Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Modeling, characterization and control of a piston-driven buoyancy system

for a hybrid aerial underwater vehicle
Rui Hu a,b,c , Di Lu a,b,c , Chengke Xiong a,b,c , Chenxin Lyu a,b,c , Hexiong Zhou a,b,c , Yufei Jin a,b,c ,
Tongjin Wei a,b,c , Caoyang Yu a,c , Zheng Zeng a,c ,∗, Lian Lian a,c
a
School of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China
b School of Naval Architecture Ocean & Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China
c State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper proposed the design and stability analysis of a piston variable buoyancy system (PVBS) with
Underwater vehicle integration to a hybrid aerial underwater vehicle (HAUV). The HAUV must be lightweight and maneuverable
Hybrid aerial underwater vehicle to have sufficient endurance and reliability of operating in both underwater/air environments. To meet this
Variable buoyancy system
crucial requirement, we designed a highly compact and lightweight PVBS to regulate the vehicle orientation
Control stability
and depth while operating underwater. A nonlinear motion model is firstly formulated to study the stability and
control strategy of the PVBS.Frequency response analysis shows that the PVBS is inherently unstable. Therefore,
a computationally affordable PID controller with a preset piston position is further developed to improve its
phase response and hence make the PVBS more stable with anti-interference loss. Performance comparison
between PID controllers with and without a preset piston position was conducted with simulations based on
the nonlinear motion model. The effectiveness of the controller on gliding motion with different linear actuator
speed are discussed based on extensive simulations. Field experiments of the designed PVBS with application
to a novel HAUV named Nezha III are conducted. Results illustrate that, with the PVBS, Nezha III is able to
maintain a desired vehicle pitch and heave velocity, as well as perform stable sawtooth gliding motion.

1. Introduction
The potential applications of hybrid aerial underwater vehicles
(HAUV) in scientific investigation and military have attracted many
researchers’ attention. An aircraft has high speed, good maneuver-
ability, and long-range capability, and a submarine has high stealth
and loitering capabilities underwater. A submersible aircraft combining
characteristics of both vehicles has high speed and high range in the
air as well as high stealth and endurance underwater. Studies about
cross-domain (air, water or ground) vehicles have emerged in recent
years, and some examples of aerial-aquatic vehicles (Weisler et al.,
2017; Young, 2014) and terrestrial-water robots (Crespi et al., 2013;
Lock et al., 2013; Crespi and Ijspeert, 2008; Yu et al., 2011; Dudek
et al., 2007) are available along with researches like mechanism de-
sign (MacLeod and Bryant, 2016; Hou et al., 2020), autogyro (Petritoli
and Leccese, 2020), navigation control (Mu et al., 2021; Eichhorn et al.,
2020; Xiong et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020; Petritoli et al., 2019a) and
AUV control (Wu et al., 2020, 2021; Garcia et al., 2021; Petritoli
et al., 2019b; Petritoli and Leccese, 2018; Lu et al., 2021a). Underwater
motion of HAUV can be driven by thrust (Drews et al., 2014; Ravell
et al., 2018), hydrodynamic force (Lu et al., 2021b, 2019, 2018),
and hybrid above both (Alzu’bi et al., 2018; Alzu’bi, 2018). HAUVs
driving by thrusters underwater are usually lightweight but have less
duration due to continuous power consumption. HAUVs driven by
hydrodynamic force have more duration, but inevitably carry more
dead weight. Unusual operation requirements of HAUV bring many
challenges of offering a fully functional design. The vehicle needs high
persistence underwater and high stability during repeated transitions
between domains, yet be sufficiently lightweight and maneuverable.
This compromises air flight or underwater locomotion performance.
Most vehicle components or systems are operated primarily in only one
domain like wings designed for air flight or thrusters/buoyancy system
for underwater locomotion. Unable to fully utilize all the components
means that the vehicle is carrying dead weight at all time, which further
reduce the vehicle operating range and duration.
Variable buoyancy system (VBS) is a key component for underwater
vehicles. It is major responsible for controlling vehicle orientation,
diving and surfacing. The VBS in HAUV needs to meet some special
requirements. First, the VBS needs to be lightweight and miniaturized

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China.
E-mail address: zheng.zeng@sjtu.edu.cn (Z. Zeng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102925
Received 3 March 2021; Received in revised form 9 October 2021; Accepted 11 October 2021
Available online 10 January 2022
0141-1187/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Hu et al.
Fig. 1. The Nezha III HAUV with the PVBS launches at ground and glides under water.
to reduce energy penalty for carrying unused VBS to other domains.
Second, the VBS should be able to control the vehicle to achieve and
maintain a desired depth or diving velocity. Last, the VBS should be
able to control pitch angle of the vehicle.
Common VBS designs cannot completely meet HAUV’s key require-
ments of minimizing weight and volume. Changing vehicle mass by
absorbing or discharging surrounding water is usually used to change
net buoyancy. Outside pressure drives surrounding water to fill a ballast
tank, and air in the tank is vented out (Woods et al., 2012). Vehicles
in MacLeod and Bryant (2016) and Tangirala and Dzielski (2007) are
able to pump water into an elastic bladder. Air is reserved in an inner
tank instead of being vented out. Changing displaced water mass is
another method to regulate net buoyancy. Net buoyancy of a robotic
dolphin is regulated by a bladder in its head, and the bladder expands
when hydraulic oil is pumped in Wu et al. (2019). Such variable
buoyancy designs usually use a sliding mass module to control pitch
angle, like the vehicle in Ziaeefard et al. (2018) and Page et al. (2016).
Differently, the vehicle in MacLeod and Bryant (2016) and Tangirala
and Dzielski (2007) uses another ballast tank to compensate change of
mass center position of the vehicle.
Several VBS designs that can control orientation independently exist
in previous research. In Xu et al. (2010), a bladder is set in the head of
the vehicle, change buoyancy will, at the same time, change pitch angle
and vice versa. Hydraulic pump driven by DC motor is used to force oil
into the outside bladder with a complex valve system applied to control
oil movement. Buoyancy increased by hydraulic oil can be detected
from air pressure in hydraulic oil tanks (Wu et al., 2014). However,
hydraulic oil driving systems used in such designs increases the weight
of HAUV.
In this paper, we propose a piston variable buoyancy system (PVBS)
for HAUV and analyze its stability. The PVBS consists of a cylindrical
acrylic tube which is sealed by a movable piston bulkhead. A linear
actuator is used to drive the piston. Buoyancy of the vehicle will
increase when the piston moves forward and enlarges volume of the
cylindrical pipe. The HAUV prototype named Nezha III is made by
combining PVBS glider and unmanned aerial vehicle to demonstrate
performance of the PVBS. In Fig. 1, a typical mission profile of Nezha III
is presented. When the vehicle dive down, net buoyancy is reduced by
moving the piston backward, and it also causes the center of buoyancy
to move backwards hence decreasing pitch angle of the vehicle, vice
versa.
On the other hand, the PVBS only uses piston position to control
pitch angle and heave velocity, which makes motion control more
complex. As shape of the vehicle is variable, building a motion model
according to force and torque of the whole vehicle like (Al Makdah
2
Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925
Fig. 2. Overview of the PVBS (a) Mechanical design (b) Electronic design.
et al., 2019) is unsuitable. The motion model which is built according
to kinetic energy and momentum mentioned in Leonard and Graver
(2001) is more suitable, but it needs to be further derived because
orientation control principles between two gliders are different. There-
fore this paper uses the same methods in Leonard and Graver (2001)
to build a motion model where we only use the piston movement to
control the vehicle buoyancy and orientation. Based on this motion
model, the stability characterization of the PVBS is analyzed. The main
contribution of the work lies in threefold. First, a highly compact and
lightweight PVBS is developed for underwater locomotion of HAUV.
Second, a computationally affordable PID controller with a preset
piston position is proposed, and simulation comparison between PID
controllers with and without a preset piston position results confirm
the good performance of proposed method. Last, the experimental vali-
dation of designed PVBS with application to a novel HAUV contributes
to the field as few experimental studies have been reported for HAUVs.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, system
design of the PVBS is presented. The building process of motion dy-
namic model of the PVBS glider in 3-D is described in Section 3. In
Section 4, equilibrium points of the PVBS are solved and their stability
are analyzed by frequency response method, based on the dynamic
model transformed into vertical plane. In Section 5, simulations of
pitch angle and velocity control are presented with results showing
influences caused by the linear actuator speed and depth of the vehicle.
In Section 6, the prototype experiment is conducted using Nezha III to
validate practical performance of the PVBS.
2. System design
The PVBS controls the vehicles by adjusting displaced volume of
water. Therefore actuator design in the PVBS is important. The actua-
tion system should react quickly, and the overall change buoyancy of
PVBS should be as large as possible. A compact PVBS is designed with
off-the-shelf components.
This PVBS, as presented in Fig. 2, contains acrylic cylinder, movable
piston, fixed flange, linear actuator and electronic cabin. The whole
PVBS is contained in the acrylic cylinder, and displaced water mass of
the PVBS is changed by piston movement. Movable side of the PVBS
is sealed by the piston with sealing elements, the non-moving side
is sealed by the flange with sealing elements. When the buoyancy of
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Table 1
Summary of key HAUV design parameters.
Parameter Value
Length 0.96 m
Wing span 1.50 m
Height 0.30 m
Weight 14.68 kg
Watertight hull max diameter 0.13 m
Max operational depth 25.5 m

Table 2
Summary of key PVBS design parameters.
Parameter Value
Fig. 3. The Mass distribution and frame assignment of the Nezha III HAUV with the
Length 0.96 m PVBS.
Max buoyancy 15.66 kg
Min buoyancy 13.4 kg
Buoyancy resolution 2.2 g
Diameter 0.16 m The kinetic energy of movable mass is
Weight 5.37 kg
1
Max thrust 2000 N 𝑇𝑚 = 𝑚‖𝐕𝑝 ‖2 (2)
Max operational depth 25.5 m 2
where

𝐕𝑝 = 𝐕 + 𝐫̇ 𝑝 + Ω × 𝐫𝑝
vehicle increases by driving the piston forward, the center of buoyancy
and 𝐕 is vehicle velocity, and Ω is angular velocity in the body frame.
shifts forward to increase pitch angle, vice versa. The kinetic energy of 𝑚ℎ is related to the added mass 𝐌𝐴 , added
The linear actuator has a range of 200 mm. When driven with 15.2 V inertia matrix 𝐈𝐴 and the cross term 𝐂𝐴 due to fluid effects in the body
DC, it can produce 2000 N of thrust and travel at maximum 20 mm/s. frame. We have
Velocity of the actuator can be controlled with PWM. The PVBS can 1
regulate buoyancy between 13.4 kg and 15.66 kg with 0.0113 kg/mm. 𝑇𝑚ℎ = 𝐯𝑇 𝐌𝐯 (3)
2
The actuation resolution is 2.2 g which is 0.01% of the overall change [ ]
where 𝐯 = 𝐕 Ω . According to Leonard and Graver (2001),
of buoyancy.
cylinder is a slender body to the fixed wing, the whole vehicle can be
The electronic cabin is separated from the piston movement religion
seen as symmetrical for three-axis, so 𝐌𝐴 and 𝐈𝐴 are diagonal.
with a carbon fiber plate. Arduino Mega 2560 is chosen for controller [ ]
to receive sensors data and give control signal. The depth information 𝐌𝐴 𝐂𝐴
𝐌= 𝑇
is measured with MS5837 sensor using I2C output. The piston position 𝐂𝐴 𝐈𝐴
is obtained from a draw-line sensor which outputs analog signals from In the inertia frame, the change rate of translational momentum 𝐩̇
0 V to 5 V to represent 0 mm and 200 mm movement. Orientation and 𝐪̇ angular momentum is
is measured from an inertia measurement unit with I2C output. The
PVBS is powered by a LiPo battery with 15.2 V voltage and 5300 mAh 𝐩̇ = 𝐑𝑖𝑏 𝐅𝑒𝑥𝑡 + (𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔𝐤 (4)
capacity.
Parameters of Nezha III and the PVBS are presented in Tables 1 and 𝐪̇ = 𝐑𝐢𝐛 𝐓𝑒𝑥𝑡 + (𝐑𝑖𝑏 𝐋ℎ ) × (𝐑𝑖𝑏 𝐅𝑏 ) + 𝐋ℎ × 𝑚ℎ 𝑔𝐤 + 𝐋𝑝 × 𝑚𝑔𝐤 (5)
2 respectively.
In PVBS, buoyancy has linear relationship with piston position as
𝐅𝑏 = 𝐅0 −𝐾𝑏 𝑟𝑝1 𝐤 where 𝐅0 is minimal buoyancy of the vehicle. 𝐾𝑏 is the
3. System motion model rate of change of vehicle buoyancy with respect to piston movement.
The position of buoyancy center 𝐫𝑏 is
The PVBS glider is made of a cylinder with movable mass inside and
‖𝐅0 ‖𝐫0 + 12 𝐾𝑏 𝑟𝑝1 𝐫𝑝
a fixed wing. A coordinate frame fixed on the vehicle body is assigned 𝐫𝑏 = (6)
and its origin is set at the mass center of the PVBS of minimal buoyancy. ‖𝐅𝑏 ‖
Axis 1 is along with the long axis of cylinder and points at movable
piston side. Axis 2 is parallel to the plane of the fixed wing. Axis 3 𝐅𝑒𝑥𝑡 and 𝐓𝑒𝑥𝑡 are external force and torque respectively as presented
is along with the direction which is orthogonal to the fixed wing. The in Fig. 4, which is expressed as
inertia frame (⃗𝑖, 𝑗, ⃗ is set on earth pointing at the north-east-down. We
⃗ 𝑘) 𝐅𝑒𝑥𝑡 = 𝐑𝑏𝑓 𝐅ℎ 𝐓𝑒𝑥𝑡 = 𝐑𝑏𝑓 𝐓ℎ (7)
have a rotation matrix 𝐑𝑖𝑏 from the inertial frame to the body frame. [ ]𝑇 [ ]𝑇
All symbols used in this section are presented in Table 3. where 𝐅ℎ = −𝐷 𝑆𝐹 −𝐿 and 𝐓ℎ = 𝑇𝐷𝐿1 𝑇𝐷𝐿2 𝑇𝐷𝐿3
The mass of the whole PVBS glider is denoted as 𝑚𝑠 , which contains are hydrodynamic force and torque respectively. 𝐑𝑏𝑓 is rotation matrix
two mass points: 𝑚ℎ is the fixed mass of the PVBS glider, and 𝑚 denotes mapping the body frame to fluid frame, which is expressed as
mass of the movable piston. Vector 𝐫𝑝 describes the position of the ⎡ cos(𝛼) cos(𝛽) − cos(𝛼) sin(𝛽) − sin(𝛼) ⎤
movable mass in the body frame. As presented in Fig. 3, the position of 𝐑𝑏𝑓 = ⎢ sin(𝛽) cos(𝛽) 0 ⎥
fixed mass and movable mass points is denoted by vectors 𝐋ℎ and 𝐋𝑝 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ sin(𝛼) cos(𝛽) − sin(𝛼) sin(𝛽) cos(𝛼) ⎦
respectively in the inertial frame.
here 𝛼 and 𝛽 are gliders angle of attack and sideslip angle.
The kinetic energy of vehicle consists of all kinetic energy of mass
𝐏 and 𝐐 denote the translational and angular momentum respec-
points
tively in the body frame, we have
𝑇𝑣 = 𝑇𝑚ℎ + 𝑇𝑚 (1)
𝐩 = 𝐑𝑖𝑏 𝐏 (8)
where 𝑇𝑚ℎ and 𝑇𝑚 denote kinetic energy of fixed mass and movable
mass respectively. 𝐪 = 𝐑𝑖𝑏 𝐐 + 𝐋ℎ × 𝐩 (9)

3
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Table 3
Nomenclature.
Name Unit Definition
𝛼 rad Angle of attack
𝛽 rad Sideslip angle
𝐂𝐴 kg Cross term in 𝐌
𝐷 N Total drag force of the vehicle
𝐅0 N Minimum buoyancy when the piston is fully retracted
𝐅𝑏 N Total buoyancy of the vehicle
𝐅𝑒𝑥𝑡 N External force applied to the vehicle in fluid frame
𝐅ℎ N Hydrodynamic force applied to the vehicle
𝐈𝐴 kg m2 Added inertia matrix
𝐼𝑖 kg m2 𝑖th diagonal elements in 𝐈𝐴
𝐾𝑏 N/m The rate of change of 𝐅𝑏 with respect to piston position
𝐿 N The lift force element in 𝐅ℎ
𝐋ℎ m Position of the fixed mass’ center in the inertial frame
𝐋𝑝 m Position of the movable mass’ center in the inertial frame
𝐌 kg or kg m2 Generalized added mass matrix of the vehicle
𝐌𝐴 kg Added mass matrix of the vehicle
𝑚 kg Movable mass of the vehicle
𝑚ℎ kg Fixed mass of the vehicle
𝑚𝑖 kg 𝑖th diagonal elements in 𝐌𝐴
𝑚𝑠 kg Stationary vehicle mass
𝜇 kg m∕s or kg m2 /s Generalized translational and angular momentum of the vehicle in the body frame
𝛀 rad/s Angular velocity of the vehicle in the body frame
𝛺𝑖 rad/s 𝑖th element in 𝛀
𝐏 kg m∕s Translational momentum of the vehicle in the body frame
𝐩 kg m∕s Translational momentum of the vehicle in the inertia frame
𝐐 kg m2 /s Angular momentum of the vehicle in the body frame
𝐪 kg m2 /s Angular momentum of the vehicle in the inertia frame
𝐫0 m Buoyancy center when 𝐫𝑝 is minimal
𝑟0𝑖 m 𝑖th element of 𝐫0
𝐫𝑏 m Buoyancy center of the vehicle
𝑟𝑏𝑖 m 𝑖th element of 𝐫𝑏
𝐑𝑏𝑓 N/A Rotation matrix from the body frame to the flow frame
𝐑𝑖𝑏 N/A Rotation matrix from the inertia frame to the body frame
𝐫𝑝 m Position of the movable mass in the body frame
𝑟𝑝𝑖 m 𝑖th element of 𝐫𝑝
𝑇𝑚 J Kinetic energy of the movable mass in the vehicle
𝐓𝑒𝑥𝑡 N m External torque of the vehicle in fluid frame
𝐓ℎ N m Hydrodynamic torque of the vehicle
𝑇𝑚ℎ J Kinetic energy of the fixed mass in the vehicle
𝑇𝑣 J Total kinetic energy of the vehicle
𝜃 rad Pitch angle of the vehicle
𝐕 m/s Vehicle velocity in the body frame
𝑉𝑖 m/s 𝑖th element in 𝐕
𝐯 m/s or rad/s Generalized translational and angular velocity
𝐕𝑝 m/s Vehicle velocity in the inertial frame
𝜉 rad Direction of 𝐕 in the vertical plane of the body frame

[ ]𝑇
We set 𝜇 = 𝐏 𝐐 to generalize translational and angular 1
momentum. Then we have 𝑉̇ 1 = (𝑋1 − 𝑚𝑟𝑝3 𝛺̇ 2 − 𝑚̈𝑟𝑝1 ) (13)
𝑚1 + 𝑚
[ ]𝑇 1
𝝁 = 𝜕𝑇𝑣 ∕𝜕𝐕 𝜕𝑇𝑣 ∕𝜕Ω (10) 𝑉̇ 3 = (𝑋3 + 𝑚𝑟𝑝1 𝛺̇ 2 + 𝑚𝑟̇ 𝑝1 𝛺2 ) (14)
𝑚3 + 𝑚
solve Eqs. (1)–(10), yields where
[ ]
𝐏×𝐐
𝐯̇ = 𝐌−1 { − 𝐌𝐯
̇ + + 𝑎2 = 𝐼2 (𝑚1 + 𝑚)(𝑚3 + 𝑚) + 𝑚𝑚3 (𝑚1 + 𝑚)𝑟2𝑝1
𝐐×Ω+𝐏×𝐕
[ ]
𝑚𝑔(𝐑𝑖𝑏 )𝑇 𝐤 𝑌2 =(𝑚3 − 𝑚1 )𝑉1 𝑉3 − 𝑚𝑔(𝑟𝑝1 cos 𝜃 + 𝑟𝑝3 sin 𝜃) + 𝑇𝐷𝐿2 +
𝑇 𝑇 + (11)
𝑚𝑔𝐫𝑝 × (𝐑𝑖𝑏 ) 𝐤 + 𝐫𝑏 × (𝐑𝑖𝑏 ) 𝐅𝑏 ‖𝐅𝑏 ‖(𝑟𝑏1 cos 𝜃 + 𝑟𝑏3 sin 𝜃) − 𝑚𝑟𝑝1 𝑟̇ 𝑝1 𝛺2 − 𝑚𝑟𝑝1 𝑉1 𝛺2
[ ]
𝐅𝑒𝑥𝑡 − 𝑚𝑟𝑝1 𝑟𝑝3 𝛺22 − 𝑚𝑟𝑝3 𝑟̇ 𝑝3 − 𝑚𝑟𝑝3 𝑉3 𝛺2 + 𝑚𝑟𝑝3 𝑟𝑝1 𝛺22
}
𝐓𝑒𝑥𝑡
𝑋1 = −𝑚3 𝛺2 𝑉3 − 𝑚𝑟̇ 𝑝3 𝛺2 − 𝑚𝑉3 𝛺2 + 𝑚𝑟𝑝1 𝛺22 +
‖𝐅𝑏 ‖ sin 𝜃 − (𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 sin 𝜃 − 𝐷 cos 𝛼 + 𝐿 sin 𝛼
4. Motion model analysis 𝑋3 = 𝑚1 𝑉1 𝛺2 + 𝑚𝑟̇ 𝑝1 𝛺2 + 𝑚𝑉1 𝛺2 + 𝑚𝑟𝑝3 𝛺22 −
‖𝐅𝑏 ‖ cos 𝜃 + (𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 cos 𝜃 − 𝐷 sin 𝛼 − 𝐿 cos 𝛼
In this section, the equilibrium points of the PVBS are solved from
the motion model, and its stability are analyzed. The motion model Eq. And parameters in Eqs. (12)–(14) are presented in Table 4. Hy-
(11) in the vertical plane is draulic coefficients are obtained from CFD.

1
𝛺̇ 2 = [(𝑚1 + 𝑚)(𝑚3 + 𝑚)𝑌2 − 𝑚(𝑚3 + 𝑚)𝑟𝑝3 𝑋1 + 4.1. Equilibrium solutions of the PVBS
𝑎2
𝑚(𝑚1 + 𝑚)𝑟𝑝1 𝑋3 − 𝑚𝑚1 (𝑚3 + 𝑚)𝑟𝑝3 𝑟̈𝑝1 − (12)
In this subsection, equilibrium points of Eqs. (12)–(14) are solved
𝑚𝑚3 (𝑚1 + 𝑚)𝑟𝑝1 𝑟̇ 𝑝1 𝛺2 ] when given desired vehicle velocity direction 𝜉𝑑 in the vertical plane of

4
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Fig. 4. External forces and piston buoyancy torque (a) Ascending (b) Descending.

Table 4
PVBS dynamic parameters.
Symbol Value Symbol Value
𝑚ℎ 13.8 kg 𝐾𝐷 1500 N(m/s)2
𝑚 1 kg 𝐾𝐿0 0 N(m/s)2
𝑚1 24.8 kg 𝐾𝐿 1300 N(m/s)2
𝑚3 24.8 kg 𝐾𝑀 −161 N(m/s)2
𝐼2 20 kg m2 𝐾𝑏 110.9 N/m
𝐹0 131.5 N 𝐾𝐷0 90 N(m/s)2
𝑟01 0.01 m 𝑟03 −0.02 m
𝑟𝑝3 0 m

the body frame. Variables in equilibrium are denoted by subscript ‘d’.

Eqs. (12)–(14) in equilibrium is
0 = (𝑚3 − 𝑚1 )𝑉1𝑑 𝑉3𝑑 − 𝑚𝑔(𝑟𝑝1𝑑 cos 𝜃𝑑 + 𝑟𝑝3 sin 𝜃𝑑 ) Fig. 5. The relation between balance pitch angle, heave velocity and piston position.
(15)
+ 𝑇𝐷𝐿2𝑑 + ‖𝐅𝑏 ‖𝑑 (𝑟𝑏1𝑑 cos 𝜃𝑑 + 𝑟𝑏3𝑑 sin 𝜃𝑑 )
0 = ‖𝐅𝑏 ‖𝑑 sin 𝜃𝑑 − (𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 sin 𝜃𝑑 − 𝐷𝑑 cos 𝛼𝑑
(16) Substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (15)
+ 𝐿𝑑 sin 𝛼𝑑
𝑎𝑟 𝑟2𝑝1𝑑 + 𝑏𝑟 𝑟𝑝1𝑑 + 𝑐𝑟 = 0 (22)
0 = −‖𝐅𝑏 ‖𝑑 cos 𝜃𝑑 + (𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 cos 𝜃𝑑 − 𝐷𝑑 sin 𝛼𝑑
(17) where
− 𝐿𝑑 cos 𝛼𝑑
1
Solutions of three variables 𝛼𝑑 , 𝑟𝑝1𝑑 and ‖𝐕‖𝑑 can be solved from 𝑎𝑟 = 𝐾 cos 𝜃𝑑
2 𝑏
Eqs. (15)–(17), and other variables can be solved by them
[(𝑚3 − 𝑚1 ) cos 𝛼𝑑 sin 𝛼𝑑 + (𝐾𝑀0 + 𝐾𝑀 𝛼𝑑 )]𝐾𝑏
Then Eqs. (16) and (17) can be transformed into the inertia frame 𝑏𝑟 =
− sin 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐷 𝛼𝑑2 ) + cos 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐿0 + 𝐾𝐿 𝛼𝑑 )
cos 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐷 𝛼𝑑2 ) + sin 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐿0 + 𝐾𝐿 𝛼𝑑 ) = 0 (18) − 𝑚𝑔 cos 𝜃𝑑 + 0.5𝐾𝑏 𝑟𝑝3 sin 𝜃𝑑
[(𝑚3 − 𝑚1 ) cos 𝛼𝑑 sin 𝛼𝑑 + (𝐾𝑀0 + 𝐾𝑀 𝛼𝑑 )]𝐾𝑏
𝑐𝑟 =
− sin 𝜉𝑑 𝐷𝑑 + cos 𝜉𝑑 𝐿𝑑 = (𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 − 𝐾𝑏 𝑟𝑝1𝑑 − ‖𝐅0 ‖ (19) − sin 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐷 𝛼𝑑2 ) + cos 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐿0 + 𝐾𝐿 𝛼𝑑 )
For 𝜉𝑑 ∈ (− 𝜋2 , 𝜋2 ),
Eq. (18) has real solution in [(𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 − ‖𝐅0 ‖] + ‖𝐅0 ‖𝑟01 cos 𝜃𝑑 − 𝑚𝑔𝑟𝑝3 sin 𝜃𝑑
√ + ‖𝐅0 ‖𝑟03 sin 𝜃𝑑
𝜋 𝐾𝐷 𝐾𝐿0 𝐾 𝐾
𝜉𝑑 ∈ (− , arctan (2 ( − ( 𝐿0 )2 + 𝐷0 ))) Piston position is limited in a small range, so the smaller positive
2 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐷
real solution of Eq. (22) is chosen for the value of 𝑟𝑝1𝑑 .
or In Fig. 5, solutions of pitch angle and heave velocity are presented
√
𝐾𝐷 𝐾𝐿0 𝐾𝐿0 2 𝐾𝐷0 𝜋 along with different piston positions. The dotted line connecting left
𝜉𝑑 ∈ (arctan (2 ( + ( ) + )), ) parts and right parts means there are not real solutions for Eqs. (15)–
𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐿 𝐾𝐷 2
(17) because none real solutions exist for 𝛼𝑑 in Eq. (18). In reality
We pick smaller 𝛼𝑑 solution application, pitch angle date is collected to estimate the direction
𝐾 of sawtooth motion because velocity direction is difficult to obtain.
𝛼𝑑 = 𝐿 tan 𝜉𝑑 ( − 1+ Although analytical solution can be derived from Eqs. (15)–(17) given
2𝐾𝐷
√ (20) velocity direction, the analytical solutions are very difficult to obtain
𝐾
4 𝐷 cot 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐷0 cot 𝜉𝑑 + 𝐾𝐿0 )) if given piston position 𝑟𝑝1𝑑 , so a function fitted from Fig. 5 can be an
𝐾𝐿2 alternative.
Then ‖𝐕‖ is
4.2. Stability of PVBS
‖𝐕‖2𝑑 =
(𝑚ℎ + 𝑚)𝑔 − ‖𝐅0 ‖ − 𝐾𝑏 𝑟𝑝1𝑑 (21) In this subsection, stability of the equilibrium points of the PVBS
− sin 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐷0 + 𝐾𝐷 𝛼𝑑2 ) + cos 𝜉𝑑 (𝐾𝐿0 + 𝐾𝐿 𝛼𝑑 ) is studied from the linearized motion model by the frequency analysis

5
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Fig. 6. Bode diagrams of the transfer function of the PVBS with and without controller. (a), (c) and (e) are amplitude-versus-frequency curves for 𝐺1 (𝑠), 𝐺2 (𝑠) and 𝐺3 (𝑠) respectively.
(b), (d) and (f) are phase-versus-frequency curves for 𝐺1 (𝑠), 𝐺2 (𝑠) and 𝐺3 (𝑠) respectively.

Fig. 7. Double closed-loop control strategy for pitch angle or heave velocity with a preset piston position as an example for control simulation. The desired piston position is
made up of a preset piston position 𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒 and PID controller output 𝑟𝑐 , and piston driven by linear actuator moves with constant velocity to reach to desired position.

method. Note that stability analyzed in this section is only for equilib- for three outputs.
rium points of the PVBS. Whether the PVBS can be controlled stably
⎡ 𝐺1 (𝑠) ⎤ [ ]
should be further validated in simulations. ⎢ 𝐺 (𝑠) ⎥ = 𝐈 𝟎 (𝑠𝐈 − 𝐀)−1 𝐁 (24)
Linearized PVBS motion is ⎢ 2 ⎥ 3
⎣ 𝐺3 (𝑠) ⎦
⎡ 𝜃̇ ⎤ ⎡ 𝜃 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ The PVBS is unstable from transfer functions 𝐺𝑖 (𝑠). Frequency do-
⎢ 𝑉̇1 ⎥ = 𝐀⎢ 𝑉1 ⎥ + 𝐁𝑟𝑝1 (23) main analysis results of 𝐺𝑖 (𝑠) are present in Fig. 6. Note that all
⎢ 𝑉̇3 ⎥ ⎢ 𝑉3 ⎥
⎢ 𝛺̇ 2 ⎥ ⎢ 𝛺2 ⎥ frequency responses of 𝐺𝑖 (𝑠) have singularity near 2 rad/s. Considering
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ water damping and inaccuracy bringing by linearization, the most
where likely motion of the PVBS around equilibrium points underwater is
̇ 𝑉̇1 ,𝑉̇3 ,𝛺̇ 2 )
𝜕(𝜃, ̇ 𝑉̇1 ,𝑉̇3 ,𝛺̇ 2 )
𝜕(𝜃, persistent oscillation. Note that increasing phase response can make
𝐀= 𝜕(𝜃,𝑉1 ,𝑉3 ,𝛺2 ) 𝑒𝑞
| 𝐁= 𝜕(𝑟𝑝1 )
|𝑒𝑞
the PVBS more stable, so we tried a PD controller to stabilize the
Denotation |𝑒𝑞 means the variable is an equilibrium solution. Three PVBS. In Fig. 6, frequency-domain analyses of 𝐺𝑖 (𝑠) combining with
transfer functions 𝐺1 (𝑠), 𝐺2 (𝑠) and 𝐺3 (𝑠) can be derived from Eq. (23) a PD controller are presented. Transfer functions of PD controllers are

6
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Fig. 8. Simulation results of control performance comparison between PID controller with and without a preset piston position. (a) Pitch angle; (b)Heave velocity.

0.5𝑠 + 0.1, 0.3𝑠 + 2.5 and 𝑠 + 10 for 𝐺1 (𝑠), 𝐺2 (𝑠) and 𝐺3 (𝑠) respectively. The piston position is bang–bang controlled as presented in Fig. 7.
Phase margin are 77.7◦ , 44.4◦ and 27.9◦ for 𝐺1 (𝑠), 𝐺2 (𝑠) and 𝐺3 (𝑠) with Linear actuator driving piston movement will move forward if the
PD controller respectively. However, increasing magnitude response in desired piston position is bigger than the current position and vice
high frequency caused by PD controller will reduce anti-interference versa. The linear actuator is assumed to move at a constant speed, so
ability. Note that equilibrium points of the PVBS with PD controller we have
are stable theoretically, but controlled variables may be non-convergent {
𝑣𝑟 𝑟𝑝1 < 𝑟𝑝1𝑑
caused by the time delay of controller output. 𝑟̇ 𝑝1 = (25)
−𝑣𝑟 𝑟𝑝1 > 𝑟𝑝1𝑑
where 𝑣𝑟 is piston velocity.
5. Simulation

5.1. Comparison between PID controllers with and without a preset piston
In this section, control simulations of PVBS are conducted where a
position
double closed-loop control method with a preset piston position is used
as an example to validate the stability of controlling pitch angle and
To investigate the influence of the preset piston position in control
heave velocity. The double closed-loop control strategy with a preset
of the PVBS, comparison simulations between PID controllers with and
piston position is presented in Fig. 7. The inner loop input, which is also
without a preset piston position are conducted where target pitch angle
named the desired piston position, is the limited sum of a preset piston
values are as ±20◦ , ±30◦ and ±40◦ . Parameters of PID controller with
position 𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒 and the controller output 𝑟𝑐 . The preset piston position
a preset piston position are set as 𝐾𝑃 = −0.01, 𝐾𝐼 = 0 and 𝐾𝐷 = −0.3
comes from equilibrium solutions of Eqs. (15)–(17) to accelerate the
while these have to be set as 𝐾𝑃 = −0.06, 𝐾𝐼 = −0.02 and 𝐾𝐷 = −0.3,
controller response. The desired piston position is restricted
for the controller without a preset piston position one, to increase the
⎧ 𝑟 𝑟𝑐 + 𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒 > 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 response and control accuracy.
⎪ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 Results illustrated in Fig. 8 show that the PID controller without a
𝑟𝑝1𝑑 = ⎨ 𝑟𝑐 + 𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 𝑟𝑐 + 𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒 ≤ 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛
⎪ 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 > 𝑟𝑐 + 𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒 preset piston position has more overshoot and is less stable than the
⎩ one with a preset piston position. Note that the integration component
where 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 is maximal the desired piston position and 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 is minimal of the PID controller without a preset piston position weaken the
one. differentiation components’ ability to reduce overshoot. The reduced

7
R. Hu et al.
Fig. 9. Results of the pitch angle control simulation. (a) Pitch angle; (b) Heave velocity and (c) Pitch angle in different piston velocity.
stability of the PID controller without a preset piston position is caused
by a decrease of phase response in frequency domain. The proportion
and integration components in the PID controller without a preset
piston position reduce the phase response in frequency domain, which
reduce stability of the pitch angle control.
5.2. Pitch angle control
To investigate nonlinear inaccuracy of pitch angle control, simula-
tions where target pitch angle values are set as ±15◦ , ±20◦ and ±25◦ are
8
Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925
conducted. The PID controller parameters are set as 𝐾𝑃 = −0.1, 𝐾𝐼 =
0, 𝐾𝐷 = −0.5 and piston position restrictions are 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 =0.4 m, 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 =0.5
m when surfacing and 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 =0.3 m, 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 =0.4 m when diving.
Results of pitch angle control, illustrated in Fig. 9, show that pitch
angle is controlled stably. Note that warps in some curves before
convergence in Fig. 9 are caused by piston positions at that moment.
For example, after the target value switch to −15◦ from 15◦ , the desired
piston position is more than maximal position, and the piston position
keeps the maximal position, which decelerate changes of the heave
velocity and warps the heave velocity curve.
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Fig. 10. Results of the heave velocity control simulation. (a) Pitch angle; (b) Heave velocity and (c) Heave velocity in different linear actuator speed.

5.3. Velocity control piston position restrictions are

𝑣𝑧𝑑 = −0.06 m∕s 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.443 m 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.46 m

To characterize heave velocity control, simulations where target 𝑣𝑧𝑑 = 0.06 m∕s 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.361 m 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.42 m
velocity values are set as ±0.06 m/s, ±0.09 m/s and ±0.12 m/s are 𝑣𝑧𝑑 = −0.09 m∕s 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.468 m 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 m
conducted. PID controller parameters are set as 𝐾𝑃 = −0.1, 𝐾𝐼 = 𝑣𝑧𝑑 = 0.09 m∕s 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.33 m 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.42 m
0, 𝐾𝐷 = −1.5. Piston position restrictions are depended on the target 𝑣𝑧𝑑 = −0.12 m∕s 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.468 m 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5 m
value to get better performance. In different target heave velocity 𝑣𝑧𝑑 , 𝑣𝑧𝑑 = 0.12 m∕s 𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.33 m 𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.42 m

9
R. Hu et al.
Fig. 11. Heave velocity control considering depth affection in 24 m, 36 m and 48 m. (a) Pitch angle; (b) Heave velocity.
Results of the heave velocity control, as presented in Fig. 10, show
that it is less stable than pitch angle control. Observe that some curves
are convergent while others are not. These results imply that the
time delay of controller output may make the PVBS non-convergent.
Curves warp in the pitch angle control is also caused by piston position
restrictions.
5.4. Piston velocity effects
To test effects of linear actuator speed on pitch angle and heave
velocity control, simulations with linear actuator speed of 0.007 m/s,
0.012 m/s, and 0.017 m/s for pitch angle control and 0.005 m/s,
0.01 m/s, and 0.015 m/s for heave velocity control respectively are
conducted.
Results in Fig. 9 show that slow piston position speed brings more
time cost, while fast one will cause more overshoot. Note that improv-
ing linear actuator speed may be a solution for warp in some curves.
However, accelerating piston velocity brings more overshoot.
5.5. Depth effect
In order to test influences of deep-water pressure to control of the
PVBS, simulations are conducted where it is assumed that the linear
actuator speed is variable from 0.015 m/s to 0.005 m/s linearly along
with depth from 0 to 50 m. Values of target heave velocity are set as
0.06 m/s, 0.09 m/s and 0.12 m/s respectively, and the switch time of
each target value is set 400 s the same to observe results conveniently.
10
Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925
Results presented in Fig. 11 show that the depth has no influence in
dive phase as depth is too shallow to affect linear actuator speed. Depth
influence in surface phase is the same as results when linear actuator
speed is low.
6. Prototype experiment
The proposed PVBS is constructed and integrated into a novel HAUV
prototype - Nezha III. The total mass of PVBS is 5.37 kg, which meets
the minimum weight requirements of prototype NeZha III. Various sen-
sors are applied to obtain underwater motion information. A pressure
sensor is used for obtaining depth data, and heave velocity is calculated
from depth change in every 3 s to reduce wave disturbance. Pitch angle
is applied to estimate sawtooth motion direction instead of velocity
direction as horizontal velocity value is not easy to obtain. An inertial
measurement unit sensor is applied to collect pitch angle information.
As supplementary GPS is used to obtain position data where vehicle
dives and surfaces. Compared to simulation parameters, parameters of
Nezha III are adjusted to
𝐾𝐷0 = 109 N∕(m∕s)2 𝑟01 = 0.004 m 𝑟03 = −0.09 m
The performance characteristics of Nezha III with the designed PVBS
have been validated through experiments in Qiandao Lake, Chun’an
County, Zhejiang province, China. The vehicle uses a simple compu-
tationally affordable PID controller with a preset position as shown in
Fig. 7. Controller parameters are
𝐾𝑃 = −0.087 𝐾𝐼 = 0 𝐾𝐷 = −0.047
R. Hu et al. Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925

Fig. 12. Results of prototype experiment. (a) Pitch angle in pitch angle control experiment; (b) Heave velocity in pitch angle control experiment.

Fig. 13. Sketch map of different position of Nezha III with under water photos in different time of diving and surfacing up respectively.

11
R. Hu et al.
Fig. 14. Track of Nezha III on water surface generated from GPS date.
Experimental data is shown in Fig. 12. Values of target pitch angle
are 20◦ and −15◦ respectively. Values of target heave velocities are
−0.06 m/s and 0.08 m/s respectively. When the target value changes
the system responds quickly with a slight overshoot, which can be
damped out within two oscillation periods. Fig. 12(b) illustrates the
heave velocity of Nezha III in experiments. Observe that the heave
velocity also responds quickly to piston position, and the prototype
was able to maintain stability in heave velocity based on the proposed
controller. In Fig. 13, vehicle photos in sawtooth motion are presented.
In Fig. 14, where the vehicle surfaces up from water confirm that
sawtooth motion moves towards a straight line.
Simulation results in Fig. 12 show that the motion model is accurate
for Nezha III despite the influence of selection of origin in the body
frame. However, wave disturbance making vehicle less stable and
slower is not considered in this model. The motion model in this paper
is not suitable for PVBS’s equilibrium points where its buoyancy is
negative and the head of it is upturned, vice versa.
7. Conclusion
This paper analytically investigated a PVBS designed specifically
for HAUV. The proposed PVBS meets the critical requirements of light
weight by its capability of regulating the vehicle pitch and buoyancy
meanwhile. Although HAUV is the primary design target, this PVBS
can also be applied in other underwater vehicles where lightweight and
vertical motion is needed. Equilibrium solutions of the PVBS show the
control range of pitch angle and heave velocity is between −50◦ and 50◦
and between −0.55 m/s and 0.55 m/s respectively. Improving stability
is critical for the PVBS as it is inherently unstable, and a controller
which can improve phase response can make PVBS more stable with
anti-interference ability loss. Based on such analysis, the PID controller
with a preset piston position for pitch angle or heave velocity is used as
an example to present control characteristic of PVBS. Simulation results
show that the preset piston position can improve response velocity
and reduce overshoot. Lower linear actuator speed will make response
slower but less overshoot, while higher linear actuator speed can
reduce influence coming from warping of piston position and increase
overshoot. A proof-of-concept prototype - Nezha III was conducted and
tested to demonstrates underwater motion performance. Nezha III was
able to dive and surface keeping a desired pitch angle. Future work will
include adding a special control method for PVBS to reduce non-linear
inaccuracy and improve anti-interference ability.
12
Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rui Hu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Inves-
tigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Validation.
Di Lu: Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Software. Chengke
Xiong: Investigation, Data curation. Chenxin Lyu: Investigation. Hex-
iong Zhou: Validation. Yufei Jin: Validation. Tongjin Wei: Vali-
dation. Caoyang Yu: Validation. Zheng Zeng: Writing – review &
editing, Resources, Supervision, Project administration, Investigation,
Data curation. Lian Lian: Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under grant 41706108 and in part by the Shang-
hai Committee Science and Technology Project 20dz1206600 and in
part by the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai under Grant
20ZR1424800 and in part by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Sci-
entific and Technological Innovation Funds under Grant 2019QYB04
and in part by Advanced Polar Science Institute of Shanghai (APSIS).
References
Al Makdah, A.A.R., Daher, N., Asmar, D., Shammas, E., 2019. Three-dimensional
trajectory tracking of a hybrid autonomous underwater vehicle in the presence
of underwater current. Ocean Eng. 185, 115–132.
Alzu’bi, H.M.A.Q., 2018. Loon Copter: Modeling, Implementation, and Stability Control
of a Fully-featured Aquatic-aerial Quadcopter. (Ph.D. thesis). Oakland University.
Alzu’bi, H., Mansour, I., Rawashdeh, O., 2018. Loon copter: Implementation of a
hybrid unmanned aquatic–aerial quadcopter with active buoyancy control. J. Field
Robotics 35 (5), 764–778.
Crespi, A., Ijspeert, A.J., 2008. Online optimization of swimming and crawling in an
amphibious snake robot. IEEE Trans. Robot. 24 (1), 75–87.
Crespi, A., Karakasiliotis, K., Guignard, A., Ijspeert, A.J., 2013. Salamandra robotica II:
an amphibious robot to study salamander-like swimming and walking gaits. IEEE
Trans. Robot. 29 (2), 308–320.
Drews, P.L., Neto, A.A., Campos, M.F., 2014. Hybrid unmanned aerial underwater
vehicle: Modeling and simulation. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, pp. 4637–4642.
Dudek, G., Giguere, P., Prahacs, C., Saunderson, S., Sattar, J., Torres-Mendez, L.A.,
Jenkin, M., German, A., Hogue, A., Ripsman, A., et al., 2007. Aqua: An amphibious
autonomous robot. Computer 40 (1), 46–53.
Eichhorn, M., Aragon, D., Shardt, Y.A., Roarty, H., 2020. Modeling for the performance
of navigation, control and data post-processing of underwater gliders. Appl. Ocean
Res. 101, 102191.
Garcia, M., Castillo, P., Campos, E., Lozano, R., 2021. Design, construction, and
control for an underwater vehicle type sepiida. Robotica 39 (5), 798–815. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0263574720000739.
Hou, J., Zou, W., Li, Z., Gong, Y., Burnashev, V., Ning, D., 2020. Development
and experiments of an electrothermal driven deep-sea buoyancy control module.
Micromachines 11, 1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi11111017.
Leonard, N.E., Graver, J.G., 2001. Model-based feedback control of autonomous
underwater gliders. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 26 (4), 633–645.
Lock, R., Burgess, S., Vaidyanathan, R., 2013. Multi-modal locomotion: from animal to
application. Bioinspiration Biomim. 9 (1), 011001.
Lu, D., Guo, Y., Xiong, C., Zeng, Z., Lian, L., 2021a. Takeoff and landing control of a
hybrid aerial underwater vehicle on disturbed water’s surface. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.
1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2021.3124515.
Lu, D., Xiong, C., Lyu, B., Zeng, Z., Lian, L., 2018. Multi-mode hybrid aerial
underwater vehicle with extended endurance. In: 2018 OCEANS-MTS/IEEE Kobe
Techno-Oceans (OTO). IEEE, pp. 1–7.
Lu, D., Xiong, C., Zeng, Z., Lian, L., 2019. A multimodal aerial underwater vehicle
with extended endurance and capabilities. In: 2019 International Conference on
Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 4674–4680.
Lu, D., Xiong, C., Zhou, H., Lyu, C., Hu, R., Yu, C., Zeng, Z., Lian, L., 2021b. Design,
fabrication, and characterization of a multimodal hybrid aerial underwater vehicle.
Ocean Eng. 219, 108324.
R. Hu et al.
MacLeod, M., Bryant, M., 2016. Dynamic modeling, analysis, and testing of a variable
buoyancy system for unmanned multidomain vehicles. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 42 (3),
511–521.
Mu, X., He, B., Wu, S., Zhang, X., Song, Y., Yan, T., 2021. A practical INS/GPS/DVL/PS
integrated navigation algorithm and its application on autonomous underwater
vehicle. Appl. Ocean Res. 106, 102441.
Page, B.R., Ziaeefard, S., Pinar, A.J., Mahmoudian, N., 2016. Highly maneuverable
low-cost underwater glider: Design and development. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2
(1), 344–349.
Petritoli, E., Leccese, F., 2018. High accuracy attitude and navigation system for an
autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV). ACTA IMEKO 7, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.
21014/acta_imeko.v7i2.535.
Petritoli, E., Leccese, F., 2020. Unmanned autogyro for advanced SAR tasks: A
preliminary assessment. In: 2020 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Metrol-
ogy for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace). pp. 615–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
MetroAeroSpace48742.2020.9160111.
Petritoli, E., Leccese, F., Leccisi, M., 2019a. Inertial navigation systems for UAV:
Uncertainty and error measurements. In: 2019 IEEE 5th International Workshop
on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace). pp. 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
MetroAeroSpace.2019.8869618.
Petritoli, E., Leccese, F., Marco, C., 2019b. High accuracy buoyancy for underwater
gliders: The uncertainty in the depth control. Sensors 19, 1831. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3390/s19081831.
Ravell, D.A.M., Maia, M.M., Diez, F.J., 2018. Modeling and control of unmanned
aerial/underwater vehicles using hybrid control. Control Eng. Pract. 76, 112–122.
Tangirala, S., Dzielski, J., 2007. A variable buoyancy control system for a large AUV.
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 32 (4), 762–771.
Weisler, W., Stewart, W., Anderson, M.B., Peters, K.J., Gopalarathnam, A., Bryant, M.,
2017. Testing and characterization of a fixed wing cross-domain unmanned vehicle
operating in aerial and underwater environments. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 43 (4),
969–982.
13
Applied Ocean Research 120 (2022) 102925
Woods, S.A., Bauer, R.J., Seto, M.L., 2012. Automated ballast tank control system for
autonomous underwater vehicles. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 37 (4), 727–739.
Wu, J., Liu, J., Xu, H., 2014. A variable buoyancy system and a recovery system
developed for a deep-sea AUV qianlong i. In: Oceans 2014-Taipei. IEEE, pp. 1–4.
Wu, H., Niu, W., Wang, S., Yan, S., 2020. Prediction method of permissible error ranges
of control parameters for underwater gliders under given operation accuracy. Appl.
Ocean Res. 103, 102153.
Wu, H., Niu, W., Wang, S., Yan, S., 2021. An optimization method for control
parameters of underwater gliders considering energy consumption and motion
accuracy. Appl. Math. Model. 90, 1099–1119.
Wu, Z., Yu, J., Yuan, J., Tan, M., Qi, S., 2019. Gliding motion regulation of a robotic
dolphin based on a controllable fluke. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 67 (4), 2945–2953.
Xiong, C., Chen, D., Lu, D., Zeng, Z., Lian, L., 2019. Path planning of multiple
autonomous marine vehicles for adaptive sampling using voronoi-based ant colony
optimization. Robot. Auton. Syst. 115, 90–103.
Xu, J.a., Zhang, M.j., et al., 2010. A variable buoyancy system for long cruising range
AUV. In: 2010 International Conference on Computer, Mechatronics, Control and
Electronic Engineering, Vol. 2. IEEE, pp. 585–588.
Young, T., 2014. Design and testing of an air-deployed unmanned underwater vehicle.
In: 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, pp.
2721.
Yu, J., Ding, R., Yang, Q., Tan, M., Wang, W., Zhang, J., 2011. On a bio-inspired
amphibious robot capable of multimodal motion. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics
17 (5), 847–856.
Yu, C., Liu, C., Xiang, X., Zeng, Z., Wei, Z., Lian, L., 2020. Line-of-sight guided
time delay control for three-dimensional coupled path following of underactuated
underwater vehicles with roll dynamics. Ocean Eng. 207, 107410.
Ziaeefard, S., Page, B.R., Pinar, A.J., Mahmoudian, N., 2018. Effective turning motion
control of internally actuated autonomous underwater vehicles. J. Intell. Robot.
Syst. 89 (1), 175–189.