See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4287418

On-Line Intelligent Control of Submarine Periscopes

Conference Paper · July 2007

DOI: 10.1109/ISIE.2007.4374606 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
2 1,046

3 authors, including:

Ali Kazemy
Tafresh University
46 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyber-attacks in Networked Control Systems View project

Active vibration control of structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Kazemy on 22 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 On-Line Intelligent Control of Submarine Periscopes
Ali Kazemy†, Seyed Amin Hosseini† and Mohammad Farrokhi†,‡
†
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
‡
Center of Excellence for Power System Automation and Operation
Iran University of Science and Technology
Tehran, Iran
ali_kazemy@ee.iust.ac.ir, amin_hosseini@ee.iust.ac.ir, farrokhi@iust.ac.ir

Abstract—In this paper, first, the dynamic equations of a

submarine periscope will be extracted and verified with real data. II. FORWARD KINEMATICS
These data are acquired from an experimental setup. Then, using For obtaining the homogeneous transformation matrices, the
a neural network, an intelligent control method will be developed
to control the periscope model. The neural network will be basic method is used. In this way, first, a transformation from
trained on-line to cope with the changes in the system parameters. one coordinate to the next will be performed followed by the
Simulation results will be compared with off-line trained neuro required rotation of axes. Therefore, a homogeneous
controller, which reveals good performance of the controller. transformation matrix from one coordinate axes to the next, is
composed of some basic matrices. Other methods, like
Denavit-Hartenberg, use a reversed order. That is,
I. INTRODUCTION transformation matrices are calculated after defining the
rotation matrices. Fig. 2 shows the link coordinate frames of
Line-of-Site (LOS) stabilization has been widely used by
the periscope shown in Fig. 1. The transformation matrices of
many researchers for varieties of applications [1]. Periscope,
three links are defined as follows:
which is important equipment in submarines, is an optical
instrument, which is considered to be an LOS device. In
periscopes, image sequences, taken by a camera, must be ⎡c1 −s1 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ c2 −s 2 0 0⎤
⎢s c1 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥⎥
stabilized for better views by operators [2], [3]. A common 0
T1 = ⎢ 1 1
T2 = ⎢
periscope structure has been depicted in Figure 1. Image ⎢0 0 1 0⎥ ⎢ −s 2 −c 2 0 d⎥
sequences, taken from the sea surface, are reflected by the ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 0 1⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 1⎦
mirror to the camera, and observed inside the submarine by the . (1)
operator. Structure of a periscope is like the gyro mirror LOS ⎡c 3 −s 3 0 0 ⎤
stabilization [4], [5]. Major application of periscope is in ⎢0 0 −1 0 ⎥⎥
2
T3 = ⎢
submarines but tanks use them too. ⎢s 3 c 3 0 0⎥
Extracting dynamic equations of submarine periscopes has ⎢ ⎥
advantageous for research, computer simulation and model- ⎣ 0 0 0 1⎦
based controller design. The structure of this system is like a
robot manipulator. Therefore, to obtain the dynamic equations,
one can use the well-known methods like the Newton-Euler
and Lagrange-Euler methods. In this paper, the latter method is
Mirror
employed. θ2
Artificial neural networks are powerful tools for identifying
and controlling nonlinear dynamic systems. In this paper, Mirror micro
motors θ3
MultiLayer Perceptron (MLP) is used to control one joint of Height of the
the periscope [6]. The training of the neural network is Periscope
Camera
performed using on-line scheme. This is mainly due to the fact d
that in practice there are uncertainties, perturbations, or
changes in the system parameters. The simulation results will
Main Servomotor θ1
be compared with off-line training algorithm.
This paper in organized as follows. Section II describes
forward kinematics of a typical periscope followed by
derivation of dynamic equations in section III. In section IV,
design of the neuro controller will be given. Simulation results
are given in section V. Section VI concludes the paper. Fig. 1. Structure of a submarine periscope

1-4244-0755-9/07/$20.00 '2007 IEEE 245

 and (5) represent the position and velocity of this coordinate
z3 with respect to the zero coordinate system, respectively.

a θ3 y3
⎡ 0 ⎤ ⎡⎢ bc1s 2 ⎤⎥
1
x 2 θ2 x3 ⎡x 2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
b⎥ ⎢
2
⎥
z2 ⎢ y ⎥ = 0T 1T ⎢ − ⎢ 1 bs s ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ = (4)
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢⎢ 2 ⎥
2 1 2 1 2
y2 ⎢⎣ z 2 ⎥⎦ ⎥
b ⎢ ⎥ ⎢1 ⎥
⎣⎢ 1 ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ 2 bc 2 + d ⎥⎦
z1 d ⎡1 ⎤
y1 ⎢ 2 b ( −ω1s1s 2 + ω2c1c 2 ) ⎥
θ1 ⎡ x& 2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ y& ⎥ = ⎢ 1 b ω c s + ω s c ⎥
x1
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ 2 ( 1 1 2 2 1 2 ) ⎥
(5)
⎣⎢ z& 2 ⎦⎥ ⎢ 1
⎥
⎢ b ω2 s 2 ⎥
Fig. 2. Link coordinate frames of the periscope, shown in Fig. 1.
⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦
where 0T1 is the transformation matrix from coordinate one to
The velocity of the upper piece is equal to the velocity of the
coordinate zero (the base coordinate), c1 = cos(θ1 ) ,
lower piece
s1 = sin(θ1 ) and so on.

v 22 = x& 22 + y& 22 + z& 22 = b 2 (ω12 s 22 + ω22 ) .

1
III. DYNAMIC EQUATIONS OF PERISCOPE (6)
4
To derive the dynamic equations, the Lagrange-Euler
method is employed [7], [8]. Hence, the kinetic and the Therefore, the kinetic energy of the second link is equal to
potential energy of the all links must be determined.
⎛1 ⎞ 1
k 2 = 2 ⎜ m 2v 22 ⎟ + J 2ω22 = m 2b 2 (ω12 s 22 + ω22 ) + J 2ω22 . (7)
1 1
A. The Potential and Kinetic Energy of the First Link ⎝2 ⎠ 2 4 2
Since the body of periscope is fixed, the kinetic energy of
the first link is just due to the energy of the servo motor. The The potential energy of the second link is equal to
potential energy of this link is invariant to the angle of
rotations and hence will be omitted. Equations (2) and (3) 1 1
p2 = m 2 gz 21 − m 2 gz 22
represent the kinetic and the potential energy of the first link, 2 2
respectively. 1 1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1
= m 2 gbc 2 + m2 gd − ⎜ − m 2 gbc 2 + m 2 gd ⎟ = m 2 gbc 2 .
4 2 ⎝ 4 2 ⎠ 2
1 &2 1
k1 = J 1θ1 = J 1ω12 (2) (8)
2 2 C. The Potential and Kinetic Energy of the Third Link
1 The third link is treated like the second link. Equations (9)
p1 = m1 gd (3)
2 and (10) represent the position and velocity of the right half
piece of the mirror coordinate, respectively.
where J 1 and ω1 are the moment of inertia and the angular
⎡ 0 ⎤ ⎡⎢ a ( −c1c 2 s 3 − s1c 3 ) ⎤⎥
velocity of the first link, respectively, and d is the height of 1
periscope (Fig. 1). ⎢a ⎥ ⎢ 2
⎡x 3 ⎤ ⎥
⎢ y ⎥ = 0T 1T 2T ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ 1 a −s c s + c c ⎥
B. The Potential and Kinetic Energy of the Second Link ⎢ 3⎥ 3 ⎢2⎥ ( 1 2 3 1 3 )⎥ (9)
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢⎢ 2
1 2
The movement of the second link is like a see-saw. Hence, ⎢⎣ z 3 ⎥⎦ ⎥
for finding the kinetic and potential energy of this link, it is ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢
1 as s + d
⎦⎥
2 3
divided in two pieces, with half mass on either side. After 2
finding the kinetic and potential energy of each piece, the ⎡1 ⎤
kinetic energies will be added together and the potential ⎢ 2 a (ω1s1c 2s 3 + ω2c1s 2s 3 − ω3c1c 2c 3 − ω1c1c 3 + ω3s1s 3 ) ⎥
x&
⎡ 3⎤ ⎢ ⎥
energies will be subtracted from each other, to find the kinetic ⎢ y& ⎥ = ⎢ 1 a −ω c c s + ω s s s − ω s c c − ω s c − ω c s ⎥ (10)
and potential energy of the whole link. The velocity of the ⎢ ⎥ ⎢23 ( 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 ) ⎥
second link is calculated at y 2 = −b / 2 with respect to the first ⎣⎢ z&3 ⎦⎥ ⎢ 1
⎥
⎢ a (ω2c 2s 3 + ω3s 2c 3 ) ⎥
coordinate system, where b is depicted in Fig. 2. Equations (4) ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦

246
Hence, the velocity of this link is equal to been depicted in Fig. 4. The modeling error has been shown in
Fig. 5. As this figure shows, the error between the
1 experimental data and proposed model is relatively very small.
v 32 = x& 32 + y& 32 + z&32 = a 2 (ω32 + ω22 + ω12c 22 − ω12c 22c 32
4 (11) The input signal, applied to the model and the real plant, id
+ 2ω1ω3c 2 + ω1 c 3 − 2ω1ω2 s 2 s 3c 3 − ω2 c 3 ).
2 2 2 2 shown in Fig. 6.

And the kinetic and potential energy of this link is

⎛1 ⎞ 1
k 3 = 2 ⎜ m3v 32 ⎟ + J 3ω32 , (12)
⎝2 ⎠ 2
1 1 1 1
p 3 = m3 gz 31 − m3 gz 32 = m3 gas 2 s 3 + m3 gd
2 2 4 2
(13)
⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1
− ⎜ − m3 gas 2 s 3 + m3 gd ⎟ = m3 gas 2 s 3 .
⎝ 4 2 ⎠ 2

D. Lagrangian Equation
The Lagrangian equations for the periscope can be written as

⎧L = k 1 + k 2 + k 3 − p1 − p 2 − p 3 Fig. 3. Experimental setup

⎪
⎨ ∂ ⎛ ∂L ⎞ ∂L (14)
⎪ ∂t ⎜ ∂θ& ⎟ − ∂θ = τ .
Real data and model response
⎩ ⎝ ⎠ 160 Real data
Model output
140
Solving (14) yields dynamic equations as
120
⎛ ⎞
τ 1 = ⎜ J 1 + m2b 2 s 22 + m3a 2 (c 22 − c 22c 32 + c 2 + c 32 ) ⎟ θ&&1 +
1 1 100
⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 80
Degree

⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
+ ⎜ m3a 2c 2 ⎟ θ&&3 + ⎜ − m3a 2 s 2 s 3c 3 ⎟ θ&&2 + m 2b 2ω1ω2 s 2c 2 60
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 40
1
+ m3a 2 (−2ω1ω2 s 2c 2 + 2ω1ω2c 2 s 2c 32 + 2ω1ω3c 3s 3c 22 20
2 0
− 2ω2ω3s 2 − 2ω1ω3c 3s 3 − ω22c 2c 3s 3 − ω2ω3s 2c 32 + ω2ω3s 2 s 32 ), -20
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
τ 2 = ⎜ − m3a 2 s 2 s 3c 3 ⎟ θ&&1 + ⎜ J 2 + m 2b 2 + m3a 2 ⎟ θ&&2 -40
0 2 4 6 8 10
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ Time(sec)
1 Fig. 4. Comparison of real and model response
+ m3a 2 (2ω1ω2c 2c 3s 3 − ω1ω3s 2c 32 + ω1ω3s 2 s 32
2 Modeling error
+ 2ω3c 3s 3 + ω12c 2 s 2 − ω12c 2 s 2c 32 + ω1ω3s 2 (15) 2

1 1 1.5
+ ω1ω2c 2c 3s 3 ) − m 2b 2ω12 s 2c 2 − m 2 gbs 2
2 2
1
1
+ m3 gac 2 s 3 ,
2 0.5
Degree

⎛1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
τ 3 = ⎜ m3a 2c 2 ⎟ θ&&1 + ⎜ J 3 + m3a 2 ⎟ θ&&3 + m3 gas 2c 3 0
⎝2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 2
-0.5
1
+ m3a 2 (−ω1ω2 s 2 − ω12c 3s 3c 22 + ω12c 3s 3 (16)
2 -1
+ ω1ω2 s 2c 32 − ω1ω2 s 2 s 32 − ω2c 3s 3 ).
-1.5

A comparison between the data acquired from an -2

0 2 4 6 8 10
experimental system (Fig. 3) and the proposed model in this Time(sec)
paper, taking the dynamics of servomotors into account, has Fig. 5. Modeling error

247
 Input signal ∂E ∂y ∂u ( k )
8 = −e ( k ) = −e ( k ) y u ( k ) , (19)
∂W ∂W ∂W
6
where y u ( k ) = ∂y ( k ) / ∂u ( k ) represents the sensitivity of the
4
plant with respect to its input. If the term y u ( k ) in equation
2
(19) is eliminated, then the original backpropagation is
0 obtained. The sign of this term is an important factor for
Voltage

-2 stability but the amplitude of that affects the tracking

performance. The experimental results have been shown that
-4
the sign of y u ( k ) remains constant in the plant..
-6
Fig. 8 shows the closed-loop control block diagram for the
-8
third link of periscope. TD represents the time delay (i.e. the
-10 sampling rate), which is equal to 0.0015(ms) in simulations.
0 2 4 6 8 10 For the sake of space saving, only the simulations results for
Time(sec) the third link will be given in this paper. Other links can be
Fig. 6. Input signal applied to the servo motor in the model and in the real controlled with the same block diagram. The neural network is
plant
trained with off-line data as well as in on-line mode.
Simulation results for these two cases are given in the next
IV. CONTROLLER DESIGN section.
The neuro controller comprises of an MLP neural network
(Fig. 7). The designed network has six inputs V. SIMULATION RESULTS
[ref(k) y(k) y(k-1) y(k-2) u(k-1) u(k-2)] where ref is reference
The main advantage of the on-line training method is its
signal, y and u are plant output and input, respectively. This robustness against changes in system parameters. Moreover,
network also has fifteen neurons in one hidden layer and has the number of neurons for on-line training can be much smaller
one output u(k). The mathematical model of the network is as as compared to the off-line case. Dynamic of the servomotors
follows are as follows

⎛ ⎞ I&a =
1
(
− Ra I a − k b θ&M + v a )
y = ρ ⎜ ∑w Oj Q j + b O ⎟ , Q j = ρ (q j ) , (16) La . (18)
⎝ j ⎠ τ = −J θ&& − B θ& + k I
M M M M M a a
1
q j = ∑w ij u i + b j , ρ ( ⋅) =
I I
, (17)
1+ e ( )
− ⋅
i where I a , Ra and La are the armature current, resistance and
inductance respectively, k b and k a are motor torque constant
and back-emf constant, respectively, θ M ,τ M , B M and J M are the
where w ijI and w Oj are the input and output weights,
motor rotational angle, output torque, damping coefficient and
respectively, b jI and b O
are the input and output bias weights, rotor inertia, respectively, and v a is the input voltage to the
respectively, and u i are the inputs to the neural network, which motor.
Motor and plant parameters are written in table 1 and 2,
is shown in Fig. 7. respectively. Fig. 9 depicts the desired and the actual response
Error backpropagation training algorithm has been for θ5 , when the neural network is trained off-line using 400
employed. The error function for the training cycle can be
samples generated from real plat. Is this case, there will be no
defined as on-line training. The tracking error is shown in Fig. 10. As it
can be expected, a non-adaptive controller cannot be robust
1 1
( y r ( k ) − y ( k ) ) = 2 e ( k )2 , against changes in system parameters. Figs. 11 and 12 show
2
E = (18)
2 the tracking and the error while friction parameter, that is
modeled in motor dynamics, is increased by 300% at t = 2 sec.
where y r ( k ) and y ( k ) are the desired and actual responses of Figs. 12-15 show the same results when the NN is trained
on-line. As Figs. 14 and 15 show, the adaptive neuro controller
the plant. The gradient of error in (18) with respect to an
is very robust against changes in system parameters and can
arbitrary weight vector can be written as quickly adapt itself to these changes.

248
 VI. CONCLUSION
Tracking with Off-Line MLP
In this paper, first, dynamic equations of a submarine
periscope was derived and verified with real data acquired 10 Reference
from experimental setup. Then, a neuro controller was 8 Tracking
designed to control one link of the system. The neural network 6
controller was trained off-line and on-line to show the
4
robustness of the controller against changes in system
parameters. the system on off-line and on-line case. At the end, 2

Degree
advantage and defect of the proposed controllers had been 0
inspected. Continuation of this research includes application of -2
the neuro controller to the experimental periscope and
-4
comparing the results with the simulations.
-6

TABLE I -8
MOTOR PARAMETERS -10

Ra ( Ω ) La ( mH ) K b ( mV/rpm ) K a ( mNm/A ) 0 2 4
Time(sec)
6 8 10

40.2 0.8 3.2 35.1 Fig. 9. Desired and actual response, when the NN in trained off-line.

Tracking error
8
TABLE II
PLANT PARAMETERS 7

m1 ( kg ) m2 ( kg ) m3 ( kg ) a (m ) b (m ) d (m ) 6

30 0.08 0.5 0.03 0.08 1.1 5

4
Degree

3
ρ
I
wij O
wl 2
u1 ρ
u2 y (k ) 1
ρ
0
O
ui b -1
0 2 4 6 8 10
ρ I
Time(sec)

qj bj Fig. 10. Tracking error

Tracking with Off-Line MLP with Changing parameters
Fig. 7. Structure of the neural network
10 Reference
8 Tracking

6
4
TD +- 2
e θ3
Degree

θ3r u Plant 0
N. N. dynamic
-2
equations
Controller -4
-6
TD
-8
TD -10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time(sec)
Fig. 8. Control block diagram Fig. 11. Reference tracking with off-line MLP control and parameters
changing

249
 Tracking error Tracking with On-Line MLP with Changing parameters
8
10 Reference
7
Tracking
6
8
5

4 6
Degree

Degree
3
4
2

1 2
0
0
-1

-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 -2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(sec)
Time(sec)
Fig. 11. Tracking error with off-line MLP control and parameters changing Fig. 14. Reference tracking with on-line MLP control and parameters
changing
Tracking with On-Line MLP
Tracking error
10 8
8
7
6
6
4
2 5
Degree

0 4
Degree

-2
3
-4
2
-6
-8 1

-10 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time(sec) -1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fig. 12 Desired and plant response in on-line control Time(sec)
Fig. 15. Tracking error with on-line MLP control and parameters changing
Tracking error
8 REFERENCES
7 [1] Y.M. Liang, H.R. Tyan, H.Y.M. Liao and S.W. Chen, "Stabilizing image
sequence taken by the camcorder mounted on a moving vehicle,"
6 Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, pp. 90-95, Shanghai, China, 2003.
5 [2] Ping-Ho Chen, "Periscope using common optical path to have stabilized
panoramic view," US patent No. US 6,347,010B1, Feb. 12, 2002.
4 [3] Ping-Ho Chen, "A panoramic stabilized periscope with common optical path,"
Degree

pp. 183-189, 2003.

[4] T.H. Lee, K.K. Tan, A. Mamun, M.W. Lee and C.J. Khoh, "Composite
3
control of a Gyro mirror line of sight stabilization platform design and
auto-tuning," Proceedings of IEEE 3rd World Congress on Intelligent
2
Control and Automation, Hefei, P.R. China, 2000.
[5] B.C. Siew, B.M. Chen and T.H. Lee, "Design and implementation of a
1 X: 2.437 robust controller for a free Gyro-stabilized mirror system," Proceedings
Y: -0.019
of American Control Conference, Vol. 4 pp. 2231-2235, Philadelphia,
0 USA, 1998.
[6] S. Haykin, Neural Network: A Comprehensive Foundation, Second Edition,
-1 Prentice Hall, 1999.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time(sec) [7] F. L. Lewis, C.T. Abdallah and D.N. Dawson, Control of robot manipulators,
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.
Fig. 13. Tracking error in on-line control [8] J. Craig, Introduction to robotics: Mechanics and control, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1989.

250

View publication stats