2021
DOI: 10.11591/eei.v10i2.2288
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Controller design for underwater robotic vehicle based on improved whale optimization algorithm

Abstract: This paper presents the impact of introducing a two-controller on the linearized autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) for vertical motion control. These controllers are presented to overcome the sensor noise of the AUV control model that effect on the tolerance and stability of the depth motion control. Linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller is cascaded with AUV model to adapt the tolerance and the stability of the system and compared with FOPID established by the improved whale optimization algorithm (IWOA… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(25 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 1 shows the results of the chosen benchmarking functions. According to the above, there is only one local minima value for unimodal test functions, but multimodal test functions have multiple local minima values as the number of task dimensions increases [24]. However, based on the above result, it is clear that unimodal test functions (F1, F2, F3, and F4), multimodal test functions (F5, F6, F7, and F8), and fixed multimodal test functions (F9, F10, F11, and F12) tend to reach towards more optimal minimum value than that HHO and SSA.…”
Section: Proposed Algorithm Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Table 1 shows the results of the chosen benchmarking functions. According to the above, there is only one local minima value for unimodal test functions, but multimodal test functions have multiple local minima values as the number of task dimensions increases [24]. However, based on the above result, it is clear that unimodal test functions (F1, F2, F3, and F4), multimodal test functions (F5, F6, F7, and F8), and fixed multimodal test functions (F9, F10, F11, and F12) tend to reach towards more optimal minimum value than that HHO and SSA.…”
Section: Proposed Algorithm Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…According to the Figure 2, there is only one local minima value for unimodal test functions, but multimodal test functions have multiple local minima values as the number of task dimensions increases [26]. However, based on the above result, it is clear that unimodal test functions (F1, F2, F3, and F4) multimodal test functions (F5, F6, F7, and F8) fixed multimodal test functions (F9, F10, F11, and F12) tend to reach towards more optimal minimum value than that SSA and GWO.…”
Section: Proposed Algorithm Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…WOA has high performance to solve multiple optimization tasks. However, it has some convergence problem [41]- [45]. For this reason, the BAT algorithm may be implied with WOA to enhance exploration capability of WOA [42].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%