𝑇

𝐶𝑑
[(𝐿 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺)3 + 𝐿𝐶𝐺 3 ]
3

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

19

𝑁𝑣|𝑣|

1

Same as 𝑌𝑣|𝑟|

𝑁𝑣|𝑟|

1

Same as 𝑌𝑟|𝑟|

𝑁𝑟|𝑣|

1

Same as 𝑌𝑟|𝑟|

𝑁𝑟|𝑟|

1

−𝜌𝑇

𝐶𝑑
[(𝐿 − 𝐿𝐶𝐺)4 + 𝐿𝐶𝐺 4 ]
4

VI. SPEED AND HEADING CONTROL
Due to the underactuation of the USV14, the lowest level of motion control is in surge speed and heading angle. This approach
has worked well with this type of vehicle [3], [7],[8]. Several controllers regulating those motion primitives have been developed
and implemented on the USV14.
A. Backstepping Control
A surge speed and heading controller has been developed using feedback linearization [37]. The controller is the same as that
presented by Liao et al. [24], apart from changes in formulating the controller for tracking control, rather than set point control, and
in the use of a nonlinear drag model. Note that the approach is very similar to that developed by Ghommam et al. [17] for position
and heading control of an underactuated surface vessel. As in both [17] and [24], the procedures developed by Panteley and Loria
[28] can be used to show that the cascaded system is globally uniformly asymptotically stable.

To develop a surge speed controller, the surge equations of motion given by (3), (7)-(11), and (17) were reduced to:
(𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇ )𝑢̇ − (𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑣𝑟 − 𝑋𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 𝜏𝑥 ,

(18)

where 𝜏𝑥 is the surge component of the forces/moments (15) generated by the waterjet. Input state linearization [37] can be used to
find a nonlinear feedback control law for the surge subsystem. Let 𝜉𝑢 be a linearizing control, related to the commanded value of
𝜏𝑥 from the controller by
𝜏𝑥 = (𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇ )𝜉𝑢 − (𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑣𝑟 − 𝑋𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 .

(19)

With this value of 𝜏𝑥 , (19) reduces to 𝑢̇ = 𝜉𝑢 . If the surge tracking error is defined as 𝑒𝑢 = (𝑢 − 𝑢𝑑 ), where 𝑢𝑑 is the desired surge
speed, and a linearizing control of the form 𝜉𝑢 = 𝑢̇ 𝑑 − 𝑘𝑢 𝑒𝑢 is selected, the surge tracking error dynamics will be:

𝑒̇𝑢 + 𝑘𝑢 𝑒𝑢 = 0.

(20)

For positive values of the surge velocity gain 𝑘𝑢 , the error dynamics for 𝑒𝑢 are stable. As in [24], a hyperbolic tangent form can be
selected for the desired surge acceleration as
𝑢̇ 𝑑 = 𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 tanh[𝑘𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑢𝑑,𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑢)/𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ],

(21)

where 𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum allowed surge acceleration, 𝑘𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is a positive surge acceleration gain that shapes the approach to
the desired speed, and 𝑢𝑑,𝑟𝑒𝑓 is defined as

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158
𝑢𝑑,𝑟𝑒𝑓 ≡ min{[𝑢𝑑,𝑦𝑎𝑤 + (𝑢𝑑 − 𝑢𝑑,𝑦𝑎𝑤 )exp(−5.73|𝑒𝜓 |)], 𝑢𝑑 },

20
(22)

where 𝑒𝜓 = 𝜓 − 𝜓𝑑 is the vehicle heading error, and 𝑢𝑑,𝑦𝑎𝑤 is the desired surge velocity for periods of yaw motion. The function
min{ } denotes taking the minimum of the two values in the function’s argument. The intent of including the 𝑢𝑑,𝑟𝑒𝑓 term is to keep
the surge speed low during turning maneuvers in order to minimize the vehicle’s turning radius.
To develop a heading controller, the yaw rate equations of motion given by (3), and (7)-(11) were simplified as:
(𝐼𝑧 − 𝑁𝑟̇ )𝑟̇ − (−𝑋𝑢̇ + 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑢𝑣 − 𝑁𝑟 𝑟 = 𝜏𝑧 .

(23)

As above, input state linearization was used to identify a nonlinear feedback control law for the yaw subsystem. Let 𝜉𝜓 be a
linearizing control related to the commanded torque from the controller 𝜏𝑧 by the relation
𝜏𝑧 = (𝐼𝑧 − 𝑁𝑟̇ )ξ𝜓 − (−𝑋𝑢̇ + 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑢𝑣 − 𝑁𝑟 𝑟.

(24)

Using this in (23) gives 𝑟̇ = 𝜓̈ = 𝜉𝜓 . If the heading tracking error is defined as 𝑒𝜓 = (𝜓 − 𝜓𝑑 ), where 𝜓𝑑 is the desired heading
angle, and an input of the form 𝜉𝜓 = 𝜓̈ = 𝜓̈𝑑 − 𝑘1 𝑒𝜓 − 𝑘2 𝑒̇𝜓 is selected, the error dynamics will be:
𝑒̈𝜓 + 𝑘2 𝑒̇𝜓 + 𝑘1 𝑒𝜓 = 0,

(25)

which are exponentially stable when the control gains are positive: 𝑘1 > 0 and 𝑘2 > 0. As only the desired yaw 𝜓𝑑 , and not also
𝜓̇𝑑 and 𝜓̈𝑑 , is provided by the ALR system, the control law reduces to:
𝜏𝑧 = (𝐼𝑧 − 𝑁𝑟̇ )(−𝑘1 𝑒𝜓 − 𝑘2 𝑟) − (−𝑋𝑢̇ + 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑢𝑣 − 𝑁𝑟 𝑟.

(26)

As shown in [24], the combined surge speed and heading control laws make the system state (𝑢, 𝑟, 𝜓)𝑇 bounded and globally
uniformly asymptotically convergent to (𝑢𝑑 , 0, 𝜓𝑑 )𝑇 when 𝑡 → ∞. They are also well-defined and bounded for all 𝑡 > 0 when
{𝑘𝑢 , 𝑘1 , 𝑘2 } > 0.
Examining the sway velocity 𝑣 subsystem,
(𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑣̇ + (𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇ )𝑢𝑟 − 𝑌𝑣 𝑣 = 0,

(27)

And using the error dynamics produced in (20) and (25), one can readily see that the sway subsystem in (27) reduces to,
(𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑣̇ = −(𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇ )𝑢𝑑 𝜓̇𝑑 + 𝑌𝑣 𝑣,

(28)

when 𝑡 → ∞, which is exponentially stable for the setpoint case of 𝜓̇𝑑 = 0. A block diagram of the controller is shown in Fig. 15.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

21

Fig. 15: Structure of the nonlinear backstepping controller.
During initial on-water controller testing it was found that the waterjet motors were exhibiting a chatter-like behavior. An
examination of the thrust model Section IV.A shows that the commanded speed of each waterjet is sensitive to small changes in
desired thrust. To reduce the chattering effect, the commanded surge force (19) is scaled by 0.5 and the commanded yaw moment
(26) is scaled by 0.05. Coupled with the fact that the waterjet pump motor driver has a maximum speed that it can output, the scale
factors basically act like a saturation function for the commanded motor speed to alleviate the chattering issue.
Despite the fact that a reduced set of the equations of motion in equations (3)-(11) were used to develop the backstepping surge
speed and heading controllers, the backstepping controller was found to be robust to unmodeled dynamics throughout the range of
the USV operating conditions tested.
B. Backstepping Yaw Controller with Adaptive Speed Control
Based on the results of simulation and initial on-water testing of the non-adaptive backstepping controller, the need for adaptive
speed control was established. Although the change in turning dynamics between displacement conditions does not appear to
drastically affect heading control performance, the change in drag significantly affects the performance of surge speed control. To
remedy the issue of steady state speed errors fluctuating with mass and drag parameters throughout the ALR mission, an adaptive
surge speed control law was developed and implemented in combination with the backstepping heading controller developed in
Section VI.A above.
By combining (17) and (18), one can write the surge equation of motion as:
ℎ𝑢̇ − (𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑣𝑟 − 𝑋𝑢 𝑢 − 𝑋𝑢|𝑢| 𝑢|𝑢| = 𝜏𝑥 ,

(29)

where ℎ ≡ (𝑚 − 𝑋𝑢̇ ). A control law for the thrust commanded by the controller of the form
𝜏𝑥 = − (𝑚 − 𝑌𝑣̇ )𝑣𝑟 − 𝑋̂𝑢 𝑢 − 𝑋̂𝑢|𝑢| 𝑢|𝑢| + 𝑎̂𝑑 𝑢𝑑 ,

(30)

where 𝑋̂𝑢 , 𝑋̂𝑢|𝑢| and 𝑎̂𝑑 are estimated parameters, is chosen to decouple the surge dynamics from those of sway and yaw. With this
control law, (29) becomes
ℎ𝑢̇ = (𝑋𝑢 − 𝑋̂𝑢 )𝑢 + (𝑋𝑢|𝑢| − 𝑋̂𝑢|𝑢| )𝑢|𝑢| + 𝑎̂𝑑 𝑢𝑑 .

(31)

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

22

A linear reference model of the form
𝑢̇ 𝑚 = −𝑎𝑚 𝑢𝑚 + 𝑏𝑚 𝑢𝑑 ,

(32)

is chosen and the model error is defined as 𝑒𝑚 ≡ (𝑢 − 𝑢𝑚 ). With this reference model (31) can be reduced to an equation
describing the surge speed error dynamics:
ℎ𝑒̇𝑚 + ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑒𝑚 = (ℎ𝑎𝑚 + 𝑎̃1 )𝑢 + 𝑎̃2 𝑢|𝑢| − (ℎ𝑏𝑚 − 𝑎̂𝑑 )𝑢𝑑 ,

(33)

where 𝑎̃1 ≡ (𝑋𝑢 − 𝑋̂𝑢 ) and 𝑎̃2 ≡ (𝑋𝑢|𝑢| − 𝑋̂𝑢|𝑢| ) are parameter estimation errors. An adaptation law of the form
𝑑𝑎̃1
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑎̃2
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑎̂𝑑
𝑑𝑡

=−
=−

𝑑𝑋̂𝑢

=

𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑋̂𝑢|𝑢|
𝑑𝑡

−𝛾𝑒𝑚 𝑢 sgn(ℎ)

= −𝛾𝑒𝑚 𝑢|𝑢| sgn(ℎ) ,

=

(34)

−𝛾𝑒𝑚 𝑢𝑑 sgn(ℎ) }

is chosen for stability, where sgn(ℎ) is the sign (signum) function and 𝛾 is a positive adaptation gain. The stability of the surge
speed controller can be shown for the Lyapunov function candidate:
1

2
𝑉 = |ℎ|𝑒𝑚
+ [(ℎ𝑎𝑚 + 𝑎̃1 )2 + 𝑎̃22 + (ℎ𝑏𝑚 − 𝑎̂𝑑 )2 ].
𝛾

(35)

Using |ℎ| = ℎ sgn(ℎ) together with (33) and (34), the derivative of the Lyapunov function reduces to
2 |ℎ|,
𝑉̇ = −2𝑎𝑚 𝑒𝑚

(36)

which is negative definite for 𝑎𝑚 > 0. The coefficients 𝑎𝑚 and 𝑏𝑚 of the reference model (32) can be determined by linearizing
the hyperbolic tangent based model acceleration for the nonlinear backstepping controller (21) with 𝑢𝑑,𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝑢𝑑 . When the surge
speed 𝑢 achieved by the USV approaches that of the reference model 𝑢𝑚 , the argument of the hyperbolic tangent function becomes
small and the model acceleration can be approximated as:
𝑢̇ 𝑚 ≈

𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑘𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥

(𝑢𝑑 − 𝑢𝑚 ),

such that 𝑎𝑚 = 𝑏𝑚 = 𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑘𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ⁄𝑢̇ 𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 . A block diagram of the backstepping adaptive controller is shown in Fig. 16.

(37)

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

23

Fig. 16: Structure of the adaptive backstepping controller.
As in Section VI.A, the commanded surge force 𝜏𝑥 is multiplied by a factor of 0.5 to prevent chattering. During field trials the
adaptive backstepping controller was found to work well with large, sudden changes in payload mass (see Section VII). In practice,
it was also found that when the parameter estimates 𝑋̂𝑢|𝑢| and 𝑎̂𝑑 were held constant, the adaptive controller still performed well,
because the linear drag term in the control law (30) dominates the other two terms at low speeds (𝑢 ≤ 1.5 m/s).
C. Comparative Set Point Tests
In order to establish a reasonable comparison between the two controllers, a set point test is conducted on each controller. The test
first consists of placing the USV in a predetermined position at rest with a predetermined initial heading. The test is started by
delivering a constant speed command and an initial desired heading command that is the same as the initial heading of the USV.
The USV accelerates towards the desired speed and also attempts to maintain heading. At a specified time (15 seconds), the heading
command is changed to a value 90 degrees from the initial heading and the USV executes a turn towards the new desired heading.
The metrics for evaluating controller performance during this test are steady state speed and heading error before and after the jump
in heading command. The test is conducted a total of three times for each controller and the performance metrics are averaged over
all three tests.
To quantify the difference in performance between two controllers, the difference between the errors is divided by the larger
error, resulting in the percentage amount that the lower error is ‘better’ when compared to the larger. This metric is relative to the
least desirable result, which is the baseline for comparison. For example, consider results 𝐴 and 𝐵 where 𝐴 is more desirable than
𝐵. The difference between 𝐴 and 𝐵 is divided by 𝐵 and the result 𝜆 = (𝐵 − 𝐴)/max(𝐴, 𝐵) × 100% is said to show that “𝐴
performs (𝐵 − 𝐴)/max(𝐴, 𝐵) × 100% better than 𝐵.” Since the metric we are comparing is steady state error, a positive value for
𝜆 denotes an improvement in A with respect to B. Naturally, a negative value would denote a performance decrease. This convention
applies for all subsequent sections where two control results are compared.
For the results presented in this section, the inputs used for the test are 𝜓𝑑 = 𝜓(𝑡 = 0) for 0 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 15 seconds, 𝜓𝑑 = 𝜓(𝑡 = 0) +

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

24

90 degrees for 𝑡 > 15 seconds, and 𝑢𝑑 = 1.5 m/s. For the non-adaptive backstepping controller the control gains are set to 𝑘1 =
0.1, 𝑘2 = 1.0, 𝑘𝑢 = 8.0, and 𝑘𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.2. The adaptive backstepping controller has control gains 𝑘1 = 0.1, 𝑘2 = 1.0, 𝑘𝑎,𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
1.2, and 𝛾 = 0.05. The backstepping controller gains were found (through previous testing) to work well on the USV. The WAMV USV14 was in the lightship condition for the tests, a 10-15 knot sustained wind blew from the southeast (approximately 1600),
and a slight tidal current of <0.2 knots flowed Northerly (approximately 3450). The small wind driven waves were taken to be
negligible in affecting the performance of the vehicle.
The results of one set point test when the USV is controlled by the non-adaptive backstepping controller are shown in Fig. 17.
The average speed error at steady state before the jump in heading is 0.25 m/s, and decreases to 0.24 m/s after the jump. The average
heading error at steady state before the jump is 0.74 degrees and decreases to 0.41 degrees afterwards.

Fig. 17. Results for the set point test using the backstepping (BS) and adaptive backstepping (ABS) controllers.
Results for the same set point test using the adaptive backstepping controller are overlaid on those of the backstepping controller
in Fig. 16 above. The average speed error at steady state before the jump in heading is 0.065 m/s, and 0.070 m/s after the jump.
The average heading error at steady state before and after the jump is 1.9 degrees.

The overall results averaged over three runs for each controller are shown in Table IV. The controllers have been annotated as
ABS and BS adaptive backstepping and backstepping, respectively. For brevity, the charts only show the comparisons of the
controllers after the jump in heading command. The results show that the non-adaptive backstepping controller shows 62% better
heading performance over the adaptive controller before the heading change. After the heading change, the non-adaptive
backstepping controller shows a 78% better heading performance than the adaptive controller.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

25

TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF CONTROLLERS FOR THE SET POINT TEST. USING THE METRIC IDENTIFIED IN SECTION VI.C, THE STEADY STATE SPEED ERROR OF THE ABS
CONTROLLER IS 71% BETTER THAN THE BS CONTROLLER AFTER THE JUMP. HOWEVER, THE STEADY STATE HEADING ERROR OF THE BS CONTROLLER IS 78%
BETTER THAN THE ABS CONTROLLER AFTER THE JUMP.

Controller:

ABS

BS

Steady State Speed Error Before Jump (m/s):

0.065

0.25

Percent Error:

4%

17%

Steady State Speed Error After Jump (m/s):

0.070

0.24

Percent Error:

5%

16%

Steady State Heading Error Before Jump (deg):
Steady State Heading Error After Jump (deg):

1.9

0.74

1.9

0.41

VII. VARIABLE MASS AND DRAG EXPERIMENTS
Mock ALR tests were performed in Dania Beach and Hollywood, Florida USA. In order for the vehicle to operate effectively, it
cannot be used in sea state greater than 1 or winds higher than 15 knots. The maximum sea state and wind conditions for operations
were determined by trial and error.
During the experiments the vehicle was driven under closed loop speed and heading control in the ICW. Vehicle heading,
acceleration, position, speed over ground, and motor command data were recorded, as were the wind and current speed/direction,
and wave characteristics. The WAM-V USV14 was tested over a range of surge speeds that are expected for the ALR mission.
A. Variable Mass
One of the possible scenarios for the launch phase is the AUV being dropped into the water from the USV’s undercarriage by
the ALR system. In order to simulate this scenario, a test case where the USV’s mass properties vary during operation is conducted.
Specifically, the mass change test involves the USV beginning in the full displacement condition and coming to a set desired speed
and heading. The mass and drag properties of the lightship condition are incorporated into the adaptive and non-adaptive
backstepping control laws (creating the uncertain mass and drag situation). Once the USV reaches steady state in both speed and
heading, an AUV-like mass is dropped from the payload and the USV continues along its course. No real-time feedback is provided
to the low-level controller about the actual displacement condition during the test, either before or after the drop. The performance
of each controller across the two displacement conditions is then compared against the other controllers.
For the experimental setup, the AUV-like mass is a Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe measuring 130 cm in length, 12 cm in
diameter, weighted with lead shot and capped at both ends (Fig. 18a). The overall weight in air of the PVC apparatus is 39 kg
(approximately the same as a REMUS 100 AUV), with the weight evenly distributed along the length. Four buoys (each rated at
13.6 kg buoyancy) are lashed to the PVC apparatus, two at each end. The device is secured to the undercarriage of the USV using
both fore and aft lines. The aft line runs through a loop directly above the aft section of the PVC device and forward to a quick-

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

26

release mechanism, where both lines are clipped in, thus suspending the PVC device under the payload tray of the USV and along
the USV centerline. The quick release mechanism holds the two lines together until a pin is pulled, which releases the connection
and the device falls into the water. A line is tied to the pin, which allows a user to pull the pin from a distance (from a chase boat
in front of the USV during the test).
A view of the USV in the full displacement condition from below as it is lifted with a crane is shown in Fig. 18b. Notice that the
AUV-like object is located along the centerline of the USV, and the two additional PVC pipes provide the weight of the intended
ALR mechanical system (68 kg).
a)

b)

Fig. 18. a) PVC device used to mimic a REMUS 100 AUV. b) Bottom view of the WAM-V USV14 in the full displacement
condition.
The results of the mass change test when the USV is controlled by the backstepping controller tuned to the lightship condition
are shown in Fig. 18. For the time up to the drop of the PVC device, the USV is in the full displacement condition traveling along
a desired heading of 150o at a desired speed of 1 m/s. The quick release mechanism can only be pulled from the front of the USV.
Accordingly, the drop is marked by a spike in surge velocity (and sometimes a perturbation to the heading) which is partly due to
the impulsive force applied to the quick release line. Because the impulsive force is unmeasured, the data corresponding to the time
when the force is applied are not included in the steady state averages. A picture, taken just before the mass drop occurs, is shown
in Fig. 19. The average speed error for the backstepping controller at steady state before the drop is 0.14 m/s, and decreases to 0.13
m/s after the drop. The data are shifted in time so that the results are synchronized with those of the adaptive backstepping controller
presented below where the drop occurs at t = 78 seconds. The average heading error at steady state before the drop is 1.4 degrees
and increases to 2.6 degrees afterwards.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

27

Fig. 19. Example results of the variable mass test using the backstepping controller and the adaptive backstepping controller.
Data from the different tests are synched according to the time of the mass drop for the ABS controller. The large perturbations
in surge speed and heading in the adaptive backstepping controller test at the time of the mass drop are attributed to a large
impulse delivered through the quick release line.

Fig. 20. Snapshot just before the PVC device is released from the USV undercarriage during the variable mass test.

Results for the variable mass test using the adaptive backstepping controller tuned to the lightship condition are also shown in
Fig. 18 above. The average speed error at steady state before the drop is 0.046 m/s, and decreases to 0.042 m/s after the drop,
which is synched to the backstepping controller such that it occurs at t = 78 seconds. The average heading error at steady state
before the drop is 3.3 degrees and increases to 4.7 degrees afterwards.
A comparison of the speed and heading errors for the three controllers is shown in Table V. For brevity, the full displacement
condition results are excluded from the comparison table. The results show that for each backstepping controller the speed error
decreased when the USV transitioned from the full displacement to the lightship condition. The magnitude of the speed errors,
however, show that the adaptive controller performs 67% better than the backstepping controller when in the full displacement
condition and performs 68% better than the backstepping controller when in the lightship condition. Note that the short period of

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

28

time during which the USV is reacting to the impulse of the quick-release mechanism are excluded from the analysis of the steady
state characteristics of the controlled USV.
TABLE V
COMPARISON OF THE ADAPTIVE BACKSTEPPING AND BACKSTEPPING CONTROLLERS FOR THE VARIABLE MASS TEST. USING THE METRIC IDENTIFIED IN SECTION
VI.C, THE STEADY STATE SPEED ERROR OF THE ABS CONTROLLER IS 68% BETTER THAN THE BS CONTROLLER AFTER THE DROP. HOWEVER, THE STEADY STATE
HEADING ERROR OF THE BS CONTROLLER IS 43% BETTER THAN THE ABS CONTROLLER AFTER THE DROP.

Controller:

ABS

BS

Steady State Speed Error Before Drop (m/s):

0.05

0.14

Percent Error:

4.6%

14%

Steady State Speed Error After Drop (m/s):

0.04

0.13

Percent Error:
Steady State Heading Error Before Drop (deg):
Steady State Heading Error After Drop (deg):

4%
3.3

13%
1.3

3.8

1.4

The results for heading do not show the same trend in performance. The non-adaptive backstepping controller shows 61% better
heading performance over the adaptive controller in the full displacement condition. For the lightship condition, the non-adaptive
backstepping controller shows 43% better heading performance over the adaptive controller.

B. Variable Drag
A second scenario expected for the ALR mission is when the USV is navigating a straight trajectory in the lightship condition
and the AUV (approaching from behind) impulsively docks with a recovery device suspended below the surface. This towing
situation would create an abrupt change in drag experienced by the USV, and also alter the turning dynamics, i.e. a change in both
the heading and surge subsystems of the USV would occur. As in the change of mass testing, it is assumed that no real-time
feedback about the presence of the AUV is provided to the USV low-level controller, which is tuned for the lightship condition.
To create this scenario, the AUV-like PVC device was secured at two tow points on the aft section of the USV payload tray
using a tow line. Each line is 7.3 m long, and attached to the front section of the PVC device. The PVC device is initially carried
aboard a chase boat behind the USV so that the towing lines are slack. Once the USV comes to a steady heading and speed, the
PVC device is dropped into the water from the chase boat and begins to be towed by the USV (Fig. 21). For this set of tests, since
the mass of the USV is not intended to be altered, the PVC device was weighted to 28 kg, which eased the lifting of the device to
and from the chase boat. The shape of the device was unaltered from the other tests; however the buoys sat higher in the water
which decreased the overall drag of the device. In order to determine the amount of drag experienced by the USV during the
variable drag tests, the PVC device is towed behind the chase boat. The tow line is attached to a scale, which is then attached to the
tow point on the chase boat. The control box is used to record the boat’s velocity and values are read from the scale for different
speeds ranging from 0.5 to 1.6 m/s. Fig. 22 shows the drag model developed for the PVC device. Each point on the plot represents

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

29

the average value of force recorded for that speed and the solid line is the curve fit to the points, valid for the range from 0.5 to 1.6
m/s. The data are averaged over a total of 76 force readings from the scale. For the data presented in this section, with a desired
speed of 1.0 m/s, the drag of the PVC device is estimated at 84 N. The same drag test conducted for the REMUS 100 AUV resulted
in a drag value of no more than 23 N at 1.0 m/s. The variable drag tests, therefore, allow for a towed recovery device drag of at
least 61 N.

Fig. 21. Picture of the WAM-V USV14 towing the AUV-like object through the water during the variable drag testing.

Fig. 22. Drag model for the 28 kg PVC device used in the variable drag tests.
Results of the variable drag test using the non-adaptive backstepping controller tuned to the lightship condition are shown in Fig.
23. The average speed error at steady state before the drop is 0.13 m/s, and increases to 0.17 m/s after the drop. The results are
shifted in time so that the drop occurs at t = 42 seconds and are synchronized with those of the adaptive backstepping controller.
The average heading error at steady state before the drop is 0.65 degrees and increases to 0.94 degrees afterwards. The same test
was conducted for a desired speed of 1.2 m/s, however the drag of the AUV-like PVC device was too high and the propulsion
system could not achieve the desired speed; the heading control also degraded significantly. Only the tests where desired speed

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

30

was 1.0 m/s are shown. The quantitative results are averages of the data shown in the figures only, and are similar to the results
from other tests.

Fig. 23. Results for the variable drag test using the backstepping and the adaptive backstepping controller. The two tests are
synched according to the time of the drop.
Results using the adaptive backstepping controller tuned initially to the lightship condition are also shown in Fig. 22. The average
speed error at steady state before the drop is 0.091 m/s and after the drop it is 0.090 m/s. The drop occurs at t = 42 seconds. The
average heading error at steady state before the drop is 1.81 degrees and decreases to 0.35 degrees afterwards.
A comparison of the speed and heading errors for the three controllers is shown in Table VI. For brevity, the results for the
comparison chart before the drop are excluded. The results show that for each controller the speed error increased when the USV
transitioned from the lightship to towing condition; however, the adaptive controller showed a 58% improvement on the
backstepping controller while in the lightship displacement condition. The adaptive controller performs 64% better than the
backstepping controller while in the towing condition.
TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF THE ADAPTIVE BACKSTEPPING AND BACKSTEPPING CONTROLLERS FOR THE VARIABLE DRAG TEST. USING THE METRIC IDENTIFIED IN SECTION
VI.C, THE STEADY STATE SPEED ERROR OF THE ABS CONTROLLER IS 64% BETTER THAN THE BS CONTROLLER AFTER THE DROP. HOWEVER, THE STEADY STATE
HEADING ERROR OF THE BS CONTROLLER IS 66% BETTER THAN THE ABS CONTROLLER AFTER THE DROP.
Controller:

ABS

BS

Steady State Speed Error Before Drop (m/s):

0.06

0.13

Percent Error:

5.5%

13%

Steady State Speed Error After Drop (m/s):

0.06

0.18

Percent Error:
Steady State Heading Error Before Drop (deg):
Steady State Heading Error After Drop (deg):

6%
0.1

18%
0.5

2.6

0.9

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

31

The results for heading are as follows. The adaptive backstepping controller shows 83% better heading performance over the
non-adaptive backstepping controller in the lightship condition. For the towing condition, the non-adaptive backstepping controller
shows 66% better heading performance over the adaptive controller.
The maximum speed at which the WAM-V can maintain heading control while towing a device with 84 N of drag is 1.0 m/s.
This number will decrease if the drag of the recovery device decreases because the initial estimate of the REMUS 100 drag at 1.0
m/s is 23 N – far less than the AUV-like object used for testing (see Fig. 22).

C. Variable Mass and Drag
A third scenario expected for the ALR mission is where the USV is navigating a straight trajectory in the full displacement
condition when the AUV is lowered/dropped into the water and is still attached to the ALR device for some time before being
completely launched from the USV. This carriage to towing transition would create a change in the drag and mass of the USV. The
turning dynamics would also be altered as in the case of the variable drag testing presented in Section VII.B. As in the other testing,
it is assumed that no real-time feedback about the presence of the AUV is provided to the USV low-level controller.
To conduct the variable mass and drag experiment, the setups for the variable mass (Section VII.A) and variable drag test (Section
VII.B) are combined. The PVC device is loaded in the undercarriage of the USV and the tow lines are coiled on the payload tray
and attached at the ends to the rear tow points on the USV. The USV comes to a steady heading and speed in the full displacement
condition, the quick release is pulled, and the device falls into the water. As the USV continues forward the tow lines are brought
into tension and the AUV is towed behind the USV.
Results of the variable mass and drag test using the non-adaptive backstepping controller tuned to the lightship condition are
shown in Fig. 24. In this case, the PVC device separated cleanly from the suspension points when the quick-release was pulled so
the device immediately transitioned to towing at distance. The average speed error at steady state before the drop is 0.14 m/s, and
increases to 0.19 m/s after the drop. As above, the results of the backstepping controller test are synchronized with those of the
adaptive backstepping controller, such that the drop occurs at t = 87 seconds. The average heading error at steady state before the
drop is 0.36 degrees and increases to 2.9 degrees afterwards. Results using the adaptive backstepping controller tuned initially to
the lightship condition are also shown in Fig. 23. The average speed error at steady state before the drop is 0.071 m/s and after the
drop it is 0.066 m/s. The average heading error at steady state before the drop is 3.1 degrees and increases to 3.4 degrees afterwards.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

32

Fig. 24. Results of the variable mass and drag test using the backstepping and the adaptive backstepping controllers. The data
from the different tests are synched according to the time of the mass drop.
A comparison of the speed and heading errors for the controllers is shown in Table VII. For brevity, the comparison chart excluded
the results before the drop. The results show that for the non-adaptive controllers the speed error increased when the USV
transitioned from the full displacement to towing condition. The magnitude of the speed errors show that the adaptive controller
retains an advantage of 48% on the backstepping controller while in the full displacement condition. The adaptive controller
performs 65% better than the backstepping controller while in the towing condition. Overall, the adaptive controller out-performed
both non-adaptive controllers in in transitioning from full displacement to lightship condition.
The results for heading are as follows. The non-adaptive backstepping controller shows 89% better heading performance over
the adaptive backstepping controller. For the towing condition, the non-adaptive backstepping controller shows 15% better heading
performance over the adaptive controller.
The main findings of the set point, variable mass, variable drag, and variable mass and drag tests are that the surge speed
performance of the adaptive controller is superior to the non-adaptive backstepping controller in the transitioning region. Finally,
the adaptive controller shows less effects to changing mass and drag parameters than the backstepping controller, which is the
ultimate goal of the low-level control for the ALR mission.

VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, we present the results of experimental testing of an unmanned surface vehicle under closed loop speed and heading
control through lightship, transitional, and full displacement conditions. The tests were performed to evaluate the tracking
performance of backstepping and model reference adaptive controllers under the variable mass and drag conditions expected during
the automatic launch and recovery of an AUV from the USV. System identification of the data recorded from the water-borne
maneuvering trials was used to find approximate values of hydrodynamic coefficients for the vehicle that adequately reproduce its

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

33

motion in zig-zag and acceleration tests.
TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF THE ADAPTIVE BACKSTEPPING AND BACKSTEPPING CONTROLLERS FOR THE VARIABLE MASS AND DRAG TEST. USING THE METRIC IDENTIFIED IN
SECTION VI.C, THE STEADY STATE SPEED ERROR OF THE ABS CONTROLLER IS 65% BETTER THAN THE BS CONTROLLER AFTER THE DROP. HOWEVER, THE STEADY
STATE HEADING ERROR OF THE BS CONTROLLER IS 15% BETTER THAN THE ABS CONTROLLER AFTER THE DROP.

Controller:

ABS

BS

Steady State Speed Error Before Drop (m/s):

0.071

0.14

Percent Error:

7%

14%

Steady State Speed Error After Drop (m/s):

0.066

0.19

Percent Error:
Steady State Heading Error Before Drop (deg):
Steady State Heading Error After Drop (deg):

6%
3.1

19%
0.36

3.4

2.9

We modified the backstepping controller for mono-hull vessels developed by Liao et al. (2010) [24] to account for the twin hull
dynamics and actuator saturation limits of a wave-adaptive modular vessel. The modified controller was then used as the basis for
a direct method model reference adaptive controller [17]. The reference model was derived using a physics-based model of the
vessel that was tuned using system identification test data. We performed a comparative analysis of the steady state tracking
performance between the two controllers (TABLE VII). Results show that the adaptive controller is superior in surge speed tracking
performance – the improvement comes with a slight penalty in the effectiveness of heading control. The variable displacement and
drag experiments show that the vehicle exhibits steady state surge tracking errors when an adaptive control approach is not used.
The variable mass and drag experiment is the most representative of an ALR mission, and clearly demonstrates that the adaptive
backstepping controller outperformed the non-adaptive backstepping controller in terms of speed and exhibited a similar response
as the non-adaptive backstepping case in heading. These same results are illustrative of the separate variable mass and variable
drag test, where the adaptive backstepping controller clearly outperformed in speed, while displaying a common performance in
heading.
REFERENCES
[1] Aguiar, A. P. and Hespanha, J. P. “Logic-based switching control for trajectory-tracking and path-following of underactuated
autonomous vehicles with parametric modeling uncertainty.” In Proc. of the 2004American Control Conference. Vol. 4, pp.
3004-3010, Boston, MA, USA, 2004.
[2] Aguiar, A. P. and Pascoal, A. M. Dynamic positioning and way-point tracking of underactuated AUVs in the presence of ocean
currents. International Journal of Control vol. 80, no. 7, pp.1092-1108, 2007.
[3] Alvarez, J., Bertaska, I., and von Ellenrieder, K. “Nonlinear Control of an Amphibious Vehicle.” Proc. ASME Dynamic
Systems Control Conference, Stanford, CA USA, 2013.
[4] Annamalai, A. S. K., Sutton, R., Yang, C., Culverhouse, P. and Sharma, S. Robust Adaptive Control of an Uninhabited Surface
Vehicle. J. Intelligent & Robotic Systems, May 2014. DOI 10.1007/s10846-014-0057-2.
[5] Ashrafiuon, H. Muske, K. R. and McNinch, L.C., “Review of Nonlinear Tracking and Setpoint Control Approaches for
Autonmous Underactuated Marine Vehicles,” in American Control Conference, Baltimore, MD. USA, 2010.
[6] Ashrafiuoun H. Muske, K. R. McNinch, L. C. and Soltan, R. A. Sliding-mode Tracking Control of Surface Vessels. IEEE
Transactions of Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 4004-4011, 2008.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

34

[7] Bertaska, I., Alvarez, J., et al., “Experimental Evaluation of Approach Behavior for Autonomous Surface Vehicles.” Proc.
ASME Dynamic Systems Control Conference, Stanford, CA USA, 2013.
[8] Bertaska, I.R. and von Ellenrieder, K.D., " Supervisory Switching Control of an Unmanned Surface Vehicle," Proc. MTS/IEEE
OCEANS’15 Washington DC, USA pp.1-10, 2015.
[9] Bertaska, I.R, et al. “Experimental Evaluation of Automatically Generated Behaviors for USV Operations,” J. Ocean
Engineering¸ vol. 106, pp. 496-514, 2015.
[10] Caccia, M. Bibuli, M. Bono, R. and Bruzzone, G. Basic navigation, guidance and control of an unmanned surface vehicle.
Autonomous Robots, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 349-365, 2008.
[11] Dhanak, M. R., Ananthakrishnan, P., Frankenfield, J., & von Ellenrieder, K. "Seakeeping Characteristics of a Wave-Adaptive
Modular Unmanned Surface Vehicle." ASME 2013 32nd Intl Conf on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013.
[12] Duerr, P. and von Ellenrieder, K.D., Scaling and Numerical Analysis of Nonuniform Waterjet Pump Inflows, IEEE J. Oceanic
Engineering, vol.40, no.3, pp.701-709, 2015.
[13] Faltinsen, O. M. Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine vehicles. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[14] Fossen, T. I. Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1994.
[15] Fossen, T. I. and Strand, J. P. Tutorial on nonlinear backstepping: applications to ship control. Modeling, Identification and
Control, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 83-134, 1999.
[16] Fratello, J. and Ahmadian, M. "Multi-body Dynamic Simulation and Analysis of Wave-adaptive Modular Vessels." Proc. 11th
Intl Conf on Fast Sea Transportation FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2011.
[17] Ghommam, J. Mnif, F. Benali, A. and Derbel, N. Asymptotic backstepping stabilization of an underactuated surface
vessel. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1150-1157, 2006.
[18] International Maritime Organization. “Explanatory Notes to the Standards for Ship Manoeuvrability.” December 2002.
London.
[19] Khalil, H.K. Nonlinear Systems, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[20] Klinger, W. Bertaska, I. Alvarez, J. and von Ellenrieder, Karl, “Controller Design Challenges for Waterjet Propelled Unmanned
Surface Vehicles with Uncertain Drag and Mass Properties.” Proc. MTS/IEEE Oceans’13 San Diego, CA. pp. 23-26. 2013.
[21] Klinger, W. Bertaska and von Ellenrieder, K. D. “Experimental Testing of an Adaptive Controller for USVs with Uncertain
Displacement and Drag.” Proc. MTS/IEEE Oceans’14 St. John’s, NS Canada. 2014.
[22] Kragelund, S, et al. “Adaptive Speed Control for Autonomous Surface Vessels,” in IEEE/MTS Oceans Conference 2013
(Oceans ’13), San Diego, CA, USA. 2013.
[23] Li. J, et al. “Robust Adaptive Backstepping Design for Course-keeping Control of Ship with Parameter Uncertainty and Input
Saturation,” in 2011 International Conference on Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition (SoCPaR), Dalian, Chiana, 2011.
[24] Liao, Y. Pang, Y. and Wan, L. "Combined speed and yaw control of underactuated unmanned surface vehicles," 2010 2nd
International Asia Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (CAR), vol.1, pp. 157-161, March 2010.
[25] Mahini, F. and Ashrafiuon H, “Autonomous Surface Vessel Target Tracking Experiments in Simulated Rough Sea
Conditions,” in ASME Dynamci Systems and Control Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA 2012.
[26] Marquardt, J. G. Alvarez, J. and von Ellenrieder, K. D. (2014) Characterization and System Identification of an Unmanned
Amphibious Tracked Vehicle. IEEE J Oceanic Engineering, 39(4):641-661.
[27] Miranda, M., Beaujean, P. P., An, E., & Dhanak, M. "Homing an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Equipped with a DUSBL
to an Unmanned Surface Platform: A Feasibility Study." Proc. MTS/IEEE Oceans’13 San Diego, CA. pp. 23-26. 2013.
[28] Panteley, E. and Loria, A. Growth rate conditions for uniform asymptotic stability of cascaded time-varying
systems. Automatica, vol. 37, no. 3, 453-460, 2001.
[29] Pearson, D. An, P.-C., Dhanak, M. R. von Ellenrieder, K. D. and Beaujean, P.-P. “High-level fuzzy logic guidance system for
an unmanned surface vehicle (USV) tasked to perform autonomous launch and recovery (ALR) of an autonomous underwater
vehicle (AUV).” Proc. 2014 IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) Oxford, MS pp.1-15, 2014.
[30] Peterson, A. Ahmadian, M. Craft, M. and Shen, A. "Simulation and scale-testing to improve the next generation of waveadaptive modular vessels." Proc. 2013 Grand Challenges on Modeling and Simulation Conference, p. 19. Society for Modeling
& Simulation International, 2013.
[31] Qu, H. Sarda, E.I. Bertaska, I.R. and von Ellenrieder, K.D., "Wind feed-forward control of a USV," Proc. MTS/IEEE
OCEANS’15 Genova, Italy pp.1-10, 2015.
[32] Qu, H. Sarda, E.I. Bertaska, I.R. and von Ellenrieder, K.D., "Adaptive Wind Feedforward Control of an Unmanned Surface
Vehicle for Station Keeping," Proc. MTS/IEEE OCEANS’15 Washington DC, USA pp.1-10, 2015.
[33] Sarda, E. and Dhanak, M. R. "Unmanned recovery of an AUV from a surface platform." Proc. MTS/IEEE Oceans’13 San
Diego, CA. pp. 23-26. 2013.
[34] Sarda, E.I. Dhanak, M. R. and von Ellenrieder, K. D. “Concept for a USV–based autonomous launch and recovery system,”
Proc. ASNE Launch & Recovery Symp. 2014, Linthicum, MD USA, November 2014.
[35] Sarda, E.I. Bertaska, I.R. Qu, A. and von Ellenrieder, K.D., "Development of a USV station-keeping controller," Proc.
MTS/IEEE OCEANS’15 Genova, Italy pp.1-10, 2015.

Please cite published version: https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2016.2571158

35

[36] Skjetne, R., Smogeli, O.N., and Fossen T.I. “A Nonlinear Ship Manoeuvering Model: Identification and Adaptive Control
With Experiments for a Model Ship,” Modeling, Identification, and Control, vol 25, no. 1, pp 3-27, 2004.
[37] Slotine, J.-J. E. and Li, W.-P. Applied Nonlinear Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
[38] SNAME “Nomenclature for Treating the Motion of a Submerged Body through a Fluid”. The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Technical and Research Bulletin No. 1-5, pp. 1-15. April 1950.
[39] Sonnenburg, C.R., and Woolsey, A.C. “Modeling, Identification, and Control of an Unmanned Surface Vehicle,” J. Field
Robotics, vol 30, no. 3, pp1-28, 2013.
[40] Svec, Peter, Brual C. Shah, Ivan R. Bertaska, Jose Alvarez, Armando J. Sinisterra, Karl von Ellenrieder, Manhar Dhanak, and
S. K. Gupta. "Dynamics-aware target following for an autonomous surface vehicle operating under COLREGs in civilian
traffic." In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 3871-3878. IEEE, 2013.
[41] von Ellenrieder, K. D. Free Running Tests of a Waterjet Propelled Unmanned Surface Vehicle. J. Mar. Engng & Tech 12(1):19, 2013.
Wilhelm Klinger received the B.S. degree in ocean engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD USA in 2012 and M.S.
degree in ocean engineering from Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL USA in 2014. He worked as a Research Assistant at
Florida Atlantic University’s Seatech Institute for Ocean and Systems Engineering, Dania Beach, FL USA while completing his M.S.
degree and is currently in flight training for the US Navy. Mr. Klinger is a member of the Marine Technology Society and Tau Beta Pi
Engineering Honor Society.

Ivan Bertaska (M’13) received the B.S. and M.S. degree in ocean engineering from Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL USA in
2012 and 2013, respectively. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Florida Atlantic University’s Seatech Institute for Ocean and Systems
Engineering, Dania Beach, FL USA.

Mr. Bertaska is a member of the Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society and the IEEE Oceanic

Engineering Society. His areas of interest include unmanned vehicle systems control, software architecture and navigation.

Karl von Ellenrieder (M’08) received the B.S. degree in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),
Cambridge, MA USA in 1990 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in aeronautics and astronautics from Stanford University, Stanford, CA USA
in 1992 and 1998, respectively. He is currently Associate Director of The Institute for Ocean and Systems Engineering (SeaTech),and a
Professor in the Department of Ocean & Mechanical Engineering at Florida Atlantic University in Dania Beach, FL. His research interests
include unmanned surface vehicles, marine hydrodynamics and ship design. Prof. von Ellenrieder is a Member of the Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, the Marine Technology Society and the IEEE Oceanic Engineering Society.

Manhar Dhanak is the Director of The Institute for Ocean and Systems Engineering (SeaTech), Director of Research for Southeast National
Marine Renewable Energy Center and Professor of Ocean Engineering at Florida Atlantic University. He is the past chair (2003-2009) of
the Department of Ocean Engineering at FAU. He is a graduate of Imperial College, University of London and served as a Research Scientist
at Topexpress Ltd., Cambridge, UK and as a Senior Research Associate at University of Cambridge before joining FAU. Dr. Dhanak has
research interests in hydrodynamics, physical oceanography, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) and ocean energy.

