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

net/publication/301831885

Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges

Article  in  Annual Reviews in Control · May 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.04.018

CITATIONS READS

67 2,300

4 authors:

Zhixiang Liu Youmin Zhang

Concordia University Montreal Concordia University Montreal
34 PUBLICATIONS   354 CITATIONS    408 PUBLICATIONS   7,878 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xiang Yu Chi Yuan

Concordia University Montreal Concordia University Montreal
47 PUBLICATIONS   691 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   273 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Sliding mode fault tolerant control of aircraft View project

Fault Tolerant Control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhixiang Liu on 15 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges

Zhixiang Liua , Youmin Zhanga,∗, Xiang Yua , Chi Yuana

a Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada

Abstract
With growing worldwide interest in commercial, scientific, and military issues associated with both oceans and shallow waters, there
has been a corresponding growth in demand for the development of unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) with advanced guidance,
navigation, and control (GNC) capabilities. This paper presents a comprehensive literature review of recent progress in USVs
development. The paper first provides an overview of both historical and recent USVs development, along with some fundamental
definitions. Next, existing USVs GNC approaches are outlined and classified according to various criteria, such as their applications,
methodologies, and challenges. Finally, more general challenges and future directions of USVs towards more practical GNC
capabilities are highlighted.
Keywords: Unmanned surface vehicles (USVs); Guidance, navigation and control (GNC); Autonomy.

1. Introduction tonomy, as well as increased flexibility in sophisticated envi-

ronments, including so-called dirty, dull, harsh, and dangerous
1.1. Background missions (Bertram, 2008; Breivik et al., 2008; Breivik, 2010;
Roughly two-thirds of the earth is covered by oceans (Yuh Roberts & Sutton, 2006).
et al., 2011), but comparatively not a lot of the area has been With the aid of more effective, compact, commercially avail-
thoroughly explored. Climate change, environmental abnor- able and affordable navigation equipment, including global
malities, personnel requirements, and national security issues positioning systems (GPSs) and inertial measurement units
have all led to a strong demand from commercial, scientific, (IMUs), as well as more powerful and reliable wireless com-
and military communities for the development of innovative un- munication systems (Manley, 2008), greater opportunities have
manned surface vehicles (USVs), also known as autonomous been provided for USVs and their applications than ever be-
surface vehicles (ASVs) or autonomous surface crafts (ASCs). fore. USVs can be developed for a wide range of potential ap-
Despite this, only semi-autonomous USVs have normally been plications (as listed in Table 1) in a cost-effective way, such as
used rather than fully-autonomous USVs, owing to numerous scientific research, environmental missions, ocean resource ex-
challenges facing by the latter, such as limited autonomy due to ploration, military uses, and other applications.
the challenges in automated and reliable guidance, navigation USVs are always in competition with other manned or un-
and control (GNC) functions for all different operating condi- manned systems in terms of some specific applications (Savitz
tions in face of sophisticated and hazardous environments, and et al., 2013). Table 2 provides a brief comparison of these sys-
sensor, actuator and communication failures. Further develop- tems, and following advantages of USVs can be identified: 1)
ment of fully-autonomous USVs is required in order to min- USVs can perform longer and more hazardous missions than
imize both the need for human control and the effects to the manned vehicles; 2) Maintenance costs are lower and person-
effective, safe and reliable USVs operation due to human error nel safety is far greater since no crew is onboard; 3) The low
(Campbell et al., 2012). weight and compact dimensions of USVs give them enhanced
USVs can be defined as unmanned vehicles which perform maneuverability and deployability in shallow waters (riverine
tasks in a variety of cluttered environments without any human and coastal areas) where larger craft cannot operate effectively;
intervention, and essentially exhibit highly nonlinear dynamics 4) USVs also have greater potential payload capacity and are
(Breivik, 2010). Further development of USVs are expected to able to perform deeper water depth monitoring and sampling
produce tremendous benefits, such as lower development and compared to other aircraft/UAVs and spacecraft.
operation costs, improved personnel safety and security, ex-
tended operational range (reliability) and precision, greater au-
1.2. Motivation and Major Work
∗ Corresponding author. [email protected]; Tel: +1 514 848 The future progress of USVs depends on the development
2424 x5225 of full-autonomy, enabling USVs to work in any unstructured
Email addresses: [email protected] (Zhixiang Liu),
[email protected] (Youmin Zhang),
or unpredictable environment without human supervision. The
[email protected] (Xiang Yu), [email protected] development of such an autonomy is very challenging, since
(Chi Yuan) it in turn demands the development of effective and reliable
Preprint submitted to Annual Reviews in Control February 25, 2016
 Table 1: Potential applications of USVs of the key GNC methodologies and techniques of USVs that
Types Specific Applications
have so far been explored; and 3) a description of current tech-
Bathymetric survey (Roberts & Sutton, 2006); ocean bio-
logical phenomena, and migration and changes in major nical challenges and possible future research directions. Due to
ecosystems (Goudey et al., 1998); ocean activities research; space limitation, emphasis has been placed mainly on refereed
multi-vehicle cooperation (cooperative work among aerial, journal publications. Despite authors’ best effort, many confer-
Scientific
ground, water surface or underwater vehicles) (Yan et al.,
research ence papers may not be included, we sincerely apologize for
2010; Majohr & Buch, 2006); as experimental platforms for
the purpose of testing hull designs, communication and sen- any omission.
sor equipments, propulsion and operating systems, as well
as control schemes (Breivik, 2010; Vaneck et al., 1996). 1.3. Contributions
Environmental monitoring, samplings, and assessment
(Caccia et al., 2005; Rasal, 2013; Naeem et al., 2008b; Svec By offering a comprehensive overview of significant mile-
Environmental et al., 2014b); disaster (like tsunami, hurricane, eruption of stones and open problems in the field of USV GNC systems,
missions submarine volcano) aided prediction and management, and
emergency response (Murphy et al., 2008); pollution mea-
this work can be employed to the benefit of the USV research
surements and clean-up. community, enabling a reduction in research duplication, better
Ocean
Oil, gas and mine explorations (Roberts & Sutton, 2006; identification of bottlenecks in this field, and a significant in-
Pastore & Djapic, 2010); offshore platform/pipeline con- crease in the autonomous capabilities of future USVs systems.
resource
struction and maintenance (Bertram, 2008; Breivik et al.,
exploration
2008). To the best knowledge of authors, no attempt has so far been
Port, harbor, and coastal surveillance, reconnaissance and made to compile such a comprehensive survey in this area.
patrolling (Kucik, 2004; Caccia et al., 2007; Pastore &
Djapic, 2010; Svec & Gupta, 2012); search and rescue
Military (Roberts & Sutton, 2006; Murphy et al., 2008); anti-
1.4. Organization
uses terrorism/force protection (Campbell et al., 2012); mine This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an
countermeasures (Navy, 2007); remote weapons platform
overview of USVs systems. Sections 3, 4, and 5 conduct com-
(Bertram, 2008); target drone boats (Roberts & Sutton,
2006). prehensive surveys of guidance, navigation, and control tech-
Transportation (Kiencke et al., 2006); mobile communica- niques, respectively. Section 6 presents an overview of multi-
Other tion relays (Caccia et al., 2008a); refueling platform for USV coordination systems. Challenging issues and future di-
applications USVs, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned under-
water vehicles (UUVs), and other manned vehicles.
rections are introduced in Section 7. Finally, concluding re-
marks are drawn in Section 8.
Table 2: Performance comparison of USVs and other vehicles
Clear advantage of USVs Near parity Clear disadvantage of USVs
Float Manned Manned
2. State-of-the-Art USV Systems
Attributes UUVs Platforms Satellites Ships UAVs Aircrafts
Endurance
2.1. R&D Progress of USVs
Payload capacity

Cost Numerous institutions, universities, businesses and militaries

Maneuverability have begun developing USVs for various applications over the
Deployability past two decades. Recent developments are listed in Table 3,
Water depth
measurement which in spite of our best efforts may not constitute an ex-
Autonomy
requirement haustive list. Current USVs development remains immature
(Roberts & Sutton, 2006). Most existing USVs are confined
USV systems, including reliable communication systems, suit- to experimental platforms, comprised primarily of relatively
able hull design, and powerful GNC strategies. Despite strong small-scale USVs with limited autonomy, endurance, payloads,
demand for comprehensive reviews reporting, organizing and and power outputs (Savitz et al., 2013), as well as still requiring
comparing the large diversity of existing USV research, only a remote operation (Breivik et al., 2008). USVs remain scarce in
few survey papers have been published reviewing selected sub- commercial markets, and the majority of industrial-level USVs
sets in a specific area of USV research, such as Campbell et are still used within military and research applications. For an
al. (2012) for collision avoidance, Caccia (2006b) for basic re- overview of the developed prototype vessels and basic design
search issues, and Bertram (2008); Manley (2008); Motwani issues, readers can also refer to the publications by Bertram
(2012) for USVs prototypes. (2008); Manley (2008); Motwani (2012).
Motivated by the scarcity of comprehensive surveys, and the
particular needs of this field, this paper is intended to review and 2.2. Elements of USVs
highlight the specific requirements of USVs development based Depending on practical applications, USVs may come in a
on notable research conducted to date, focusing primarily on variety of appearances and functionalities. However, the fol-
different GNC techniques, which are necessary and challeng- lowing basic elements that must be included in every USV (see
ing for achieving fully-autonomous USVs in the near future to also Fig. 1):
be practically and reliably used for different applications. This 1. Hull and auxiliary structural elements: Hull variations can
survey can be divided into three sections: 1) an overview of be grouped into one of four different types: rigid inflatable
fundamental elements of USV systems, their current develop- hulls (Motwani, 2012), kayaks (single hull) (Curcio et al.,
ment, and their basic research issues; 2) a systematic summary 2005), catamarans (twin hulls) (Naeem et al., 2008b), and
2
 Table 3: USV development from 1985 to date
Country Year USV Name Research Purpose & Major Achievements
1993 ARTEMIS (Vaneck et al., 1996) 1) Systems test; 2) Bathymetry sampling
1996 ACES (Manley, 1997) 1) Oceanographic data collection
1998 SCOUT (Goudey et al., 1998) 1) Cooperative control; 2) Testbed
1990s Roboski (Bremer et al., 2007) 1) Surveillance; 2) Target drones
1990s Owls USVs (Motwani, 2012) 1) Harbor and ship security
2000 AutoCat (Manley et al., 2000) 1) Survey of shipwreck
2001 Spartan Scout (Motwani, 2012) 1) Port surveillance; 2) Force protection
2003 USSV-HTF (Motwani, 2012) 1) Towing various sensors and effectors
USA
2005 WASP (Mahacek, 2005) 1) Stability test; 2) Bathymetric mapping
2005 Seadoo Challenger 2000 (Ebken et al., 2005) 1) Collision avoidance; 2) Autonomous recovery
2005 HUSCy (Curcio et al., 2005) 1) Hydrographic survey
2008 Wave Glider (Bingham et al., 2012) 1) Data collection
2008 Nereus (Beck et al., 2009) 1) Stability test; 2) Bathymetric mapping
2009 SeaWASP (Furfaro et al., 2009) 1) Environmental monitoring; 2) Testbed
2010 Piranha (Yang et al., 2011) 1) Reconnaissance
2011 MUSCL (Bertram, 2008) 1) Surveillance and reconnaissance
1990s MIMIR (Roberts & Sutton, 2006) 1) Shallow water search and survey
2000s C-series USVs (Anonymous, 2014a) 1) Assets security; 2) Environmental monitoring; 3) Mining
2000s FENRIR (Roberts & Sutton, 2006) 1) Relay between UUV and control center
2000s Sentry (Murray, 2008) 1) Harbor and shore survey and protection
UK
2003 SWIMS (Roberts & Sutton, 2006) 1) Mine sweeping
2003 SeaFox (Yakimenko & Kragelund, 2011) 1) Maritime security operations
2004 Springer (Naeem et al., 2008b) 1) Environment monitoring; 2) Test platform
2008 Blackfish (Sonnenburg, 2012) 1) Harbor protection and patrol
1983 DOLPHIN (Curcio et al., 2005) 1) Bathymetric mapping
Canada 2000s Barracuda (Bertram, 2008) 1) As sea-surface target system
2000s Hammerhead (Bertram, 2008) 1) Simulating a multi-vehicle swarm threat
2004 SESAMO (Caccia et al., 2005) 1) Environmental sampling
2005 Charlie (Caccia et al., 2007) 1) Environmental sampling and survey
Italy
2007 ALANIS (Bibuli et al., 2012) 1) Environmental sampling and survey
2008 U-Ranger (Motwani, 2012) 1) Mine sweeping; 2) Harbor protection
2000 CARAVELA (Pascoal et al., 2006) 1) Oceanographic sampling; 2) Testbed
2004 DELFIM (Alves et al., 2006) and DELFIMX 1) Oceanographic sampling; 2) Communication with UUVs
Portugal (Gomes et al., 2006)
2006 ROAZ I & II (Martins et al., 2007a) 1) Search and rescue
2006 Swordfish (Ferreira et al., 2007) 1) Environmental survey
2008 Kaasbøll (Breivik et al., 2008) 1) Navigation and control systems test
Norway 2008 Viknes (Breivik, 2010) 1) Multi-purpose system tests
2000s Mariner (Breivik, 2010) 1) Environmental surveillance and sampling
2003 Protector (Breivik et al., 2008) 1) Reconnaissance; 2) Counter-mine
2005 Seastar (Yang et al., 2011) 1) Port, coastal survey; 2) Reconnaissance
Israel
2005 Stingray (Bertram, 2008) 1) Homeland security and coastguard
2007 Silver Marlin (Bertram, 2008) 1) Surveillance and reconnaissance
Germany 1998 MESSIN (Majohr & Buch, 2006) 1) Water ecological study
2005 Basil (Bertram, 2008) 1) Offshore pipelines survey
France 2005 MiniVAMP (Bertram, 2008) 1) Remote survey of offshore pipelines
2007 Inspector (Yang et al., 2011) 1) Surveillance and reconnaissance
Sweden 2002 Piraya (Yang et al., 2011) 1) Cooperative control
Singapore 2010 Venus (Bertram, 2008) 1) Multi-tasks test
2008 Tianxiang One (Yan et al., 2010) 1) Meteorological survey
China
2010 USV-ZhengHe (Yang et al., 2011) 1) Inshore marine data collection
2000 Kan-Chan (Desa et al., 2007) 1) Study of global warming
Japan
2004 UMV series (Bertram, 2008) 1) Ocean and atmosphere exploration
India 2006 ROSS (Desa et al., 2007) 1) Oceanographic sampling

trimarans (triple hulls) (Peng et al., 2009). These vari- while others (mainly catamaran USVs) are steered by dif-
ations in hull design correspond to different USV appli- ferential thrust, provided by two independent motors at-
cations, revealing some basic design issues and trends in tached to each hull. However, these USVs are typically
USVs development. Rigid inflatable hulls are suitable for not equipped with additional side actuators and thus can
military applications primarily because of their greater en- be considered as under-actuated USVs. In other words,
durance and payload capacity. Kayak and catamaran de- the number of available actuators is less than the USVs’
signs are popular due to their convenient mounting and degrees of freedom (DOF) in motion. This represents a
loading. Moreover, Kayak USVs are easy to manufacture significant challenge to safe and precise control in under-
or modify from manned surface vehicles. Catamaran and actuated USVs. Other fully- and over-actuated USVs
trimaran USVs are often preferred due to their greater sys- are relatively easier to operate than under-actuated USVs,
tem stability, decreasing the risk of capsizing in rough wa- but these come with comparatively higher costs (Breivik,
ter (Campbell et al., 2012), along with providing greater 2010).
payload capacity and redundancy. 3. GNC systems: As the most vital component of a USV,
2. Propulsion and power system: Heading and speed con- GNC modules are generally constituted by onboard com-
trol of most existing USVs are provided by rudder and puters and software, which together are responsible for
propeller (or water jet) propulsion systems, respectively, managing the entire USV system.

3
 CONTROL
Desired Control
Waypoint Signal Control
Management Controller Allocators
Ground Station Communication Sensors
Radar
Compass
Antenna GPS Reference
Trajectories Actuator
LIDAR Commands
Camera GUIDANCE
Mission Planning
1) Tasks; Actuators
Trajectory Path 2) Environment; (Rudders,
Side Sonar Front Sonar Generation Planning 3) Operators; Propellers)
GNC 4) Other vehicles
5) Power available, etc.

USV USV & Environment Forces &

States Information Moments
NAVIGATION

Sensing
Environment Motion
Propulsion and Power System Hull GPS/IMU
Situation Perception
Propeller & Rudder Water-jet & Rudder Engine Kayaka or Catamaran or Trimaran
or Awareness
Propulsion Propulsion Other Sensors
State (camera, radar,
Estimation sonar, laser etc.)
Environmental Disturbances
(wind, wave, current, etc.)

Figure 1: Fundamental architecture of a typical USV.

Figure 2: General structure of USV guidance, navigation, and control systems.

4. Communication systems: Communication systems include

not only wireless communication with ground control sta- 2. Navigation system concentrates on identifying the USV’s
tions and other vehicles to perform cooperative control, current and future states (such as position, orientation, ve-
but also onboard wired/wireless communication with a va- locity, and acceleration), and its surrounding environment
riety of sensors, actuators, and other equipment. Reliabil- based on the past and current states of the USV as well
ity of communication systems is therefore of paramount as environmental information including the ocean currents
importance. and wind speed) obtained from its onboard sensors.
5. Data collection equipment: Together with the above- 3. Control system focuses on determining the proper control
mentioned components, IMUs and GPS as the basic sen- forces and moments to be generated in conjunction with
sors are typically used in combination with the system instruction provided by the guidance and navigation sys-
to guarantee the USV remains in good operating condi- tems, while at the same time satisfying desired control ob-
tion, and to improve its performance. Besides, cameras, jectives.
radar, sonar, as well as other kinds of sensors are option- In the following sections, more attention is paid to different
ally adopted, depending on the specific task at hand, such GNC methodologies for USVs, presented in the sequence of
as monitoring and operating USV under all different con- guidance, navigation, and control.
ditions (i.e. cabin temperature and humidity, electronic
equipment health, fuel consumption, etc.) (Roberts & Sut-
ton, 2006). 3. Classification of USV Guidance Techniques
6. Ground station: Ground station also plays an important
role in USV GNC, which can be located in an onshore A feasible guidance system is an essential component for in-
facility, a mobile vehicle or an offshore ship. In general, creasing USV autonomy, while more advanced guidance capa-
missions are assigned to USVs via wireless communica- bilities are required to accomplish tasks under more compli-
tion systems. The real-time status of the USV and its on- cated and strict constraints, including poorly mapped environ-
board equipment are all monitored by the ground station, ments and real-time computational requirements (Fossen, 2002;
while for remotely operated USVs, control commands are Kendoul, 2012). To provide a basic understanding of current re-
also sent from ground station. search interests on USV guidance systems, a brief classification
is first illustrated in Fig. 3.
2.3. Relationships among USV Subsystems
As indicated in Fig. 2, the fundamental elements for au-
tonomously operating USVs generally constitute guidance, Global Optimization methods
planning Heuristic search algorithms
navigation, and control subsystems (Fossen, 1994, 2002, 2011).
Local Line-of-sight methods
These subsystems work in interaction with each other, to the Path
planning Potential fields
planning
point where imperfections in one subsystem may degrade the Guidance
system Hybrid planning
performance of the whole system.
Path Protocol-free methods
1. Guidance system is responsible for continuously generat- replanning Protocol-based methods
ing and updating smooth, feasible, and optimal trajectory
commands to the control system according to the informa- Figure 3: Classification of USV guidance systems with respect to functions and
tion provided by the navigation system, assigned missions, methods.
vehicle capability, and environmental conditions.
4
3.1. Path Planning 3.1.2. Local Path Planning
As the fundamental aspect of USV guidance systems, path 1. Line-of-sight: A successful guidance technique that is
planning can generally be distinguished between the global and widely employed in missile guidance, line-of-sight (LOS)
local approaches. From the literature, a broad spectrum of ef- methods are equally valid for USVs (Annamalai & Mot-
ficient and intelligent path planning techniques for USVs are wani, 2013; Breivik et al., 2008; Caccia et al., 2005, 2008a;
identified in the following: Desa et al., 2007; Fredriksen & Pettersen, 2006; Naeem et
al., 2012b; Peng et al., 2013a; Sharma & Sutton, 2013;
Tran et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2007). There are also modi-
3.1.1. Global Path Planning fied versions for better real-time implementation such as
1. Optimization methods: As an attractive method, advanced biased-LOS (Naeem et al., 2012a). Despite these, there
optimization method (OM) can directly produce optimal are still drawbacks associated with LOS, including: 1) the
trajectories or paths that might include sophisticated char- potential to overshoot, caused by the environmental distur-
acteristics, such as spatiotemporal-optimal, danger level bances compensating action (Campbell et al., 2012), and
(collision probability), fuel saving, weather routing, for- 2) the connection between the waypoints still being rigid
mation control, and scheduled missions. lines, even though paths have been smoothed to some ex-
Inspired by the behaviour of biological systems, evolu- tent.
tionary algorithm (EA) represent a class of artificial in- 2. Potential fields: As defined in the potential field (PF) ap-
telligence increasingly employed in the design of USV proach, the objectives are assigned with attractive fields,
path planners. EA can be characterized into an optimiza- while obstacles are distributed with repulsive fields. USVs
tion problem with specified constraints. Genetic algo- are thus moving toward the attractive fields and away from
rithm (GA) are to date the most widely adopted method the repulsive fields (Khatib, 1986). Although this method
for waypoints generation (Campbell et al., 2012). In Svec is characterized by its effective implementation and low
& Gupta (2011, 2012), a strongly-typed genetic program- computational consumption in real-time, it is normally
ming (GP)-based evolutionary approach is developed to only employed for local path planning since it is prone
enable USVs to protect a target from intruder boats. to guide USVs to local minima instead of the objectives
Due to their expensive computational costs, especially (Campbell et al., 2012).
when constraints such as obstacles, USV dynamic lim- An interesting implementation of a PF-based USV path
its, and mission constraints must be satisfied, optimization planning scheme is introduced in Healey et al. (2007). In
methods are limited for real-time implementation. Soltan et al. (2009), obstacles are approximately enclosed
2. Heuristic search algorithms: Application of heuristic ap- by ellipse fields which are the solutions of a class of or-
proaches in path planning first appeared in the early 2000s. dinary differential equations (ODEs). However, much ef-
The A∗ search algorithm is a widely used grid-based strat- fort is still required to overcome the local-minima prob-
egy, which can quickly find an optimal path with the least lem by employing depth-first and best-first search tech-
number of nodes. But the drawbacks of large computa- niques, wavefront-based strategies, or harmonic potential
tional memory costs and unwanted sharp turns result in functions.
difficulty in its practical application in the cases where
quick and real-time control of USVs are necessary. 3.1.3. Hybrid Path Planning
In Larson et al. (2006), the A∗ search algorithm is cho- In order to ensure the safe and effective path planning for
sen to find an optimal path within a limited amount of USV moving among the preliminarily specified or dynamically
time. Another application is presented in Naus & Waz changing waypoints in the dynamic and hazardous environ-
(2013), where the A∗ algorithm is employed to search the ment, increasing efforts have recently been dedicated to the hy-
shortest and safest trajectory in an electronic navigational brid path planning strategy that consists of both global and local
chart. A∗ and locally bounded optimal planning under un- path planning approaches. In Larson et al. (2006, 2007), a hy-
certainty are combined in Svec et al. (2011). In Zhuang brid path planning approach is presented, which is constituted
et al. (2012), a marine radar image-based local path plan- by a two-layered hierarchical architecture combining with both
ning method is developed for USVs. The path is searched global and local path planning functions. The A∗ algorithm is
by Dijkstra’s algorithm which is a special case of the A∗ employed to find a feasible solution for the global path plan-
algorithm. To improve performance with respect to paths ning, while a behavior-based common world model approach is
and computational consumption, a modified version of the utilized to manage the near-field changes that arise to the pre-
A∗ algorithm named as direction priority sequential selec- viously defined path, so that the USV can keep following the
tion (DPSS) is applied in Naeem et al. (2012a). In Svec preplanned path. Casalino et al. (2009) presents a multi-layered
et al. (2012), a combination of a model-predictive and an hierarchical architecture, a global path is computed in the first
A∗ based algorithm is introduced. An A∗ based curvature layer based on the Dijkstra algorithm, while the second layer
path planning algorithm is proposed in Kim et al. (2013), modifies this predefined path in a locally optimal way adopting
where both the actual turning capability of USVs, and the the A∗ method. In Svec et al. (2012), a lattice-based hybrid path
environmental information, such as the terrain, buoy and planning method is developed with consideration of the USV
fairway, are explicitly considered in the cost map. dynamics.
5
3.2. Path Replanning greater difficulty in the case of multiple obstacles. Another
As the major role of path replanning, collision avoidance (Yu study employs a behavior-based control and multi-objective ac-
& Zhang, 2015) is generally overlooked in the basic guidance tion selection method in a kayak USV under the COLREGs
laws (an obstacle-free path is commonly assumed). Unfortu- rules (Benjamin & Curcio, 2004). Subsequent work by the au-
nately, recent statistics show that 60% of casualties at sea are thors (Benjamin et al., 2006) presented the first in-field imple-
caused by collisions (Naeem et al., 2012a). Obstacles, such as mentation of COLREGs on two kayak-based SCOUT USVs.
lobster traps, buoys, fishing nets, submerged rocks, other mar- In Larson et al. (2007), a near-field reactive control technique
itime traffic, new constructions, variable water levels, and sea is applied in a “SSC San Diego” USV. Although being able
debris, can all potentially contribute to collision risks. With- to rapidly and effectively avoid most obstacles, the generated
out the ability to avoid collisions, USVs may collide with any trajectory under this method is not optimal. Obeying the COL-
objects present along the planned path. In addition, a collision REGs, a relative coordinate based collision avoidance strategy
avoidance module can also enhance the autonomy of USVs to with integration of an evolutionary path planner is discussed
avoid approaching objects by conducting autonomous path re- in Zhuang et al. (2011). A successful application of avoiding
planning. both static and dynamic obstacles along a non-optimal trajec-
tory is proposed by Naeem et al. (2012a), who adopted a sim-
3.2.1. Protocol-free Collision Avoidance ple manual biasing scheme and a direction priority sequential
In Soltan et al. (2011), obstacles are assumed to be enclosed selection (DPSS) strategy under COLREGs. As an on-line ex-
by elliptical shapes, and a set of ordinary differential equations tension of the standard A∗ algorithm, a rule-based repairing A∗
are defined for collision avoidance. This technique is validated (R − RA∗ ) algorithm in compliance with COLREGs is intro-
using multiple dynamical obstacles in simulation, and station- duced in Campbell et al. (2013). This approach differs from the
ary obstacles in experiments. Xu et al. (2013) presents a path offline global path planning methods, being able to update and
replanning approach based on the level set methods, which is smooth the local path in real-time, responding to any changes
employed to compute the minimum risky path. In Kim et al. along the predefined trajectory. Recently, a velocity obstacles
(2014), an angular rate-constrained T heta∗ (ARC − T heta∗ ) is (VO) method is adopted in Kuwata et al. (2014), avoiding dy-
proposed to regenerate paths in real-time with consideration namic and static hazards while conforming to COLREGs con-
of constraints in both yaw rate and heading angle of USV. An straints. More relative research can be referred to Shah et al.
optical-flow based approach is designed to provide local reac- (2014); Svec et al. (2012, 2013, 2014a).
tive collision avoidance in El-Gaaly et al. (2013). This research
employs a monocular camera, overcoming the challenges of
4. Classification of USV Navigation Techniques
water reflections and visual noises in an acceptable range. In
Bertaska (2013), a lattice-based path planning method is imple- Safe and efficient control of USVs depends heavily on an
mented with a priori knowledge of the USV characteristics. appropriate navigation system with sensing, state estimation,
Most of the existing research focuses only on detecting and environment perception, and situation awareness capabilities.
avoiding obstacles above the water. Until recently, little atten- This section briefly reviews existing USV navigation tech-
tion has been paid to underwater collision avoidance in USVs, niques (as shown in Fig. 4).
despite the significant risk of collision from submerged obsta-
cles, including reefs and shallow banks. Pioneering work on
this issue is carried out in Heidarsson & Sukhatme (2011); Sensing
Noise & accumulative errors elimination
Dealing with model uncertainties
Onunka et al. (2013), where active acoustic sonar is mounted IMU/GPS
estimation Accommodating sensor faults
on their USVs in order to provide information on underwa- Multi-sensor fusion
State
ter obstacles. Additionally, a direct method based on inverse estimation Estimation based
Image stabilization
Navigation on other sensors
dynamics in the virtual domain (IDVD) strategy is reported system Monocular vision Image defogging
Passive Wave information perception
in Yakimenko & Kragelund (2011) to compute a near-optimal Environment estimation Stereo vision
perception Multiple-camera perception
collision-free trajectory. Infrared vision
LIDAR-based perception
Active Radar-based perception
3.2.2. Protocol-based Collision Avoidance Situation estimation
Sonar-based perception
awareness
56% of collisions at sea are caused by violations of coast
guard collision regulations (COLREGs) (Statheros et al., 2008; Figure 4: Classification of USV navigation systems with respect to functions
and methods.
Naeem et al., 2012a). In order to suggest possible maneu-
vers to avoid collisions and increase the autonomy of USVs,
COLREGs should be included in USV design, describing most
potential collision scenarios, such as overtaking, head-on, and 4.1. Sensing Technologies
crossing situation (Campbell et al., 2012). Adequate sensing capabilities are generally required to en-
Lee et al. (2004) devised and demonstrated a modified virtual hance the performance of USVs. Furthermore, marine environ-
force field (MVFF) method that satisfies COLREGs guidelines ments also impose harsh restrictions on sensory requirements.
in a USV simulation, which was successful in avoiding both sta- Heterogeneous sensors are usually employed in order to make
tionary and dynamic obstacles. Such a method may encounter the best use of different sensors’ characteristics, and achieve
6
superior navigation performance. Table 4 indicates the char- more intelligent techniques. Some studies (Xu et al., 2007;
acteristics of various sensors used in the development of USV Naeem et al., 2012b) propose and implement a federated
navigation systems. Kalman filter (FKF), modified by a fuzzy logic adaptive
(FLA) technique, in order to deal with different types of
4.2. USV State Estimation sensor faults that are injected in a Springer USV. Triple
In general, only the position and orientation of the USV are redundancy in compasses is used, and global estimates of
provided by onboard sensors. Determination of its velocity and the real state of the USV are provided by this intelligent
acceleration requires reconstruction based on measured infor- multi-sensor data fusion methodology.
mation. Critical to this process is the state estimation technique, 4. Multi-sensor fusion: In practice, multiple sensors are usu-
which traces the current state of the USV. In terms of currently ally adopted for state estimation in order to offer the con-
utilized sensing technologies, state estimation methods can be trol system with sufficient navigation information to effec-
classified into either conventional GPS-IMU-based approaches tively perform the desired tasks. But some sensors provide
or techniques based on other sensors. data with low update rates (like GPS) while others provide
data at high rates. State estimation methods that fuse these
4.2.1. State Estimation with Conventional GPS-IMU measurements have clear advantages on accurate and reli-
Performance specifications often require that GPS and IMU able navigation information. The existing work in this area
systems provide high-resolution position, orientation and ve- includes complementary filter (Vasconcelos et al., 2011a),
locity estimates. Unfortunately, these estimates can be very federated Kalman filter and fuzzy adaptive technique (Xu
imprecise in practical applications (Bibuli et al., 2009) due to et al., 2007), and multiple model adaptive estimation (Sut-
influences from 1) environmental noises; 2) accumulative er- ton et al., 2011).
rors resulting from inherent drift; 3) time-varying model uncer-
tainties; and 4) sensor faults. Additional correction actions are 4.2.2. State Estimation Based on Other Sensors
hence required to improve navigation performance.
In addition to conventional state estimation techniques, ac-
1. Noise and accumulative error elimination: In Lefeber et
tive ranging sensor (LIDAR, radar and sonar) methods can also
al. (2003), a nonlinear passive observer (Fossen & Strand,
be employed for state estimation, especially in cases of a loss
1999) is employed to estimate the position and velocity of
or jamming of GPS signals. Additionally, vision-based ap-
the USV. Based on the Kalman filter, the heading estimate
proaches outperform active navigation in terms of power con-
of a Springer USV is provided by a combination of the
sumption, size, weight, and cost, and are therefore an excellent
actual compass measurement and the predicted informa-
option for both navigation and data collection.
tion of a dynamic compass model (Annamalai & Motwani,
2013). In Bibuli et al. (2009); Caccia et al. (2008a); Tran et
al. (2014), the USV’s position and velocity are estimated 4.3. Environment Perception
using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) on the basis of a
In order to perform missions in real-world environments,
practical dynamic model and both GPS and compass mea-
USVs are normally required to possess the ability to detect ob-
surements. An adaptive unscented Kalman filter (UKF) is
stacles, recognize and track targets, and map environments, all
proposed for state estimation without a priori knowledge
in real-time. Furthermore, the unique conditions experienced
of noise distribution (Peng et al., 2009). In Vasconcelos et
in marine environments, such as environmental disturbances
al. (2011b), a DELFIM catamaran USV is equipped with
(winds, waves, and currents), sea fog, and water reflection, can
both GPS and IMU systems. Inertial sensor bias and noise
also impact the performance of environmental perception. En-
are compensated by using EKF, integrating vector obser-
vironment perception approaches for USVs can be generally
vations, and taking into account the dynamics of the USV.
grouped into two categories according to the characteristics of
Subsequent research by Vasconcelos et al. (2011a) applies
intended application: 1) passive perception methods, and 2) ac-
a complementary filter to the DELFIM USV that combines
tive perception methods.
the strapdown inertial measurements, vector observations,
and GPS aiding to estimate its attitude, while the bias of
rate gyro is also compensated. 4.3.1. Passive Perception Methods
2. Dealing with model uncertainties: In Motwani et al. Passive perception methods adopting visual/infrared sensors
(2013), a robust USV heading estimation technique named are widely employed in environment perception applications.
after an interval Kalman filter (IKF) is investigated in an 1. Monocular vision:
attempt to bound model uncertainties caused by varying (a) Image stabilization: To solve the problem of warp and
environment, payload, and operating conditions. A high- shaking due to USV motion, it is of paramount impor-
gain observer is employed to estimate immeasurable states tance to stabilize the obtained images before subsequent
in Tee & Ge (2006). image processing. Gal (2011a) uses a low-cost camera,
3. Accommodating sensor faults: Salt spray and moisture can and applies image stabilization and smoothing techniques
potentially damage sensors, communication interfaces, to recognize and identify obstacles around the USV.
and cables. USV navigation is thereby extremely diffi- (b) Image defogging: As a common maritime phenomenon,
cult in marine environments, requiring the development of sea fog can cause serious image degradation. In Ma et al.
7
 Table 4: Advantages and limitations of various sensors with application to USVs
Sensors Advantages Limitations
1) Long detecting range; 1) Skewed data from fast turning manoeuvres;
Radar 2) Provides nearly all-weather and broad-area imagery; 2) Limited small and dynamic targets detection capability;
3) High depth resolution and accuracy. 3) Susceptible to high waves and water reflectivity.
1) Good at near range obstacle detection; 1) There exists sensor noise and calibration errors;
LIDAR
2) High depth resolution and accuracy. 2) Sensitive to environment and USV motion.
1) No visual restrictions; 1) Limited detecting range in each scanning;
Sonar
2) High depth resolution and accuracy. 2) Impressionable to the noise from near-surface.
1) High lateral and temporal resolution; 1) Low depth resolution and accuracy;
Visual sensor 2) Simplicity and low weight in practical application. 2) Challenge to real-time implementation;
3) Susceptible to light and weather condition.
1) Applicable for dark condition; 1) Indoor or evening use only;
Infrared sensor
2) Low power consumption. 2) Impressionable to interference and distance.
IMU 1) Small size, low cost, and power consumption. 1) Sensitive to accumulated error and magnetic environment.
GPS/DGPS 1) Small size, low cost, and power consumption. 1) Susceptible to shelters and magnetic environment.

(2013), the accuracy of obstacle detection and target track- time target detection and tracking using LIDAR. Solutions
ing are significantly improved by developing a visual- for decluttering LIDAR measurement are proposed in Gal
based image defogging method. Given that this method & Zeitouni (2013), while a probability hypothesis den-
is only validated by video, future investigation on real- sity (PHD) Bayes filter is also developed to identify and
time implementation and defogging approaches without track targets. Further practical implementation for algo-
the obvious sea-sky-line is recommended. rithm validation of these methods is still required.
(c) Wave information perception: Liu & Wang (2013) present 2. Radar: Radar is the main option for obstacle detection in
an interesting application of detecting wave grade using the far-field (Larson et al., 2006). In Onunka & Nnadozie
visual-based techniques to provide USVs with environ- (2013), USVs are equipped with obstacle and target track-
mental information. Based on the Fourier transform the- ing filters for detecting obstacles and tracking targets by
ory, this method can effectively determine the wave grade processing radar images. The results conclude that the
in different light conditions and sea states. narrower variability of radar signals, the wider coverage
(d) Multiple-camera method: Traditional fixed and moving of detection, and the growth of echo power and frequency
sensors are concerned only with short timescales. In Sub- are possible by increasing the radar sweep width. A
ramanian et al. (2006); Wolf et al. (2010), a novel 360- radar-based target detection method is proposed in Ji et
degree omni-directional camera head is developed for en- al. (2014), which addresses background noise and variant
vironment perception, which can identify targets over long brightness issues, and allows targets to be successfully ex-
timescales. A probability of existence method is invented tracted in real-time.
to cope with the challenge of reliability of target tracking, 3. Sonar: To date, sonar remains the most suitable option for
in particular when targets leave the camera scope during collecting data on underwater environments. In Heidars-
some timescales. son & Sukhatme (2011), a forward-facing active acoustic
2. Stereo vision: A depth map can be employed to generate sonar is mounted on a USV for obstacles detection. In
an obstacle map of the area in front of a USV, which is ap- Yakimenko & Kragelund (2011), detection and localiza-
propriate for near-field collision avoidance. In Huntsberger tion of obstacles are provided by a forward looking sonar
et al. (2011), a first fielded stereo vision system “Hammer- system deployed on a SeaFox USV. In order to reduce
head” is tailored for use with a USV to generate both prob- the uncertainties and exceptions adversely affected by the
abilistic hazard maps and targets with estimated speed and sonar propagation characteristics, a sonar-based obstacle
heading. However, higher resolution cameras and dedicated detection method is investigated in Onunka et al. (2013).
hardware are required to increase the range of perception, In Leedekerken et al. (2014), sonar images are used for
and stereo vision techniques suffer from precise calibration mapping the underwater environment as well.
requirements each time a camera is mounted.
3. Infrared vision: Long-wave infrared (IR) cameras are an 4.4. Situation Awareness
ideal solution to overcome the impact of various light con-
Situation awareness (SA) is essential for designing USVs
ditions (such as night and fog) on environment perception,
with higher levels of autonomy. Wolf et al. (2010) is one of the
enabling both day and night operation. Unfortunately, re-
few existing research studies examining SA in USV systems,
search on IR applications on USV environmental perception
in which an object-level tracking and change detection (OTCD)
remains minimal.
method is developed for detecting targets, confirming their lo-
cation, and recognizing variations in the surrounding environ-
4.3.2. Active Perception Methods ment during patrol missions. An additional problem is that GPS
LIDAR, radar, and sonar are the main active sensors to be signals may become weak when the USV is in close proximity
extensively adopted in environment perception. to bridges, foliage canopies, and other sheltered environments.
1. LIDAR: Cluttered and moving platforms challenge real- Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is deemed as a
8
 (Sway) (Surge)
Fore/aft symmetry
XE YB  (Yaw) XB
Kinematics
Low & constant surge speed
Kinetics
Dynamic positioning & mooring
USV
modeling Model Coincident center of added mass & gravity
simplification Calm environment
x
OB
Model Off-line identification
identification On-line identification
Set-point regulation
Control Trajectory tracking
Control
system objectives Path following OE y YE
Path maneuvering
Current Figure 6: Schematic diagram of USV planar motion (Note: XE OE YE is the
Disturbance Wave earth-fixed reference frame, while XB OB YB denotes the body-fixed reference
Wind frame).
Uncertainty Unmodelled dynamics
Parameter uncertainty
Practical
problems only, while the dynamics associated with the motion in roll,
Underactuation

Actuator
pitch, and heave are generally neglected to maintain model sim-
Constraints State/Output plicity (Do & Pan, 2009). As shown in Fig. 6, the typical USV
Actuator malfunctions kinematic model (Fossen, 2002) in planar motion and without
Faults Sensor faults the presence of disturbances can then be expressed as:
Communication faults
Validation Simulation
Experiments η̇ = R(ψ)ν, (1)

Figure 5: Classification of USV control systems in terms of problems and func- where η = [x, y, ψ]T denotes the vector of position and
tions. orientation with coordinates in the earth-fixed reference
frame, ν = [u, v, r]T denotes the vector of linear and angular
velocity with coordinates in the  body-fixed reference frame,
potentially effective choice for USV navigation in these scenar-
cos ψ − sin ψ 0
ios. In Leedekerken et al. (2014), a SLAM method for concur-
R(ψ) =  sin ψ cos ψ 0 denotes the transformation
 
rently mapping the marine environment above and below the
0 0 1
 
water is addressed, which attempts to navigate the USV with
matrix between the earth-fixed reference frame and body-fixed
the degradation of GPS signals in close proximity to bridges or
reference frame. (x, y) and ψ are the position and orientation
foliage canopies.
(yaw/heading angle) of the USV in the earth-fixed reference
frame, while u, v, and r represent the velocity of surge, sway,
5. Classification of USV Control Techniques and yaw in the body-fixed reference frame, respectively. Due
to the existence of disturbances (winds, waves, and currents)
With the considerable development of advanced control the- and the rapid turning of the USV with high surge speed, the
ory, state-of-the-art control techniques are continually being de- so-called sideslip phenomenon may also occur (Sonnenburg
signed to enhance USV performance in the marine research & Woolsey, 2013). To√ consider this phenomenon with the
community (Campbell et al., 2012), see Fig. 5 for an overview resultant velocity V = u2 + v2 , the sideslip angle β, and the
of the work on USVs control systems. course angle χ; R(ψ) and ν can be written as:

cos ψ − sin ψ 0 cos β − sin β 0

  
5.1. USV Modeling
R(ψ) =  sin ψ cos ψ 0  sin β cos β 0
  
The availability of a sufficiently accurate USV model en-
0 0 1 0 0 1
  
abling effective control design is imperative for both control
(2)
methodology design and simulation study purposes. This in cos χ − sin χ 0
   
V 
turn requires prior investigation of both a precise mathematical =  sin χ cos χ 0 and ν =  0  ,
   
USV model and reasonable system parameters. Generally, a 
0 0 1

r
 
standard USV model consists of both kinematics and kinetics.
where β = arcsin( Vv ), and χ = ψ + β.
5.1.1. Kinematics
With respect to USV control, there is no requirement for con- 5.1.2. Kinetics
sideration of either passenger comfort or cargo stability. Its pri- In addition to kinematic models, USV dynamic models have
mary purpose is merely to ensure the USV follows the desired also been extensively studied. The reason for this is their crucial
path as accurately as possible. Based on this characteristic, the importance for advanced controller design (Do & Pan, 2009),
general six-DOF model can be reduced to only consider motion as well as the fact that kinematic models on their own are not
in the surge/forward, sway/lateral, and heading/yaw categories sufficient for USV motion modeling, particularly when USVs
9
exhibit significant side-slip (Gadre et al., 2012). For a more Table 5: Nomenclature of USV parameters
Symbols Explanation
comprehensive history of USV dynamic model development,
M System inertia matrix (including added mass)
readers are encouraged to refer to Do & Pan (2009); Fossen MRB Rigid-body system inertia matrix
(1994, 2002, 2011). MA Added mass (forces and moments induced by the pressure from
In order to better facilitate control design, existing research a forced harmonic motion of the USV body)
C(ν) Coriolis and centripetal matrix (including added mass)
assumes that: 1) USVs are moving in a horizontal plane in the CRB (ν) Rigid-body Coriolis and centripetal matrix
ideal fluid; 2) USV masses are uniformly distributed; 3) the CA (ν) Hydrodynamic Coriolis and centripetal matrix
body-fixed coordinate axis coincides with the center of gravity D Linear damping matrix
(CG); 4) both the CG and the center of buoyancy (CB) point D(ν) Hydrodynamic damping matrix induced by skin friction, poten-
tial damping (due to the energy carried away by waves), vortex
vertically along the Z-axis; 5) USVs own the port-starboard shedding damping, and wave drift damping
symmetry; and 6) surge and sway-yaw dynamics are essentially Dn (ν) Nonlinear damping matrix
decoupled. Based on these assumptions, the widely used dy- g(η) Restoring forces and moments due to gravitation/buoyancy
namic model can then be obtained (Fossen, 1994): τ Control inputs (the forces and moments of propulsion system
and control surfaces) acting on USV τ = [τu , τv , τr ]T is for fully-
actuated USV, while τ = [τu , 0, τr ]T is for underactuated USV
Mν̇ + C(ν)ν + D(ν)ν + g(η) = τ + τE , (3) τu Control inputs (forces) in surge direction
τv Control inputs (forces) in sway direction
where the physical meanings of symbols in (3) are all outlined τr Control inputs (moments) in yaw direction
in Table 5, while the representation of each symbol is intro- τE Environmental disturbances (winds, waves and currents)

m11 0 0  m Mass of USV
Iz USV inertia about the Z axis of body-fixed frame
duced as belows: M = MRB + M A =  0 m22 m23 , MRB =

χg USV CG along the X coordinate of body-fixed frame
0
m32 m33
 
   
m 0 0  −Xu̇ 0 0 
 0 m mχg , M A =  0 −Yv̇ −Yṙ , D(ν) = D + Dn (ν) =
   
in M and D(ν) can thereby be eliminated based on this
0 mχg Iz 0 −Nv̇ −Nṙ
  
    assumption (Do et al., 2002a; Dong & Guo, 2005; Behal
d11 (u) 0 0  −Xu 0 0 
et al., 2002; Jiang, 2002; Lefeber et al., 2003; Ma, 2009;
 0 d22 (v, r) d23 (v, r), D =  0 −Yv −Yr , Dn (ν) =
   
0 d32 (v, r) d33 (v, r)
 
0 −Nv −Nr
 Mazenc et al., 2002; Pettersen & Nijmeijer, 2001; Pet-

−Xu|u| |u| 0 0
 tersen et al., 2004). It follows M = diag{m11 , m22 , m33 }
and D(ν) = diag{−Xu , −Yv , −Nr };

 0 −Y |v| − Y |r| −Y |v| − Y |r|  , C(ν) = CRB (ν) +

v|v| |r|v |v|r |r|r

0 −Nv|v| |v| − N|r|v |r| −N|v|r |v| − N|r|r |r| 2. Low and constant surge speed: In some papers (Pettersen

 0 0 −m22 v − 21 (m23 + m32 )r
 & Fossen, 2000; Pettersen et al., 2004), the USV is as-
CA (ν) =  0 0 m11 u , sumed to be at rest or only moving with low speed. This
 
m22 v + 2 (m23 + m32 )r −m11 u
1
0 means that C(ν) is negligible and the off-diagonal terms of

−Yv̇ v − 12 (Yṙ + Nv̇ )r M and D(ν) can therefore also be omitted since they are
 
 0 0
CA (ν) = −  0 0 Xu̇ u  , CRB (ν) small in comparison with the diagonal terms;


Yv̇ v + 2 (Yṙ + Nv̇ )r −Xu̇ u
1

0

3. Dynamic positioning and mooring: With these assump-
−m(χg r + v)
 
 0 0 tions, both Dn (ν) and C(ν) can be disregarded (Fossen &
=  0 0 mu , where the parameters are all
 
Grovlen, 1998; Fossen & Strand, 1999; Robertsson & Jo-
m(χg r + v) −mu 0

hansson, 1998);
introduced in Table 5. With regard to other hydrodynamic coef- 4. The coincident center of added mass and gravity: In this
ficients (hydrodynamic derivatives), they can be referred to Do case, Nv̇ can be replaced by Yṙ , then the added mass M A =
& Pan (2009); Fossen (1994). MTA and CA (ν) = −CTA (ν) (Borhaug et al., 2011; Fredriksen
& Pettersen, 2006; Kyrkjebø et al., 2007; Skjetne et al.,
5.1.3. Model Simplification 2004a, 2005; Wondergem et al., 2011);
Although a more accurate and complete USV model that 5. Calm environments: Under this assumption, the envi-
represents the physics of the real world is normally required, ronmental disturbances τE can be neglected (Do et al.,
some common model simplifications and reductions are still 2002a; Dong & Guo, 2005; Behal et al., 2002; Jiang, 2002;
inevitable in order to facilitate controller design. This phe- Lefeber et al., 2003; Ma, 2009; Mazenc et al., 2002); In
nomena is primarily due to the many practical challenges faced addition, it is possible to assume that the hydrodynamic
USV development, including hydrodynamic phenomenon (hy- coefficients are time-invariant, resulting in the parameters
drodynamic forces and moments), which are still not fully un- in matrices M, D(ν), and C(ν) all being constant (Li &
derstood. A unified numerical model for USV control is usu- Sun, 2012; Skjetne et al., 2005).
ally difficult, expensive and time-consuming to establish due
to the need for highly specialized equipment and facilities, not 5.1.4. Model Identification
to mention the many inherent and external nonlinear influences Model identification plays a key role in obtaining a reason-
(Skjetne et al., 2004a). The following list provides an overview able USV model. As reported in the literature, USV model
of these model simplifications and reductions: identification typically constitutes off-line and on-line identifi-
1. Fore/aft symmetry: The off-diagonal entries and couplings cation methods.
10
 Table 6: Classification of the research in USV control techniques 2. Trajectory tracking: The USV is driven to track a desired
Applications References
temporal reference, while simultaneously obeying prede-
Abril et al. (1997); Annamalai & Motwani (2013); An-
namalai et al. (2014a); Beck et al. (2009); Caccia et al. fined spatial constraints. For fully-actuated USVs, this
(2005); Desa et al. (2007); Ding et al. (2013); Fredriksen problem is now reasonably understood, though it is still
& Pettersen (2006); Hurban (2012); Kim et al. (2012); an active research topic for underactuated USVs (which
Set-point
Li et al. (2008); Mazenc et al. (2002); Moreira et al.
regulation exhibit nonholonomic constraints).
(2007); Peng et al. (2009, 2013a); Pereira et al. (2008);
Pettersen & Fossen (2000); Pettersen et al. (2004); Rey- 3. Path following: The USV is required to follow a sched-
hanoglu (1997); Sharma & Sutton (2013); Tokekar et al. uled path by independently tracking an expected forward
(2010); Tran et al. (2014); Vaneck (1997) speed profile and steering its orientation. Compared with
Ashrafiuon et al. (2008); Breivik et al. (2008); Dai et al.
(2012); Do et al. (2002a,b, 2003); Do (2010); Feemster
trajectory tracking, a smoother path and lower probabil-
& Esposito (2011); Gadre et al. (2012); Ghommam et ity of actuator saturation can be achieved due to the fact
Trajectory
al. (2006, 2010); Guerreiro et al. (2013); Jiang (2002); that spatial constraints are given priority over the temporal
Kyrkjebø et al. (2007); Liu et al. (2014c); McNinch et al. constraints.
tracking
(2009); Naeem et al. (2012a); Pan et al. (2013); Pettersen
& Nijmeijer (2001); Song (2014); Sonnenburg & Woolsey
4. Path maneuvering: As a subset of path following, path ma-
(2012, 2013); Tee & Ge (2006); Svec et al. (2014b); Yang neuvering (Skjetne, 2005) involves two tasks. The first ge-
et al. (2014); Yu et al. (2012); Zhang et al. (2011a) ometric task, enabling the USV to follow a feasible desired
Alfaro et al. (2005); Annamalai et al. (2014b); Bibuli et al. path under maneuverability constraints, while the second
(2009, 2012); Caccia et al. (2008a); Do & Pan (2006a,b);
Path
Elkaim (2006); Li et al. (2009); Li & Sun (2012); Liu et al. is dynamic task, requiring the USV to satisfy some addi-
following tional dynamic behaviors (such as time, speed, and accel-
(2014b); Naeem et al. (2012b); Oh & Sun (2010); Skjetne
et al. (2004a); Wondergem et al. (2011); Yu et al. (2008) eration assignment) along the desired path. In this case,
Path Arrichiello et al. (2006); Fossen (2005); Ma (2009); the spatial specification (the first task) is considered to be
maneuvering Skjetne et al. (2005)
more important than the temporal constraint (the second
task).
1. Off-line identification: A USV model is generally calcu- 5.3. Review of Control Approaches from a Practical Perspec-
lated and identified off-line based on the data collected tive
from onboard sensors through extensive trial-by-trial ex-
USVs may diverge from the predefined path due not only
periments. The existing off-line identification methods can
to poor controller design, but also because of environmental
be roughly grouped into: 1) frequency domain methods
disturbances, uncertainties (unmodelled dynamics and parame-
(Selvam et al., 2005); and 2) time domain methods, includ-
ters), actuator saturation, strong couplings, underactuation, and
ing least squares regression (Mivskovic et al., 2011; Son-
system faults (faults of sensors, actuators and communication
nenburg et al., 2010), onboard sensor-based identification
links). Despite this, much of the literature focuses only on USV
(Caccia et al., 2008b), continuous time models (Muske
control without consideration of the above-mentioned factors.
et al., 2008a), hybrid-extended Kalman filtering (Yoon &
Control design for such nonlinear systems remains a challeng-
Rhee, 2003), and artificial neural network (Rajesh & Bhat-
ing issue. For the sake of space, Table 7 briefly identifies cur-
tacharyya, 2008).
rent researches that consider the above-mentioned challenges.
2. On-line identification: In this research field, black/gray-
It is noteworthy that no prior attempt has been made to compile
box identification techniques are widely employed to learn
an exhaustive list since large amount of published literature in
and construct USV dynamics on-line. These methods
this direction.
include recursive neural networks (Sharma & Sutton,
Within the published literature, control design approaches
2012), neural network feedback-feedforward compensat-
fall into either one of the following methods, or some com-
ing methods (Zhang et al., 2011a), and weighted least
bination thereof: adaptive control (AC), backstepping control
square techniques (Annamalai et al., 2014b).
(BC), behavior-based control (BBC), cascaded control theory
(CCT), cluster space control (CSC), decentralized synchroniza-
5.2. Review of Control Approaches from Control Objectives tion (DS), dynamic surface control (DSC), fuzzy logic con-
Viewpoint trol (FLC), feedback linearization (FL), gradient-based adap-
tive technique (GBAT), gain scheduling (GS), input-output
In essence, the development of control strategies is oriented linearization (IOL), moving long base line (MLBL), linear
by different control objectives. As briefly summarized in Ta- quadratic regulator (LQR), linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG),
ble 6, these objectives can be generally classified into one of Lyapunov’s direct method (LDM), long base line position-
four categories (Bibuli et al., 2012; Fredriksen & Pettersen, ing (LBLP), Lagrangian multiplier method (LMM), linear pa-
2006; Fossen, 2011): rameter varying (LPV), local control network (LCN), model
1. Set-point regulation: This is the most basic control objec- reference adaptive control (MRAC), model predictive control
tive, which converges the position and orientation of the (MPC), nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC), neural
USV with the desired requirements without temporal con- network (NN), null-space-based behavioral control (NSBBC),
straint. However, it is impossible to achieve continuous proportional integral derivative (PID), robust control (RC), re-
control actions for underactuated USVs. inforcement learning (RL), synchronization control (SC), slid-
11
 Table 7: Classification of challenges in USV control systems
Exper. Dist. Uncer. Faults Const. References
√ √ √ √ Annamalai et al. (2014a,b); Do & Pan (2006b); Feemster & Esposito (2011); Li et al. (2009); Tee
×
√ √ √ & Ge (2006)
√ √ ×
√ × Bibuli et al. (2012); Caccia et al. (2008a); Naeem et al. (2012b); Pettersen et al. (2004)
× × Naeem et al. (2008b)
√ √ √ Ding et al. (2013); Gadre et al. (2012); Guerreiro et al. (2013); Kyrkjebø et al. (2007); Li & Sun
× ×
(2012); Sonnenburg & Woolsey (2013); Tokekar et al. (2010)
Abril et al. (1997); Alfaro et al. (2005); Annamalai & Motwani (2013); Beck et al. (2009); Bibuli et
√ √ al. (2009); Do & Pan (2006a); Hurban (2012); Kim et al. (2012); Lefeber et al. (2003); Ma (2009);
× × ×
Naeem et al. (2012a); Pereira et al. (2008); Pettersen & Fossen (2000); Sonnenburg & Woolsey
√ √ (2012); Vaneck (1997); Wondergem et al. (2011); Yu et al. (2008)
× × × Skjetne et al. (2005)
√ Adamek et al. (2015); Ashrafiuon et al. (2008); Breivik et al. (2008); Caccia et al. (2005); Desa
× × × × et al. (2007); Elkaim (2006); Moreira et al. (2007); Pettersen & Nijmeijer (2001); Sharma et al.
(2012); Skjetne et al. (2004a); Song (2014); Tran et al. (2014); Svec et al. (2014b)
√ √ Dai et al. (2012); Li et al. (2008); Liu et al. (2014b); Pan et al. (2013); Peng et al. (2009, 2013b);
× × ×
√ √ Zhang et al. (2011a)
× × × Peng et al. (2013a); Sharma & Sutton (2013)
√ Do et al. (2002b, 2003); Do (2010); Ghommam et al. (2006, 2010); Liu et al. (2014c); Chen &
× × × ×
√ Cheng (2010); Yang et al. (2014)
× × × ×
√ Annamalai et al. (2014a)
× × × × McNinch et al. (2009); Oh & Sun (2010); Yu et al. (2012)
√
Note: ( ) considered; (×) not considered; (Exper.) experiment; (Dist.) disturbances; (Uncer.) uncertainties; (Const.) constraints.

ing mode control (SMC), and vision-based control (VBC). In to saturation. Control design without any actuator amplitude
practical applications, hardly any USV control methods rely on and rate constraints may induce significant performance degra-
a single control design technique, since a combination of differ- dation in the control system, wear and tear to the actuators, and
ent control approaches and structures is often more appropriate even the instability of the closed-loop system when actuators
for improving system performance. Although great effort has saturate (Do & Pan, 2009). In addition, the abrupt turn of USVs
been dedicated to the development of more advanced control should likewise be avoided in terms of the possibility of unde-
methodologies, PID control still dominates USV control system sirable motion, or even capsizing in extremely fast turns.
design. In the following, more advanced control methodologies
that are expected to overcome the above-mentioned challenges
are discussed in order to provide an overview of the new trends Table 8: Classification of USV control methods considering actuator deflec-
on USVs control. tion constraint (ADC), actuator deflection rate constraint (ADRC), and yaw
rate constraint (YRC)
5.3.1. Control of Underactuated USVs ADC ADRC YRC Methods References
√ √ √
√ √ √ MPC Li & Sun (2012)
With the exception of the fully-actuated USVs adopted in NMPC Guerreiro et al. (2013)
√ √
Feemster & Esposito (2011); Svec et al. (2014b); Tee & Ge × AC Feemster & Esposito (2011)
(2006); Wondergem et al. (2011), most existing USVs are un- √ √ Gadre et al. (2012); Tee & Ge
× BC
deractuated due mostly to the higher costs and impracticality of (2006)
√ √ Annamalai et al. (2014a,b); Oh &
full actuation. In fact, most commonly used USVs are usually × MPC
√ √ Sun (2010)
configured by mounting either two independent aft thrusters √ × NMPC Sharma & Sutton (2013)
(Ashrafiuon et al., 2008; Caccia et al., 2008a; Majohr & Buch, √ × × BC Do & Pan (2006b); Li et al. (2009)
× × AC Skjetne et al. (2005)
2006; Sharma et al., 2014) or one main aft thruster and one √
Note: ( ) considered; (×) not considered.
rudder (Breivik et al., 2008; Sonnenburg & Woolsey, 2013).
This configuration produces only two distinct inputs (propul-
sion force and yaw moment), while the USV is moving in an
environment with three DOF. As indicated by the Brockett nec- Most of the existing work (Ding et al., 2013; Feemster & Es-
essary condition (Brockett, 1983), even if an underactuated sys- posito, 2011; Gadre et al., 2012; Kyrkjebø et al., 2007; Li et
tem is open-loop controllable, it cannot be stabilized by any al., 2009; Sharma & Sutton, 2013; Skjetne et al., 2005; Son-
time-invariant continuous state feedback control methods. Ad- nenburg & Woolsey, 2013; Tee & Ge, 2006) only introduces
ditionally, it is impossible to straightforwardly apply the classi- amplitude/rate limiters in the control system without consider-
cal control techniques designed for fully- or over-actuated sys- ation of the dynamics of the actuators and system states. To
tems on the underactuated ones due to its nonholonomic con- overcome these issues, there is a surge of interest (as summa-
straints (Do & Pan, 2009). rized in Table 8) in integrating the actuator and state saturation
effect into control design to increase the practical applicabil-
5.3.2. USV Control under Actuator and State Constraints ity of USVs (Annamalai et al., 2014a; Annamalai & Motwani,
As the bridge between control commands and physical ac- 2013; Annamalai et al., 2014b; Do & Pan, 2006b; Guerreiro et
tions in the system, each physical actuator is potentially subject al., 2013; Peng et al., 2013a).
12
Table 9: Classification of USV control methods with consideration of environ- Table 10: Classification of USV control methods considering uncertainties
mental disturbances Methodology References
Method References AC & KF Peng et al. (2009)
AC & KF Peng et al. (2009) AC & integrator Feemster & Esposito (2011)
AC & integrator Feemster & Esposito (2011) BC Pettersen et al. (2004)
L1 AC Hurban (2012) BC & high-gain observer Tee & Ge (2006)
MRAC Hurban (2012) BC & integrator Do & Pan (2006b); Li et al. (2009)
LDM & BC Do et al. (2002b) BC & NN Peng et al. (2013b)
Do et al. (2003); Gadre et al. (2012); Ghommam et al. GS-PI Caccia et al. (2008a); Bibuli et al. (2012)
BC (2006, 2010); Kyrkjebø et al. (2007); Li et al. (2008); MPC Annamalai et al. (2014a,b)
Sonnenburg & Woolsey (2012, 2013) Fuzzy LQG Naeem et al. (2012b)
BC & integrator Do & Pan (2006b); Li et al. (2009) Dai et al. (2012); Peng et al. (2013a,b); Pan et
NN
Vectorial BC Yang et al. (2014) al. (2013); Zhang et al. (2011a)
BC & observer Do (2010); Tee & Ge (2006) Liu et al. (2014b); McNinch et al. (2009); Yu
SMC
BC & NN Peng et al. (2013b) et al. (2012)
LQR Lefeber et al. (2003)
LQG Annamalai & Motwani (2013)
Annamalai & Motwani (2013); Annamalai et al.
MPC
(2014a,b); Li & Sun (2012)
normally requires a precise system model which is both gen-
NMPC Guerreiro et al. (2013); Sharma & Sutton (2013) erally difficult and costly to obtain, and is sensitive to model
PID
Beck et al. (2009); Hurban (2012); Naeem et al. uncertainties.
(2012a); Pereira et al. (2008); Wondergem et al. (2011)
PID & RL Kim et al. (2012)
GS-PI Caccia et al. (2008a); Bibuli et al. (2009, 2012) 5.3.4. Control of USVs under Uncertainties
H2 /H∞ Yu et al. (2008) Real world applications of USVs will inevitably encounter a
FLC Abril et al. (1997); Vaneck (1997) variety of unpredictable and immeasurable conditions, such as
Dai et al. (2012); Peng et al. (2013a); Pan et al. (2013);
NN
Zhang et al. (2011a)
sensor uncertainties, unmodelled dynamics, and mass variation
FLC & NN Chen & Cheng (2010) (Annamalai et al., 2014b). The presence of such uncertainties
SMC Alfaro et al. (2005); Liu et al. (2014b,c) can cause high-frequency unmodelled dynamics, which conse-
SMC & AC Ding et al. (2013) quently affect the performance of model-based controllers, and
can even result in close-loop instability. Despite this, system
dynamics and parameters are usually assumed to be explicitly
5.3.3. Control of USV in the Presence of Environmental Dis- known in controller design since it is usually difficult and costly
turbances to obtain accurate system parameters. The limited existing re-
USV control applications are inevitably influenced by envi- search that considers such uncertainties is briefly outlined in
ronmental disturbances from winds, waves, and currents, while Table 10.
the small-scale USV in particular are more sensitive to envi-
ronmental disturbances owing to their low inertia and small 5.3.5. Fault Detection, Diagnosis, and Tolerant Control of
size. Despite this, most of the existing research imposes dis- USVs
turbances into the USV control system for control robustness Issues of fault detection and diagnosis (FDD), and fault tol-
assessment with little consideration of disturbance compensat- erant Control (FTC) in USVs (Zhang & Jiang, 2008) have at-
ing mechanisms (as shown in Table 9). There are two domi- tracted increasing attention in a wide range of research commu-
nant approaches for counteracting environmental disturbances: nities. Conventional feedback control design methodologies for
1) model-based control techniques, where an adaptive control USVs may cause undesirable performance, and even instability
law is commonly derived to estimate and attenuate disturbances in the presence of sensors, actuators, communications or other
(Dai et al., 2012; Ding et al., 2013; Do, 2010; Ghommam et components malfunctions (Zhang & Jiang, 2008). This is par-
al., 2010; Kim et al., 2012; Li & Sun, 2012; Peng et al., 2009, ticularly critical for high speed USVs moving in complicated
2013a; Yang et al., 2014); and 2) approximation-based control and hazardous waters since a minor failure in a system compo-
methods, where disturbances are usually mitigated by adopting nent or unacceptable delay in reaction may lead to disastrous
an extra integral action (Caccia et al., 2008a; Do et al., 2002b, consequences for the USVs and their surrounding personnel,
2003; Do & Pan, 2006b; Feemster & Esposito, 2011; Gadre et vehicles and facilities. Thus, there is a strong demand for more
al., 2012; Hurban, 2012; Li et al., 2009; Pan et al., 2013; Pereira advanced USV control systems that possess the ability to si-
et al., 2008; Pettersen & Fossen, 2000; Tee & Ge, 2006). multaneously tolerate potential system faults, and guarantee the
On the one hand, the approximation-based method does not reliability and safety of the system with graceful performance
provide any deep insight into USV dynamics with environmen- degradation.
tal disturbances. Besides this, a steady-state error can also be Such demand has resulted in the preliminary study of FDD
produced when the desired heading rate is a function of the ref- in USVs by one group from Plymouth University. Sensor FDD
erence yaw angle, or when the USV moves in a complicated has been investigated by using a modified fuzzy logic adaptive
and rough environment (Bibuli et al., 2009). However, this federated Kalman filter (FLA-FKF)-based multi-sensor data fu-
method is capable of guaranteeing the local stability, and a sim- sion (MSDF) (Xu et al., 2006; Naeem et al., 2008b). Interested
pler controller suitable for practical implementation can also be readers can refer to their website for more information (Anony-
obtained. On the other hand, the model-based control approach mous, 2014b).
13
Table 11: Classification of USV control methods with experimental validation al., 2015), environmental monitoring (Arrichiello et al., 2010),
Test Sites Methodology References
ship replenishment (Kyrkjebø et al., 2007); 2) cooperation with
CCT Ma (2009)
FL Moreira et al. (2007) UAVs, including maritime domain awareness (Healey et al.,
AC Skjetne et al. (2004a, 2005) 2007), emergency and disaster response and management (Lin-
Fuzzy PID Tran et al. (2014) demuth et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2008), environmental moni-
Indoor
BC Kyrkjebø et al. (2007); Li et al. (2009); Pet-
toring (Pinto et al., 2013, 2014); and 3) cooperation with UUVs,
tersen et al. (2004); Tee & Ge (2006)
LQR Lefeber et al. (2003) including search and rescue (Murphy et al., 2011), exchang-
SMC Alfaro et al. (2005); Ashrafiuon et al. (2008) ing information with UUVs (Morgado et al., 2012), providing
PID Beck et al. (2009); Breivik et al. (2008); Cac- UUVs with localization information (Fallon et al., 2010; Viegas
cia et al. (2005); Hurban (2012); Moreira et
al. (2007); Naeem et al. (2012a); Pereira et
et al., 2014) since GPS signals are not available in underwater
al. (2008); Song (2014); Svec et al. (2014b); environments. In terms of cooperative navigation, Viegas et al.
Wondergem et al. (2011) (2015) provides interesting contributions for formations with
GS-PI Caccia et al. (2008a); Bibuli et al. (2009, time-varying topologies recently.
2012)
LCN & PID Sharma et al. (2012)
PID & RL Kim et al. (2012) Table 12: Classification of cooperation of USVs and other diverse vehicles
L1 AC Hurban (2012) Types Objectives Methodologies References
CSC Adamek et al. (2015) NN Peng et al. (2011, 2012)
Outdoor NN & DSC Peng et al. (2013a)
MRAC Hurban (2012)
SMC Fahimi (2007b); Schoerling et al.
BC Do & Pan (2006a,b); Gadre et al. (2012); (2010)
Sonnenburg & Woolsey (2012, 2013) Leader-
Graph theory Peng et al. (2013b)
follower
LQG Annamalai & Motwani (2013); Elkaim formation
NSBBC Arrichiello et al. (2010); Ma-
(2006); Naeem et al. (2008b) hacek et al. (2009)
Fuzzy LQG Naeem et al. (2012b) NMPC Fahimi (2007a)
SC Kyrkjebø et al. (2007)
FLC Abril et al. (1997); Vaneck (1997) Fast marching Liu & Bucknall (2015)
MPC Annamalai & Motwani (2013); Annamalai et PI-GS Bibuli et al. (2012)
al. (2014a,b) Graph theory Almeida et al. (2010, 2012);
Cooperative
NMPC Guerreiro et al. (2013) Ghommam & Mnif (2009)
path following
H2 /H∞ Yu et al. (2008) NN & DSC Hao et al. (2013)
Passivity control Ihle et al. (2007)
Outdoor & PD Desa et al. (2007) DS Borhaug et al. (2011)
Indoor AC Feemster & Esposito (2011) USVs
Graph theory Dong (2010)
Cooperative
CSC Mahacek et al. (2012)
trajectory
BBC Elkins et al. (2010)
tracking
LMM Ihle et al. (2006a,b)
5.3.6. Experimental Validation of Control Methods CSC Kitts et al. (2011)
NSBBC Arrichiello et al. (2006)
Experimental validation plays a vital role in bridging the Formation
Graph theory Dong & Farrell (2008)
keeping
gap between theory and practice. Due to the tremendous chal- GBAT Adamek et al. (2015)
IOL Fahimi et al. (2005)
lenges associated with practical implementation, including al- Target capture NSBBC Arrichiello et al. (2012)
gorithm development, de-bugging, and platform design and & transport
Task allocation Contract-based Raboin et al. (2014)
maintenance, researchers typically focus on implementing con- & planning control
trol algorithms in simulation studies rather than in real environ- Cooperative
BBC Morgado et al. (2012)
ments. Even though significant efforts have recently been made USVs MLBL Fallon et al. (2010)
localization
& LBLP Viegas et al. (2014)
(as listed in Table 11), more practical control structures and UUVs Cooperative BBC Murphy et al. (2011)
design methods capable of dealing with the above-mentioned sensing
Cooperative VBC Pinto et al. (2014)
challenges, together with more effective application of research USVs
landing
to practical uses remain an important topic for future research. Remote control Murphy et al. (2008)
&
VBC Lindemuth et al. (2011); Pinto et
UAVs Target tracking
al. (2013)
Potential field Healey et al. (2007)
6. Key GNC Technologies for Multiple USVs and Other
Unmanned Vehicles
Even though substantial effort has been devoted towards
In order to enhance USV robustness and reliability against achieving successful cooperation strategies over the past
system failures, improve mission performance, increase their decade, significant theoretical and practical challenges still ex-
spatiotemporal capacity, reduce operational costs, and optimize ist:
strategies for larger coverage of surveillance, communication, 1. Disturbances and uncertainties: the researches conducted
and measurement applications, current research goes well be- in Arrichiello et al. (2006, 2012); Borhaug et al. (2011);
yond single USV systems. As outlined in Table 12, much of Ghommam & Mnif (2009); Ihle et al. (2006a,b); Kitts et
the focus of recent USV research has shifted to cooperative con- al. (2011); Viegas et al. (2014) have taken the influence
trol issues with applications to: 1) cooperation between USVs, of disturbances into account, while Almeida et al. (2010);
including assets protection (Kitts et al., 2011; Mahacek et al., Fahimi (2007a,b); Hao et al. (2013); Peng et al. (2011,
2012; Raboin et al., 2014), surveillance and information sharing 2012, 2013a,b); Schoerling et al. (2010) have considered
(Elkins et al., 2010), water surface objective capture and trans- both disturbances and uncertainties. Further research is
port (Arrichiello et al., 2012), bathymetric sensing (Adamek et possible on USVs cooperation under the influence of time-
14
 varying disturbances, as well as both dynamic and param- (a) Global path planning: Most existing global path plan-
eter uncertainties; ning methods are computationally time consuming, such
2. Communication limitations: Information sharing over a as heuristic search algorithms (Kim et al., 2013; Zhuang
communication network is fundamental for cooperation, et al., 2012; Svec & Gupta, 2011) and optimization
particularly for decentralized cooperative control. It also methods (Larson et al., 2006; Naus & Waz, 2013). As
brings about numerous challenges, including limited com- such, they are usually inappropriate for real-time appli-
munication bandwidth, transmission noise, and communi- cations in rapidly changing dynamic environments;
cation delays, dropouts and failures. Only a few of these (b) Local path planning: Local path planning approaches,
issues have been studied in any detail, including communi- such as potential fields (Healey et al., 2007; Soltan et
cation delays (Dong & Farrell, 2008; Dong, 2010; Ghom- al., 2009), only guarantee local convergence, which may
mam & Mnif, 2009; Ihle et al., 2006a; Izadi et al., 2013) lead the USV to the trapped situation instead of global
and dropouts (Ihle et al., 2007, 2006b; Raboin et al., 2014); convergence;
3. Collision avoidance: Enhancing the safety and auton- (c) Hybrid path planning: The combination of global and
omy of USVs requires consideration of obstacle avoidance local path planning approaches offers an effective solu-
functionality. Despite this, existing research has mostly tion for USVs working in both static and dynamic en-
considered the issue of collision avoidance between co- vironments, but little attention to date (Larson et al.,
operating vehicles, while other environmental obstacles 2006, 2007; Casalino et al., 2009; Svec et al., 2012)
are commonly ignored. Cooperation with consideration has been paid to this hybrid path planning method. The
of both vehicles and environmental obstacles to date can fully observable environment is normally assumed in the
only be found in Arrichiello et al. (2010); Fahimi (2007a); existing research, partially observable environment and
Raboin et al. (2014); Tam & Bucknall (2013); more efficient and reliable searching methods are still de-
4. Underway replenishment: USVs underway replenishment manded. In addition, the system transient performance
operations, which involve a close coordination of several and stability is also a concern when switching between
USVs that move in parallel to conduct cargo (such as fuel, different path planning strategies;
munitions, food, and personnel) transfer tasks, can enable (d) Path planning under practical issues: Environmental
the accomplishment of extended term missions and avoid disturbances and uncertainties are inevitable in USV
port time (Kyrkjebø, 2007). Much work concerning the path planning (Svec et al., 2012). It is also dynamically
control issues of ships underway replenishment are carried infeasible to follow a path by operating USVs with infi-
out, such as leader-follower coordinated synchronization nite engine thrust, rudder deflection and rates, and turn
scheme is designed in Kyrkjebø & Pettersen (2003); Kyrk- rates and accelerations. Too little research (Bibuli et al.,
jebø et al. (2007), later on, this method is experimentally 2009; Gal, 2011b) has concerned these issues in their
verified in Wondergem (2004). Unfortunately, the hydro- path planning approaches. Furthermore, discontinuous
dynamic interaction effects occurring between the cooper- command inputs should be avoided, and actuator satura-
ation members are not considered in these investigations. tion induced by dramatic jumps in tracking error should
5. Experimental validation: Despite the recent activity in this also be prevented, since sufficiently smoothed trajecto-
area, most research is still limited to simulation, with only ries can contribute to more gentle acceleration, less re-
Adamek et al. (2015); Almeida et al. (2010); Arrichiello dundant operations, and less energy consumption;
et al. (2010, 2012); Bibuli et al. (2012); Borhaug et al. (e) Sternward/backward motion planning: It is occasion-
(2011); Elkins et al. (2010); Fallon et al. (2010); Healey et ally necessary for USVs to exhibit sternward/backward
al. (2007); Kitts et al. (2011); Kyrkjebø et al. (2007); Ma- motion to enhance their maneuverability, improve envi-
hacek et al. (2009, 2012); Morgado et al. (2012); Murphy ronmental adaptability, and avoid environmental hazards
et al. (2008); Pinto et al. (2014); Schoerling et al. (2010); (Gadre et al., 2012; Sonnenburg & Woolsey, 2012). Cur-
Tokekar et al. (2010) conducting actual field experiments. rent studies are still limited to low speed USVs.
Field experiments with good performance still deserve fur- Practical applications of hybrid path planning strategies
ther investigation. combining global and local methods, along with consider-
ation of other challenging issues such as USV dynamics,
7. Challenges and Future Directions uncertainties, environmental disturbances, stationary and
dynamical obstacles, computational issues and control ob-
Although tremendous effort has been dedicated to make jectives (spatiotemporal, energy, weather-optimal, danger
USVs more autonomous, there still exist significant challenges level or mission), all deserve further investigation.
in their development. Numerous key technical issues must be 2. Path replanning: With the further development of USVs,
solved to bring the autonomy up to the level required for more more advanced collision avoidance capabilities are in-
sophisticated and hazardous applications. creasingly needed. Unfortunately, only the avoidance of
static and semi-dynamic obstacles has been investigated,
7.1. Autonomous GNC of Single USV while the availability of more effective, accurate and reli-
7.1.1. Guidance able methodologies to avoid both static and dynamic ob-
1. Path planning: stacles are still of great interest for further investigation.
15
 (a) Protocol-free case: One potentially important area for (d) Multi-modal sensing: In order to compensate the weak-
research is developing the ability to effectively and reli- ness of single sensing application, the multi-modal sens-
ably plan an optimal path in real-time, integrating nau- ing can be a suitable choice to proceed to ensure USVs as
tical chart data, USV dynamics, and surrounding sta- safe as possible (Elkins et al., 2010), while the real-time
tionary and dynamical obstacles (both above- and under- data processing and heterogeneity of the data sources are
water (Heidarsson & Sukhatme, 2011; Onunka et al., still challenging.
2013)); 2. State estimation:
(b) Protocol-based case: Because COLREG regulations (a) State estimation with conventional GPS-IMU:
were originally devised as navigation rules for human i. GPS and IMU are widely adopted for USV state estima-
operators to steer ships, the incorporation and implemen- tion (Bibuli et al., 2009; Caccia et al., 2008a; Motwani
tation of this regulation in USV collision avoidance strat- et al., 2013), while state estimation results are inevitably
egy presents a huge challenge (Benjamin et al., 2006; affected by environmental noises, inherent errors, and
Lee et al., 2004), especially for the identification of the accumulative bias of sensors. An interesting re-
lights, flags, and horns. Additionally, COLREGs regu- search in terms of the estimation of accelerometer bias
lation provides safe operation along with chattering be- has been presented in Batista et al. (2011). Data fusion
havior issues due to the uncertainties in situation aware- of multiple sensors in order to develop more accurate
ness, which may cause frequent switches in COLREG and reliable navigation schemes and obtain the desired
constraints. Another area of ongoing improvement is the information is worthy of further investigation (Xu et al.,
ability to consider both COLREG regulations and nauti- 2007; Sutton et al., 2011; Vasconcelos et al., 2011a);
cal chart data in path replanning. ii. USVs occasionally operate in some special waters (such
as under bridges or trees) with non-existent/ degraded
GPS signal reception, or near targets (metal objects)
7.1.2. Navigation with strong magnetic signatures which can disturb on-
Although there have been some applications of current navi- board sensors. In these situations, using only one
gation technologies on USVs, long-range and real-time naviga- method is insufficient for localization and attitude mea-
tion needs further investigation. surement. The currently adopted solution is to use ac-
1. Sensing technologies: Navigation of USVs in unknown, tive ranging sensors or vision sensors for state estima-
complicated, and cluttered environments normally re- tion (Xu et al., 2007; Naeem et al., 2012b);
quires effective sensing technologies and onboard data iii. Since each individual sensor may suffer from failure
processing algorithms. (Zhang & Jiang, 2008), sensor (hardware) and ana-
(a) Radar: Radar is currently the main choice for far-field lytical (software) redundancies are generally employed
obstacle detection (Ji et al., 2014). Despite this, it may (Sutton et al., 2011). Furthermore, smart sensors with
still fail to detect small-size and popup objects at close fault diagnosis capabilities can also be a potential solu-
range. Obstacle detection precision may also be de- tion to sensor failure.
creased due to cumulative deviation (more serious due (b) State estimation based on other sensors: Active (LI-
to the fast turning behavior of USVs), high waves, and DAR, radar and sonar) and passive (vision sensors) rang-
water reflectivity; ing sensor-based methods can also be adopted in state
(b) Sonar: Sonar is primarily applied for underwater ob- estimation, in particular for the application of USV nav-
stacle detection and information perception (Onunka et igation with degraded/lost GPS signals. Current research
al., 2013), but the gathered data is easily influenced by on USV navigation using active and passive ranging sen-
noises, especially at the near-surface. Additionally, au- sors remains minimal.
tomatic sonar image interpretation is also challenging. 3. Environment perception:
These issues demand sonar data processing methods that (a) Obstacle recognition: One of the difficulties facing USV
are more robust and intelligent than at present; navigation is the recognition of surrounding obstacles
(c) Vision sensors: Although vision sensors are identified as without human intervention. Despite this, existing re-
potential candidates for active sensing methods in USV search in this area (Subramanian et al., 2006; Wolf et
navigation, current research is limited to the use of vi- al., 2010) is still scarce, and the development of methods
sual sensors (Gal, 2011a; Huntsberger et al., 2011). In- with higher detection rates are needed in future studies;
frared sensors have not yet been applied in USV nav- (b) Varying environment effects: The most challenging issue
igation. Common maritime phenomena, such as sea for USV real-time vision-based perception is the influ-
fog (blurs images), wave occlusions and continuously ence of widely varying environmental conditions (Ma et
changing viewing angle and range (induces images vi- al., 2013), such as fog, lighting, rain, wave occlusions,
bration), variation of lighting and weather (disturbs de- sophisticated background, as well as variational view an-
tection laws), and reflections of obstacles and surround- gle and range. In addition, the reflections of obstacles
ings (causes false identification), may also seriously af- and surrounding environment may show up clearly and
fect its performance. Further research to increase the re- incorrectly be classified as obstacles. Thus, subsequent
liability and effectiveness of vision sensors are needed; work to increase the reliability of vision-based methods
16
 and remove image reflections are highly needed. In- (Skjetne et al., 2004a), more complete models and ad-
frared and laser illumination are commonly suggested vanced control strategies are needed in high-speed situ-
as the solution to these issues in other unmanned navi- ations;
gation fields, but their application in USVs is still min- (c) Model identification: In the existing research, USV model
imal. Besides the above-mentioned issues, salt spray, is generally identified off-line (Sonnenburg et al., 2010;
winds, waves, currents, and tides also present significant Rajesh & Bhattacharyya, 2008). Owing to the complexity
challenges (image blurring and vibration). Although of this practice and its benefits (Sharma & Sutton, 2012;
pioneering research on this has been conducted (Gal, Zhang et al., 2011a) (improved model accuracy and real-
2011a), further investigation of the above-mentioned time model learning and updating), on-line identification
challenges are deserved. is a potentially useful topic for further investigation.
4. Situation awareness: SA is crucial for enhancing USV 2. Control of USVs:
navigation performance, but issues related to the SA of (a) Control under environmental disturbances and uncertain-
USVs (Wolf et al., 2010; Leedekerken et al., 2014) have ties: Due to the presence of uncertainties in model dynam-
not yet been extensively introduced, and USV SA perfor- ics and parameters, as well as hard-to-predict time-varying
mance still depends solely on human operators (the auton- environmental disturbances, the expected motion may be
omy level is somehow low). Unlike UGV and UUV, USV unachievable when the USV controller is designed us-
SLAM has to take into account the information both above ing an ideal model assuming disturbance-free conditions.
and below the waterline. Accurately fusing these two sep- This adverse effect becomes particularly serious for low
arate regions is challenging due to their different resolu- inertia and small size USVs operating in a priori unknown
tions and levels of accuracy, as well as the tide-caused and cluttered environments (Thakur et al., 2012). Further-
water-level variation (Murphy et al., 2008). more, the drawbacks of existing methods that reject envi-
ronmental disturbances include: 1) sensitive reactions to
7.1.3. Control high-frequency noises and disturbances, inducing the in-
USV control systems still have significant limitations in their crease of wear and tear on actuator systems; 2) constant
current state of development, and many critical aspects must be and slow time-varying disturbance assumptions are usu-
clarified to fulfill the increasing demand for greater autonomy. ally needed for controller design; and 3) it is still an open
1. Modelling of USVs: issue for an underactuated USV fully compensating dis-
(a) Nonlinear modelling: Most existing control methods usu- turbances in three DOF (Fredriksen & Pettersen, 2006).
ally depend on highly idealized dynamic models, using Therefore, designing a controller that is capable of reject-
strict assumptions. There is a great demand for the devel- ing time-varying disturbances without frequent and abrupt
opment of control schemes based on a more general and action of actuators is still worth further investigation;
precise dynamic model to cover a wider range of sea con- (b) Control with consideration of state & actuator limits: The
ditions; limitations on amplitude and rate of states and actuators
i. Hydrodynamic coefficients are always time-varying, all need to be considered in controller design to avoid con-
which cannot be accurately estimated in advance, while trol performance degradation, and even system instability
USVs generally do not have fore/aft symmetry. Because (Annamalai et al., 2014b; Do & Pan, 2006b). To avoid un-
of these practical issues, the coupling interactions of ve- desirable motion and excessive tear and wear on actuator
locity and acceleration in each DOF, Coriolis and Cen- systems, actuator actions should not be excessively sensi-
tripetal forces, and nonlinear viscous effects will become tive to external disturbances, while control signals should
increasingly apparent and significant for steering USVs also be continuous. It is noteworthy that MPC has recently
with high surge speeds (Skjetne et al., 2004a). Hence it been adopted for USV control, which can inherently in-
is more reasonable and practical to consider both C(ν) corporate the limitations of actuators and states into con-
and the off-diagonal terms in M and D(ν) to enhance troller design (Li & Sun, 2012; Oh & Sun, 2010);
controller performance (Borhaug et al., 2011; Do & Pan, (c) Fault tolerant capability of USV control systems: As the
2006a; Pettersen & Nijmeijer, 2001; Wondergem et al., operational periods and ranges of USVs increase, the de-
2011); mand for more reliable systems also rises. The ability to
ii. Although taking account of non-diagonal matrix ele- detect, diagnose and tolerate malfunctions in the mechan-
ments is trivial for fully-actuated USVs, it remains chal- ical and electrical elements of USV systems, as well as
lenging for underactuated USVs (Pettersen & Nijmeijer, reliably and safely operating USVs under a wide range of
2001). environmental conditions is an important area of concern
(b) High-speed USV control: Coupling interactions, envi- (Elkins et al., 2010). The current solution consists of a
ronmental disturbances, the influence of hydrodynamic combination of redundancy (multiple groups of identical
damping, and measurement noises can all seriously de- system configuration) of electrical and mechanical com-
grade the performance of USVs in high-speed operational ponents with advanced fault detection, diagnosis and re-
conditions (Pettersen et al., 2004). It is also difficult configuration mechanisms (Zhang & Jiang, 2008), though
to conduct linear translations of surge and sway veloci- such a strategy also significantly increases the costs of
ties. In contrast to the control design for low-speed USVs USV development and the complexity of USV control
17
 (Manley, 1997). Although consideration has been given depletion of oil and gas resources in shallow waters and
to detection and diagnosis of faults in USVs sensors (Xu their significantly increasing demand from both industrial
et al., 2006; Naeem et al., 2008b), no effort has been made and civil consumptions in recent years, a growing number
to apply fault detection and diagnosis techniques, or to of marine surface structures have been dynamically po-
develop FTC techniques to deal with failure in USVs ac- sitioned to harsher and more sophisticated environments
tuators and communication systems. The significant de- for offshore exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons
velopment of FDD and FTC in USV control is definitely (He et al., 2013). Most of the early DP systems are de-
expected in the near future; ployed subjecting to a certain limit of environmental con-
(d) Autonomous departure and docking: In general, USVs ditions and relatively simple tasks. As the DP technol-
are manually controlled until their position and velocity ogy becomes more mature research efforts are gradually
satisfy some specific requirements during their departure put into the existing challenges, such as the unpredictable
and docking. Autonomous, safe and robust self-docking and time-varying environmental disturbances from winds,
(Breivik & Loberg, 2011) and undocking of USVs (Mar- wave and current (Chen et al., 2013; Du et al., 2013),
tins et al., 2007b) would be a tremendous advantage in system parametric uncertainties (Chen et al., 2013; Du et
terms of reducing personnel cost and extending USV al., 2013), varying operational conditions (Nguyen et al.,
working durations. Despite this, a significantly challeng- 2007), as well as sensor and actuator failures. The re-
ing technical issue arises due to the existence of con- cent developed hybrid DP strategy (Nguyen et al., 2007)
tinuous and unpredictable external disturbances (Kim et capable of dealing with varying environmental and oper-
al., 2012). Research on this issue can only be found in ational conditions is an effective and promising method,
Breivik & Loberg (2011); Dunbabin et al. (2008); Kim which is worth further investigation. Although the stabil-
et al. (2012). Vision-based docking strategies are one ity of switching between strategies in hybrid DP has also
technique that has already been adopted (Dunbabin et al., been concerned (Nguyen et al., 2007), further research on
2008; Kim et al., 2012); the switching-induced chattering prevention is deserved.
(e) Coupling influences among each motion: Some motions Additionally, the safety of DP operations is increasingly
coupled in reality, including the roll moment generated demanded. More research efforts are thereby expected to
by disturbances, thrusters and rudders, can affect turning be dedicated into FDD of sensors as well as FDD and FTC
performance. The sway force induced by the deflection of actuators (Fang & Blanke, 2011). For more references
of the rudder may further complicate the control design and further detailed information on the topic of DP, read-
(Fredriksen & Pettersen, 2006; Ma, 2009); ers can refer to Fossen (2011); Sørensen (2011);
(f) Control reallocation (Johansen et al., 2005; Johansen & (h) Active control of offshore steel jacket platform: Offshore
Fossen, 2013): For over-actuated USVs (the feasibility of steel jacket platforms, as one type of the marine vehi-
control reallocation depends on over-actuation), optimally cle platforms, play an increasingly important role in the
distributing control commands to different actuators of- oil and gas drilling, extraction, transportation, and stor-
fers numerous advantages, including reduced energy con- age (Terro et al., 1999). The ocean environment that the
sumption and enhanced control capabilities. From an en- platforms located is normally sophisticated and harsh, and
ergy saving perspective, the active operation of rudders where they may be subject to a variety of dynamic forces
owns more potential advantages especially when USV is from winds, wave, current, ice, and even earthquake, as
moving in the low surge speed maneuvering case (such well as suffer from the erosion of sea water and salt atmo-
as station-keeping, docking, and dynamic positioning) be- sphere (Sakthivel et al., 2015). In addition to that, the flex-
cause the consumption of fuel and excessive wear and tear ible and complicated structure of the offshore steel jacket
on the thrust system (it is much energy- and life- consum- platforms tends to cause self-excited hydrodynamic force
ing in the case of frequent operation of thrust) could be and nonlinear responses, those issues may result in ad-
relatively decreased by maneuvering a rudder servo com- verse consequences, such as the large deformations and
pared to operating the thrust system (Lindegaard & Fos- vibration of platforms, fatigue damage, and risky working
sen, 2003; Johansen et al., 2008; Johansen, 2013). From conditions. As a result, the safety and durability of the
the enhanced control capabilities viewpoint, the recon- offshore steel jacket platforms have raised great concerns
figuration of control strategies can also significantly im- from the marine research community. Extensive efforts
prove the system performance in the presence of actuator have been dedicated to this area, which can also be made
faults (Casavola & Garone, 2010; Cristofaro & Johansen, use of in other marine vehicles research. The stabiliza-
2014) and operating condition variations. These adverse tion of the platform subject to wave-induced forces is in-
phenomena are mitigated by only reallocating the control vestigated in Sarrafan et al. (2012); Zhang et al. (2013a);
signals without reconfiguring the control laws, which is Zhang & Tang (2013b); Zhang et al. (2014b); Nourisola et
particularly desirable for the model-based control meth- al. (2015). The research of actuator time-delay has been
ods. But the computationally fast control reallocation ap- reported in Zhang et al. (2011b); Zhang & Tang (2013b);
proaches considering time-varying operating conditions Zhang et al. (2012, 2015). The parameter perturbations of
are still scarce (Casavola & Garone, 2010); the platform and the external disturbances have been con-
(g) Dynamic positioning (DP) (Sørensen, 2011): Due to the sidered in Zhang et al. (2013a, 2014b). Moreover, the ac-
18
 tuator FTC problem in offshore steel jacket platforms has multiple USVs has only just been investigated (Izadi et al.,
recently drawn increasing attention. But only partial loss 2013), although many recent developments in UAVs and
of actuator effectiveness to date is studied in Sakthivel et UGVs have been carried out (Chamseddine et al., 2012;
al. (2015); Zhang et al. (2014a), while other kinds of sen- Sharifi et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2014);
sor and actuator failures deserve further investigation. 6. Underway replenishment: Ships underway replenishment
operations are currently performed manually, demanding
7.2. Autonomous GNC of USVs and Other Vehicles the superb seamanship to maintain the expected trajecto-
ries that provide joint motion suitable for the replenish-
In order to achieve more efficient and effective missions, ment manipulation (Brown & Carlyle, 2008). Although
USVs usually cooperate with not only themselves, but also much effort (Kyrkjebø et al., 2007) has been devoted to
other similar vehicles, such as UUVs, UAVs, as well as manned the investigation of ships underway replenishment, the rel-
air and surface vehicles. GNC aspects, however, can be more ative work on USVs is still scarce. Moreover, when the
sophisticated. cooperating ships move in close proximity, ships’ maneu-
vering behavior becomes much susceptible to the hydro-
7.2.1. GNC in Cooperative Systems dynamic interaction effects between them, and which may
1. Centralized vs. decentralized control: Compared with cause strong and sudden attraction or repulsion effects be-
centralized control, decentralized control techniques are tween them and make it difficult to precisely perform the
more flexible, desirable, and generally reduce the struc- anticipated operation. This situation can be further devel-
tural requirements on communication network topologies oped into disastrous consequences (threatening the person-
(Borhaug et al., 2011). But they are also more challeng- nel safety or even collision) if the environmental loads be-
ing due to the communication constraints (noises, delays, tween the involved ships are significant (Breivik, 2010).
dropouts and failures), obstacles, and uncertainties; But most of the existing research assumes that the under-
2. Protocol-based cooperative control: Because USVs are way replenishment operations are conducted in calm wa-
often forced to give way to larger and higher priority ships ter, while the hydrodynamic interaction loads (such as the
(such as cargo and passenger ships), multiple USVs in added mass, damping, and wave diffraction force), waves,
combination with multiple COLREGs rules and real-time and winds for two ships involved in close-proximity ma-
computational capabilities is another significant research neuvers that are of great concern are normally ignored.
direction that merits consideration (Murray, 2007; Tam & Only few existing research (Fu & Haddad, 2003; McTag-
Bucknall, 2013); gart et al., 2008; Skjetne et al., 2009) takes into account
3. Cooperation with safety requirements: In order to increase part of these unfavorable effects. The manned/unmanned
USV autonomy and safety, further development of colli- helicopter, as another promising application of underway
sion avoidance capabilities, especially those directed to- replenishment, can also be employed for vertical replen-
wards preventing inter-USVs collisions (Adamek et al., ishment of USVs that may be some distance away.
2015; Mahacek et al., 2012; Viegas et al., 2014), as well
as static and dynamic environmental objects is needed
(Raboin et al., 2014; Tam & Bucknall, 2013);
4. Cooperative control with fewer sensors: Most existing co-
operative control methods rely on velocity information by 7.2.2. Cooperation of USVs and Other Unmanned/Manned
adopting velocity sensors (especially for leader-follower Systems
cases). Provided that the desired performance is satisfied, 1. Cooperation with UUVs: As GPS cannot be directly used
developing a cooperative control technique using only po- in underwater environments, the navigation of UUVs gen-
sition measurements or estimates of velocity even with- erally depends solely on onboard sensors which inevitably
out velocity sensors (using e.g. accelerometers) would experience error accumulation (Fallon et al., 2010). USVs
be much preferred in practice, allowing decreases in both with high maneuverability have been employed to over-
equipment cost and network burden (Peng et al., 2013a; come this obstacle, tracking UUVs and providing them
Xiao et al., 2011, 2014); with real-time accurate navigation information (Murphy et
5. USV cooperation under abnormal conditions: Influences al., 2011);
from disturbances (Arrichiello et al., 2012; Viegas et al., 2. Cooperation with UAVs: To increase their spatiotempo-
2014), uncertainties (Almeida et al., 2010; Schoerling et ral capacity, USVs can potentially cooperate with UAVs
al., 2010), and communication limitations (Dong, 2010; to conduct specific missions, such as acting as land-
Raboin et al., 2014) can all undermine individual USV per- ing, launching, refueling, and replenishment platforms for
formance, and ultimately affect USV cooperation. More- UAVs (Murphy et al., 2008);
over, it is important to consider the proper cooperative con- 3. Cooperation with other manned vehicles: To take advan-
trol of USVs even if some USVs experience sensor, actu- tages of each other, USVs and manned vehicles are oc-
ator or communication failures. Due to the complex na- casionally required to cooperate to conduct specific mis-
ture and underactuation characteristic of most USVs, the sions. But no existing research up to date considers this
implementation of FTC in cooperative control systems of topic.

19
8. Conclusions waterplane area twin hull autonomous platform for shallow water mapping.
Marine Technology Society Journal, 43(1), 6-12.
In the near future, the development of fully autonomous Behal, A., Dawson, D. M., Dixon, W. E., & Fang, Y. (2002). Tracking and
regulation control of an underactuated surface vessel with nonintegrable dy-
USVs in highly dynamic maritime environments remains an namics. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(3), 495-500.
open question, and there are numerous ongoing research works Benjamin, M. R., & Curcio, J. A. (2004). COLREGs-based navigation of au-
on this topic. This paper has presented a technical review and tonomous marine vehicles. In Proceedings of IEEE/OES Autonomous Un-
bibliographical list on historical and contemporary develop- derwater Vehicles (pp. 32-39).
Benjamin, M. R., Leonard, J. J., Curcio, J. A., & Newman, P. M. (2006). A
ments in USV GNC systems. The basic definitions of USVs method for protocol-based collision avoidance between autonomous marine
system are given. The adopted methodologies for USV GNC surface craft. Journal of Field Robotics, 23(5), 333-346.
are categorized and outlined. Some challenges and future direc- Bertaska, I. R., Alvarez, J., Sinisterra, A., von Ellenrieder, K., Dhanak,
tions have also been presented to facilitate the research progress M., Shah, B., Švec, P., & Gupta, S. K. (2013). Experimental evalu-
ation of approach behavior for autonomous surface vehicles. In ASME
of autonomous and practically applicable USVs. 2013 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference (pp. V002T32A003-
V002T32A003). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Bertram, V. (2008). Unmanned surface vehicles–A survey. In Proceedings of
References Skibsteknisk Selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bibuli, M., Bruzzone, G., Caccia, M., & Lapierre, L. (2009). Path-following
Abril, J., Salom, J., & Calvo, O. (1997). Fuzzy control of a sailboat. Interna- algorithms and experiments for an unmanned surface vehicle. Journal of
tional Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 16(3), 359-375. Field Robotics, 26(8), 669-688.
Adamek, T., Kitts, C. A., & Mas, I. (2015). Gradient-based cluster space navi- Bibuli, M., Caccia, M., Lapierre, L., & Bruzzone, G. (2012). Guidance of un-
gation for autonomous surface vessels. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mecha- manned surface vehicles: Experiments in vehicle following. IEEE Robotics
tronics, 20(2), 506-518. & Automation Magazine, 19(3), 92-102.
Alfaro-Cid, E., McGookin, E. W., Murray-Smith, D. J., & Fossen, T. I. (2005). Bingham, B., Kraus, N., Howe, B., Freitag, L., Ball, K., Koski, P., & Gallimore,
Genetic algorithms optimisation of decoupled sliding mode controllers: E. (2012). Passive and active acoustics using an autonomous wave glider.
Simulated and real results. Control Engineering Practice, 13(6), 739-748. Journal of Field Robotics, 29(6), 911-923.
Almeida, J., Silvestre, C., & Pascoal, A. (2010). Cooperative control of multi- Børhaug, E., Pavlov, A., Panteley, E., & Pettersen, K. Y. (2011). Straight line
ple surface vessels in the presence of ocean currents and parametric model path following for formations of underactuated marine surface vessels. IEEE
uncertainty. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 20(14), Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 19(3), 493-506.
1549-1565. Breivik, M., Hovstein, V. E., & Fossen, T. I. (2008). Straight-line target tracking
Almeida, J., Silvestre, C., & Pascoal, A. M. (2012). Cooperative control of for unmanned surface vehicles. Modeling, Identification and Control, 29(4),
multiple surface vessels with discrete-time periodic communications. Inter- 131-149.
national Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 22(4), 398-419. Breivik, M. (2010). Topics in guided motion control of marine vehicles. PhD
Alves, J., Oliveira, P., Oliveira, R., Pascoal, A., Rufino, M., Sebastiao, L., & Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Silvestre, C. (2006). Vehicle and mission control of the Delfim autonomous Breivik, M., & Loberg, J. E. (2011, August). A virtual target-based underway
surface craft. In Proceedings of 14th IEEE Mediterranean Conference on docking procedure for unmanned surface vehicles. In IFAC World Congress,
Control and Automation (pp. 1-6). Milan, Italy (pp. 13630-13635).
Annamalai, A. & Motwani, A. (2013). A comparison between LQG and MPC Bremer, R. H., Cleophas, P. L., Fitski, H. J., & Keus, D. (2007). Unmanned
autopilots for inclusion in a navigation, guidance and control system. MI- surface and underwater vehicles (No. TNO-DV-2006-A455). TNO Defence
DAS Technical Report: MIDAS.SMSE.2013.TR.00. Security and Safety (Netherlands). DTIC Document.
Annamalai, A. S. K., Sutton, R., Yang, C., Culverhouse, P., & Sharma, S. Brockett, R. W. (1983) Asymptotic stability and feedback stabilization. In Dif-
(2014a). Innovative adaptive autopilot design for uninhabited surface ve- ferential Geometric Control Theory (pp. 181-191). Birkhauser.
hicles. In Proceedings of IET Irish Signals & Systems Conference and Brown, G. G., & Carlyle, W. M. (2008). Optimizing the US Navy’s combat
China-Ireland International Conference on Information and Communica- logistics force. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 55(8), 800-810.
tions Technologies (pp. 158-163). Caccia, M., Bono, R., Bruzzone, G., Spirandelli, E., Veruggio, G., Stortini,
Annamalai, A. S. K., Sutton, R., Yang, C., Culverhouse, P., & Sharma, S. A. M., & Capodaglio, G. (2005). Sampling sea surfaces with SESAMO:
(2014b). Robust adaptive control of an uninhabited surface vehicle. Jour- An autonomous craft for the study of sea-air interactions. IEEE Robotics &
nal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems (pp. 1-20). Automation Magazine, 12(3), 95-105.
Arrichiello, F., Chiaverini, S., & Fossen, T. I. (2006). Formation control of Caccia, M. (2006a). Modelling and identification of the Charlie2005 ASC. In
marine surface vessels using the null-space-based behavioral control. In Proceedings of 14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation
Group Coordination and Cooperative Control (pp. 1-19). Berlin, Heidel- (pp. 1-6).
berg: Springer. Caccia, M. (2006b). Autonomous surface craft: Prototypes and basic research
Arrichiello, F., Das, J., Heidarsson, H., Pereira, A., Chiaverini, S., & Sukhatme, issues. In Proceedings of 14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and
G. S. (2010). Multi-robot collaboration with range-limited communication: Automation (pp. 1-6).
Experiments with two underactuated ASVs. In Field and Service Robotics Caccia, M., Bibuli, M., Bono, R., Bruzzone, G., Bruzzone, G., & Spirandelli,
(pp. 443-453). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. E. (2007). Unmanned surface vehicle for coastal and protected waters ap-
Arrichiello, F., Heidarsson, H. K., Chiaverini, S., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2012). plications: The Charlie project. Marine Technology Society Journal, 41(2),
Cooperative caging and transport using autonomous aquatic surface vehi- 62-71.
cles. Intelligent Service Robotics, 5(1), 73-87. Caccia, M., Bibuli, M., Bono, R., & Bruzzone, G. (2008a). Basic navigation,
Ashrafiuon, H., Muske, K. R., McNinch, L. C., & Soltan, R. A. (2008). Sliding- guidance and control of an unmanned surface vehicle. Autonomous Robots,
mode tracking control of surface vessels. IEEE Transactions on Industrial 25(4), 349-365.
Electronics, 55(11), 4004-4012. Caccia, M., Bruzzone, G., & Bono, R. (2008b). A practical approach to mod-
Anonymous. (2014a). http://www.asvglobal.com/ (accessed on eling and identification of small autonomous surface craft. IEEE Journal of
21/08/2015). Oceanic Engineering, 33(2), 133-145.
Anonymous. (2014b). http://www.tech.plymouth.ac.uk/sme/ Campbell, S., Naeem, W., & Irwin, G. W. (2012). A review on improving the
springerusv/2011/Springer.html (accessed on 21/08/2015). autonomy of unmanned surface vehicles through intelligent collision avoid-
Batista, P., Silvestre, C., & Oliveira, P. (2011). On the observability of linear ance manoeuvres. Annual Reviews in Control, 36(2), 267-283.
motion quantities in navigation systems. Systems & Control Letters, 60(2), Campbell, S., Abu-Tair, M., & Naeem, W. (2013). An automatic COLREGs-
101-110. compliant obstacle avoidance system for an unmanned surface vehicle. Pro-
Beck, E., Kirkwood, W., Caress, D., Berk, T., Mahacek, P., Brashem, K., Acain, ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of En-
J., Reddy, V., Kitts, C., Skutnik, J., & Wheat, G. (2009). SeaWASP: A small

20
 gineering for the Maritime Environment, 0(0), 1-14. Elkins, L., Sellers, D., & Monach, W. R. (2010). The autonomous maritime
Casalino, G., Turetta, A., & Simetti, E. (2009). A three-layered architecture navigation (AMN) project: Field tests, autonomous and cooperative behav-
for real time path planning and obstacle avoidance for surveillance USVs iors, data fusion, sensors, and vehicles. Journal of Field Robotics, 27(6),
operating in harbour fields. IEEE Conference on Oceans (pp. 1-8). 790-818.
Casavola, A., & Garone, E. (2010). Fault-tolerant adaptive control allocation Fahimi, F., Rineesh, S. S., & Nataraj, C. (2005). Formation control of under-
schemes for overactuated systems. International journal of robust and non- actuated robotic boats. In ASME 2005 International Mechanical Engineer-
linear control, 20(17), 1958-1980. ing Congress and Exposition (pp. 1607-1615). American Society of Me-
Chamseddine, A., Zhang, Y. M. , & Rabbath, C.-A. (2012). Trajectory plan- chanical Engineers.
ning and re-planning for fault tolerant formation flight control of quadrotor Fahimi, F. (2007a). Non-linear model predictive formation control for groups of
unmanned aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of American Control Conference autonomous surface vessels. International Journal of Control, 80(8), 1248-
(pp.3291-3296). 1259.
Chen, S-L., & Cheng, H. B. (2010). Modeling and simulation based on fuzzy Fahimi, F. (2007b). Sliding-mode formation control for underactuated surface
neural network for unmanned surface vehicle. Ship Science and Technology, vessels. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(3), 617-622.
32(11), 134-136. Fallon, M. F., Papadopoulos, G., & Leonard, J. J. (2010). Cooperative AUV
Chen, M., Ge, S. S., How, B. V. E., & Choo, Y. S. (2013). Robust adaptive navigation using a single surface craft. In Field and Service Robotics (pp.
position mooring control for marine vessels. IEEE Transactions on Control 331-340). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Systems Technology, 21(2), 395-409. Fang, S., & Blanke, M. (2011). Fault monitoring and fault recovery control for
Cristofaro, A., & Johansen, T. A. (2014). Fault tolerant control allocation using position-moored vessels. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and
unknown input observers. Automatica, 50(7), 1891-1897. Computer Science, 21(3), 467-478.
Curcio, J., Leonard, J., & Patrikalakis, A. (2005). SCOUT–A low cost au- Feemster, M. G., & Esposito, J. M. (2011). Comprehensive framework for
tonomous surface platform for research in cooperative autonomy. In Pro- tracking control and thrust allocation for a highly overactuated autonomous
ceedings of MTS/IEEE International Conference on OCEANS (pp. 725-729). surface vessel. Journal of Field Robotics, 28(1), 80-100.
Dai, S. L., Wang, C., & Luo, F. (2012). Identification and learning control of Ferreira, H., Martins, R., Marques, E., Pinto, J., Martins, A., Almeida, J.,
ocean surface ship using neural network. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Sousa, J., & Silva, E. P. (2007). Swordfish: an autonomous surface vehi-
Informatics, 8(4), 801-810. cle for network centric operations. In Proceedings of IEEE International
Desa, E., Maurya, P. K., Pereira, A., Pascoal, A. M., Prabhudesai, R. G., et al. Conference on Oceans (pp. 1-6). .
(2007). A small autonomous surface vehicle for ocean color remote sensing. Fossen, T. I. (1994). Guidance and control of ocean vehicles (Vol. 199, No. 4).
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 32(2), 353-364. New York: Wiley.
Ding, F., Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2013). Stabilization of an underactuated surface Fossen, T. I., & Grovlen, A. (1998). Nonlinear output feedback control of
vessel based on adaptive sliding mode and backstepping control. Mathemat- dynamically positioned ships using vectorial observer backstepping. IEEE
ical Problems in Engineering, 2013, 1-5. Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 6(1), 121-128.
Do, K. D., Jiang, Z. P., & Pan, J. (2002a). Underactuated ship global tracking Fossen, T. I., & Strand, J. P. (1999). Passive nonlinear observer design for ships
under relaxed conditions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(9), using Lyapunov methods: Full-scale experiments with a supply vessel. Au-
1529-1536. tomatica, 35(1), 3-16.
Do, K. D., Jiang, Z. P., & Pan, J. (2002b). Universal controllers for stabilization Fossen, T. I. (2002). Marine control systems: guidance, navigation, and control
and tracking of underactuated ships. Systems & Control Letters, 47(4), 299- of ships, rigs and underwater vehicles. Marine Cybernetics.
317. Fossen, T. I. (2005). A nonlinear unified state-space model for ship maneuver-
Do, K. D., Jiang, Z. P., & Pan, J. (2003). Robust global stabilization of under- ing and control in a seaway. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos,
actuated ships on a linear course: State and output feedback. International 15(9), 2717-2746.
Journal of Control, 76(1), 1-17. Fossen, T. I. (2011). Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion con-
Do, K. D., & Pan, J. (2006a). Robust path-following of underactuated ships: trol. John Wiley & Sons.
Theory and experiments on a model ship. Ocean Engineering, 33(10), 1354- Fredriksen, E., & Pettersen, K. Y. (2006). Global κ-exponential way-point ma-
1372. neuvering of ships: Theory and experiments. Automatica, 42(4), 677-687.
Do, K. D., & Pan, J. (2006b). Underactuated ships follow smooth paths with Fu, S. H. S., & Haddad, W. M. (2003). Nonlinear adaptive tracking of surface
integral actions and without velocity measurements for feedback: Theory vessels with exogenous disturbances. Asian Journal of Control, 5(1), 88-
and experiments. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 14(2), 103.
308-322. Furfaro, T. C., Dusek, J. E., & Von Ellenrieder, K. D. (2009). Design, construc-
Do, K. D., & Pan, J. (2009). Control of ships and underwater vehicles: design tion, and initial testing of an autonomous surface vehicle for riverine and
for underactuated and nonlinear marine systems. Springer. coastal reconnaissance. In Proceedings of MTS/IEEE International Confer-
Do, K. D. (2010). Practical control of underactuated ships. Ocean Engineering, ence on OCEANS, Biloxi-Marine Technology for Our Future: Global and
37(13), 1111-1119. Local Challenges (pp. 1-6).
Dong, W., & Guo, Y. (2005). Global time-varying stabilization of underactuated Gadre, A. S., Sonnenburg, C., Du, S., Stilwell, D. J., & Woolsey, C. (2012).
surface vessel. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 50(6), 859-864. Guidance and control of an unmanned surface vehicle exhibiting sternward
Dong, W., & Farrell, J. A. (2008). Formation control of multiple underactuated motion. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Oceans (pp.
surface vessels. IET Control Theory & Applications, 2(12), 1077-1085. 1-9).
Dong, W. (2010). Cooperative control of underactuated surface vessels. IET Gal, O. (2011a). Automatic obstacle detection for USVs navigation using vision
Control Theory & Applications, 4(9), 1569-1580. sensors. In Robotic Sailing (pp. 127-140). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Du, J., Yang, Y., Wang, D., & Guo, C. (2013). A robust adaptive neural net- Gal, O. (2011b). Unified approach of unmanned surface vehicle navigation in
works controller for maritime dynamic positioning system. Neurocomput- presence of waves. Journal of Robotics (Vol.2011). Hindawi Publishing Cor-
ing, 110, 128-136. poration.
Dunbabin, M., Lang, B., & Wood, B. (2008). Vision-based docking using an Gal, O., & Zeitouni, E. (2013). Tracking objects using PHD filter for USV
autonomous surface vehicle. In Proceedings of IEEE International Confer- autonomous capabilities. In Robotic Sailing 2012 (pp. 3-12). Berlin Heidel-
ence on Robotics and Automation (pp. 26-32). berg: Springer.
Ebken, J., Bruch, M., & Lum, J. (2005). Applying unmanned ground vehicle Ghommam, J., Mnif, F., Benali, A., & Derbel, N. (2006). Asymptotic backstep-
technologies to unmanned surface vehicles. In Defense and Security (pp. ping stabilization of an underactuated surface vessel. IEEE Transactions on
585-596). International Society for Optics and Photonics. Control Systems Technology, 14(6), 1150-1157.
El-Gaaly, T., Tomaszewski, C., Valada, A., Velagapudi, P., Kannan, B., & Ghommam, J., & Mnif, F. (2009). Coordinated path-following control for a
Scerri, P. (2013). Visual obstacle avoidance for autonomous watercraft using group of underactuated surface vessels. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
smartphones. In Autonomous Robots and Multirobot Systems Workshop. Electronics, 56(10), 3951-3963.
Elkaim, G. (2006). The Atlantis project: A GPS-guided wing-sailed au- Ghommam, J., Mnif, F., & Derbel, N. (2010). Global stabilisation and tracking
tonomous catamaran. Journal of Navigation, 53(4), 237-247. control of underactuated surface vessels. IET Control Theory & Applica-

21
 tions, 4(1), 71-88. Engineering, 84, 37-44.
Gomes, P., Silvestre, C., Pascoal, A., & Cunha, R. (2006). A path-following Kitts, C., Mahacek, P., Adamek, T., & Mas, I. (2011). Experiments in the con-
controller for the DELFIMx autonomous surface craft. In Proceedings of trol and application of automated surface vessel fleets. In Proceedings of
the 7th IFAC Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft, Lisbon, Portugal. IEEE International Conference on OCEANS (pp. 1-7).
Goudey, C. A., Consi, T., Manley, J., Graham, M., Donovan, B., & Kiley, L. Kucik, D. (2004). U.S. Patent No. 6,712,312. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
(1998). A robotic boat for autonomous fish tracking. Marine Technology Trademark Office.
Society Journal, 32(1), 47-53. Kuwata, Y., Wolf, M. T., Zarzhitsky, D., & Huntsberger, T. L. (2014). Safe
Guerreiro, B. J., Silvestre, C., Cunha, R., & Pascoal, A. (2013). Trajectory maritime autonomous navigation with COLREGs, using velocity obstacles.
tracking nonlinear model predictive control for autonomous surface craft. In IEEE Transaction on Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 39(1), 110-119.
Proceedings of IEEE European Control Conference (pp. 3006-3011). Kyrkjebø, E., & Pettersen, K. Y. (2003). Ship replenishment using synchroniza-
Wang, H., Wang, D., Peng, Z. H., & Wang, W. (2013). Adaptive dynamic sur- tion control. In IFAC Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine
face control for cooperative path following of underactuated marine surface Craft (286-291).
vehicles via fast learning. IET Control Theory & Applications, 7(15), 1888- Kyrkjebø, E. (2007). Motion coordination of mechanical systems: leader-
1898. follower synchronization of Euler-Lagrange systems using output feedback
He, W., Ge, S. S., How, B. V. E., & Choo, Y. S. (2014). Dynamics and control control. PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
of mechanical systems in offshore engineering. London: Springer. Kyrkjebø, E., Pettersen, K. Y., Wondergem, M., & Nijmeijer, H. (2007). Out-
Healey, A. J., Horner, D. P., Kragelund, S. P., Wring, B., & Monarrez, A. put synchronization control of ship replenishment operations: Theory and
(2007). Collaborative unmanned systems for maritime and port security op- experiments. Control Engineering Practice, 15(6), 741-755.
erations. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey CA Center for Autonomous Larson, J., Bruch, M., & Ebken, J. (2006). Autonomous navigation and obstacle
Underwater Vehicle Research. DTIC Document. avoidance for unmanned surface vehicles. In Defense and Security Sympo-
Heidarsson, H. K., & Sukhatme, G. (2011). Obstacle detection and avoidance sium (pp. 623007-623007). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
for an autonomous surface vehicle using a profiling sonar. In Proceedings of Larson, J., Bruch, M., Halterman, R., Rogers, J., & Webster, R. (2007). Ad-
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 731-736). vances in autonomous obstacle avoidance for unmanned surface vehicles.
Huntsberger, T., Aghazarian, H., Howard, A., & Trotz, D. C. (2011). Stereo Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego CA. DTIC Document.
visionbased navigation for autonomous surface vessels. Journal of Field Lee, S. M., Kwon, K. Y., & Joh, J. (2004). A fuzzy logic for autonomous
Robotics, 28(1), 3-18. navigation of marine vehicles satisfying COLREG guidelines. International
Hurban, M. A. (2012). Adaptive speed controller for the SeaFox autonomous Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, 2, 171-181.
surface vessel. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey CA. DTIC Document. Leedekerken, J. C., Fallon, M. F., & Leonard, J. J. (2014). Mapping com-
Ihle, I. A., Jouffroy, J., & Fossen, T. I. (2006a). Formation control of marine sur- plex marine environments with autonomous surface craft. In Experimental
face craft: A Lagrangian approach. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Robotics (pp. 525-539). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
31(4), 922-934. Lefeber, E., Pettersen, K. Y., & Nijmeijer, H. (2003). Tracking control of an un-
Ihle, I. A., Jouffroy, J., & Fossen, T. I. (2006b). Robust formation control of ma- deractuated ship. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 11(1),
rine craft using lagrange multipliers. In Group coordination and cooperative 52-61.
control (pp. 113-129). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Li, J. H., Lee, P. M., Jun, B. H., & Lim, Y. K. (2008). Point-to-point navigation
Ihle, I. A. F., Arcak, M., & Fossen, T. I. (2007). Passivity-based designs for of underactuated ships. Automatica, 44(12), 3201-3205.
synchronized path-following. Automatica, 43(9), 1508-1518. Li, Z., Sun, J., & Oh, S. (2009). Design, analysis and experimental validation
Izadi, H. A., Gordon, B. W., & Zhang, Y. M. (2013). Hierarchical decentralized of a robust nonlinear path following controller for marine surface vessels.
receding horizon control of multiple vehicles with communication failure, Automatica, 45(7), 1649-1658.
IEEE Transaction on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 49(2), 744-759. Li, Z., & Sun, J. (2012). Disturbance compensating model predictive control
Ji, X., Zhuang, J. Y., & Su, Y. M. (2014). Marine radar target detection for USV. with application to ship heading control. IEEE Transactions on Control Sys-
In Advanced Materials Research (Vol. 1006, pp. 863-869). tems Technology, 20(1), 257-265.
Jiang, Z. P. (2002). Global tracking control of underactuated ships by Lya- Lindegaard, K. P., & Fossen, T. I. (2003). Fuel-efficient rudder and propeller
punov’s direct method. Automatica, 38(2), 301-309. control allocation for marine craft: experiments with a model ship. IEEE
Johansen, T. A., Fossen, T. I., & Tndel, P. (2005). Efficient optimal constrained Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 11(6), 850-862.
control allocation via multiparametric programming. Journal of Guidance, Lindemuth, M., Murphy, R., Steimle, E., Armitage, W., Dreger, K., Elliot, T.,
Control, and Dynamics, 28(3), 506-515. Hall, M., Kalyadin, D., Kramer, J., Palankar, M., Pratt, K., & Griffin, C.
Johansen, T. A., Fuglseth, T. P., Tndel, P., & Fossen, T. I. (2008). Optimal con- (2011). Sea robot-assisted inspection. IEEE Robotics & Automation Maga-
strained control allocation in marine surface vessels with rudders. Control zine, 18(2), 96-107.
Engineering Practice, 16(4), 457-464. Liu, K. K., & Wang, J. H. (2013). A method of detecting wave grade based on
Johansen, T. A. (2013). Fuel optimal thrust allocation in dynamic positioning. visual image taken by USV. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 291, 2437-
Control Applications in Marine Systems, 9(1), 43-48. 2441.
Johansen, T. A., & Fossen, T. I. (2013). Control allocationa survey. Automatica, Liu, W., Motwani, A., Sharma, S., Sutton, R., & Bucknall, R. (2014a). Fault
49(5), 1087-1103. tolerant navigation of USV using fuzzy multi-sensor fusion. MIDAS Techni-
Kendoul, F. (2012). Survey of advances in guidance, navigation, and control of cal Report, MIDAS SMSE.2014.TR.010.
unmanned rotorcraft systems. Journal of Field Robotics, 29(2), 315-378. Liu, C., Zou, Z. J., & Yin, J. C. (2014b). Path following and stabilization of
Khare, N., & Singh, P. (2012). Modeling and optimization of a hybrid power underactuated surface vessels based on adaptive hierarchical sliding mode.
system for an unmanned surface vehicle. Journal of Power Sources, 198, International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control,
368-377. 10(3), 909-918.
Khatib, O. (1986). Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile Liu, C., Zou, Z. J., & Hou, X. R. (2014c). Stabilization and tracking of under-
robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 5(1), 90-98. actuated surface vessels in random waves with fin based on adaptive hierar-
Kiencke, U., Nielsen, L., Sutton, R., Schilling, K., Papageorgiou, M., & Asama, chical sliding mode technique. Asian Journal of Control, 16(5), 1492-1500.
H. (2006). The impact of automatic control on recent developments in trans- Liu, Y., & Bucknall, R. (2015). Path planning algorithm for unmanned surface
portation and vehicle systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 30(1), 81-89. vehicle formations in a practical maritime environment. Ocean Engineering,
Kim, Y. H., Lee, S. W., Yang, H. S., & Shell, D. A. (2012). Toward autonomous 97, 126-144.
robotic containment booms: Visual servoing for robust inter-vehicle docking Ma, B. L. (2009). Global κ-exponential asymptotic stabilization of underactu-
of surface vehicles. Intelligent Service Robotics, 5(1), 1-18. ated surface vessels. Systems & Control Letters, 58(3), 194-201.
Kim, H., Park, B., & Myung, H. (2013). Curvature path planning with high Ma, Z., Wen, J., & Liang, X. (2013). Video image clarity algorithm research
resolution graph for unmanned surface vehicle. In Robot Intelligence Tech- of USV visual system under the sea fog. In Advances in Swarm Intelligence
nology and Applications 2012 (pp. 147-154). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. (pp. 436-444). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Kim, H., Kim, D., Shin, J. U., Kim, H., & Myung, H. (2014). Angular rate- Mahacek, P. (2005). Dynamic analysis of a SWATH vessel. Monterey Bay
constrained path planning algorithm for unmanned surface vehicles. Ocean Aquarium Research Institute’s Internship Report, 1-13.

22
Mahacek, P., Mas, I., Petrovic, O., Acain, J., & Kitts, C. (2009). Cluster space planning an unmanned vehicle “Edredo”. Scientific Journals Maritime Uni-
control of autonomous surface vessels. Marine Technology Society Journal, versity of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademia Morska w Szczecinie.
43(1), 13-20. Navy, US (2007). The navy unmanned surface vehicle (USV) master plan.
Mahacek, P., Kitts, C. A., & Mas, I. (2012). Dynamic guarding of marine as- http://www.navy.mil/navydata/technology/usvmppr.pdf.
sets through cluster control of automated surface vessel fleets. IEEE/ASME Nguyen, T. D., Sørensen, A. J., & Quek, S. T. (2007). Design of hybrid con-
Transactions on Mechatronics, 17(1), 65-75. troller for dynamic positioning from calm to extreme sea conditions. Auto-
Majohr, J., & Buch, T. (2006). Modelling, simulation and control of an au- matica, 43(5), 768-785.
tonomous surface marine vehicle for surveying applications Measuring Dol- Nourisola, H., Ahmadi, B., & Tavakoli, S. (2015). Delayed adaptive output
phin MESSIN. IEE Control Engineering Series, 69, 329-352. feedback sliding mode control for offshore platforms subject to nonlinear
Manley, J. E. (1997). Development of the autonomous surface craft “ACES”. In wave-induced force. Ocean Engineering, 104, 1-9.
Proceedings of MTS/IEEE Conference on OCEANS (Vol. 2, pp. 827-832). Oh, S. R., & Sun, J. (2010). Path following of underactuated marine surface
Manley, J. E., Marsh, A., Cornforth, W., & Wiseman, C. (2000). Evolution of vessels using line-of-sight based model predictive control. Ocean Engineer-
the autonomous surface craft AutoCat. In Proceedings of MTS/IEEE Con- ing, 37(2), 289-295.
ference and Exhibition on Oceans (Vol. 1, pp. 403-408). Onunka, C., & Nnadozie, R. C. (2013). Modelling the performance of USV
Manley, J. E. (2008). Unmanned surface vehicles, 15 years of development. In manoeuvring and target tracking: An approach using frequency modulated
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on OCEANS (pp. 1-4). continuous wave radar rotary system. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 1-9.
Martins, A., Ferreira, H., Almeida, C., Silva, H., Almeida, J. M., & Silva, Onunka, C., Bright, G., & Stopforth, R. (2013). Probabilistic uncertainty iden-
E. (2007a). ROAZ and ROAZ II autonomous surface vehicle design and tification modelling in USV obstacle detection. Journal of the South African
implementation. In International Lifesaving Congress. Institution of Mechanical Engineering, 29, 36-43.
Martins, A., Almeida, J. M., Ferreira, H., Silva, H., Dias, N., Dias, A., Almeida, Pan, C. Z., Lai, X. Z., Yang, S. X., & Wu, M. (2013). An efficient neural net-
C., & Silva, E. P. (2007b). Autonomous surface vehicle docking manoeuvre work approach to tracking control of an autonomous surface vehicle with
with visual information. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference unknown dynamics. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(5), 1629-1635.
on Robotics and Automation (pp. 4994-4999). Pascoal, A., Silvestre, C., & Oliveira, P. (2006). Vehicle and mission control
Mazenc, F., Pettersen, K., & Nijmeijer, H. (2002). Global uniform asymptotic of single and multiple autonomous marine robots. IEE Control Engineering
stabilization of an underactuated surface vessel. IEEE Transactions on Au- Series, 69, 353.
tomatic Control, 47(10), 1759-1762. Pastore, T., & Djapic, V. (2010). Improving autonomy and control of au-
McNinch, L., Ashrafiuon, H., & Muske, K. (2009). Optimal specification of tonomous surface vehicles in port protection and mine countermeasure sce-
sliding mode control parameters for unmanned surface vessel systems. In narios. Journal of Field Robotics, 27(6), 903-914.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Control Conference (pp. 2350-2355). Peng, Y., Han, J. D., & Huang, Q. J. (2009). Adaptive UKF based tracking
McTaggart, K., Cumming, D., Hsiung, C. C., & Li, L. (2003). Seakeeping of control for unmanned trimaran vehicles. International Journal of Innovative
two ships in close proximity. Ocean Engineering, 30(8), 1051-1063. Computing, Information and Control, 5(10), 3505-3516.
Mišković, N., Vukić, Z., Bibuli, M., Bruzzone, G., & Caccia, M. (2011). Peng, Z., Wang, D., & Hu, X. (2011). Robust adaptive formation control of
Fast in-field identification of unmanned marine vehicles. Journal of Field underactuated autonomous surface vehicles with uncertain dynamics. IET
Robotics, 28(1), 101-120. Control Theory & Applications, 5(12), 1378-1387.
Moreira, L., Fossen, T. I., & Guedes Soares, C. (2007). Path following control Peng, Z. H., Wang, D., Lan, W. Y., & Sun, G. (2012). Robust leader-follower
system for a tanker ship model. Ocean Engineering, 34(14), 2074-2085. formation tracking control of multiple underactuated surface vessels. China
Morgado, M., Batista, P., Oliveira, P., & Silvestre, C. (2012). Attitude esti- Ocean Engineering, 26, 521-534.
mation for intervention-AUVs working in tandem with autonomous surface Peng, Z., Wang, D., Chen, Z., Hu, X., & Lan, W. (2013a). Adaptive dynamic
craft. European Journal of Control, 18(5), 485-495. surface control for formations of autonomous surface vehicles with uncer-
Motwani, A. (2012). A survey of uninhabited surface vehicles. MIDAS Techni- tain dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 21(2),
cal Report: MIDAS. SMSE. 2012. TR. 001. 513-520.
Motwani, A., Sharma, S. K., Sutton, R., & Culverhouse, P. (2013). Interval Peng, Z., Wang, D., Li, T., & Wu, Z. (2013b). Leaderless and leader-follower
Kalman filtering in navigation system design for an uninhabited surface ve- cooperative control of multiple marine surface vehicles with unknown dy-
hicle. Journal of Navigation, 66(5), 639-652. namics. Nonlinear Dynamics, 74(1-2), 95-106.
Murphy, R. R., Steimle, E., Griffin, C., Cullins, C., Hall, M., & Pratt, K. (2008). Pereira, A., Das, J., & Sukhatme, G. (2008). An experimental study of sta-
Cooperative use of unmanned sea surface and micro aerial vehicles at Hur- tion keeping on an underactuated ASV. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ Inter-
ricane Wilma. Journal of Field Robotics, 25(3), 164-180. national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 3164-3171).
Murphy, R. R., Steimle, E., Hall, M., Lindemuth, M., Trejo, D., Hurlebaus, S., Pettersen, K. Y., & Fossen, T. I. (2000). Underactuated dynamic positioning of
Medina-Cetina, Z., & Slocum, D. (2011). Robot-assisted bridge inspection. a ship-experimental results. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technol-
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 64(1), 77-95. ogy, 8(5), 856-863.
Murray, R. M. (2007). Recent research in cooperative control of multivehicle Pettersen, K. Y., & Nijmeijer, H. (2001). Underactuated ship tracking control:
systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 129(5), Theory and experiments. International Journal of Control, 74(14), 1435-
571-583. 1446.
Murray, J. (2008). Sentry–An unmanned swimmer intercept system. QinetiQ Pettersen, K. Y., Mazenc, F., & Nijmeijer, H. (2004). Global uniform asymp-
North America Inc Woburn Ma Technology Solutions Group. DTIC Docu- totic stabilization of an underactuated surface vessel: Experimental results.
ment. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 12(6), 891-903.
Muske, K. R., Ashrafiuon, H., Haas, G., McCloskey, R., & Flynn, T. (2008a). Pinto, E., Santana, P., & Barata, J. (2013). On collaborative aerial and surface
Identification of a control oriented nonlinear dynamic USV model. In Pro- robots for environmental monitoring of water bodies. In Technological Inno-
ceedings of 2008 American Control Conference (pp. 562-567). vation for the Internet of Things (pp. 183-191). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Naeem, W., Xu, T., Sutton, R., & Tiano, A. (2008b). The design of a navigation, Pinto, E., Santana, P., Marques, F., Mendona, R., Loureno, A., & Barata, J.
guidance, and control system for an unmanned surface vehicle for environ- (2014). On the design of a robotic system composed of an unmanned surface
mental monitoring. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vehicle and a piggybacked VTOL. In Technological Innovation for Collec-
Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 222(2), 67- tive Awareness Systems (pp. 193-200). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
79. Raboin, E., Švec, P., Nau, D. S., & Gupta, S. K. (2014). Model-predictive as-
Naeem, W., Irwin, G. W., & Yang, A. (2012a). COLREGs-based collision set guarding by team of autonomous surface vehicles in environment with
avoidance strategies for unmanned surface vehicles. Mechatronics, 22(6), civilian boats. Autonomous Robots, 1-22.
669-678. Rajesh, G., & Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2008). System identification for nonlinear
Naeem, W., Sutton, R., & Xu, T. (2012b). An integrated multi-sensor data fu- maneuvering of large tankers using artificial neural network. Applied Ocean
sion algorithm and autopilot implementation in an uninhabited surface craft. Research, 30(4), 256-263.
Ocean Engineering, 39, 43-52. Rasal, K. (2013). Navigation & control of an automated SWATH surface vessel
Naus, K., & Waż, M. (2013). The idea of using the A* algorithm for route for bathymetric mapping. PhD Thesis, Santa Clara University.

23
Reyhanoglu, M. (1997). Exponential stabilization of an underactuated au- Sonnenburg, C., Gadre, A., Horner, D., Kragelund, S., Marcus, A., Stilwell, D.
tonomous surface vessel. Automatica, 33(12), 2249-2254. J., & Woolsey, C. A. (2010). Control-oriented planar motion modeling of un-
Roberts, G. N., & Sutton, R. (Eds.). (2006). Advances in unmanned marine manned surface vehicles. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference
vehicles. The Institution of Engineering and Technology. on OCEANS (pp. 1-10).
Robertsson, A., & Johansson, R. (1998). Comments on “Nonlinear output feed- Sonnenburg, C., & Woolsey, C. A. (2012). An experimental comparison of two
back control of dynamically positioned ships using vectorial observer back- USV trajectory tracking control laws. In Proceedings of IEEE International
stepping”. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 6(3), 439- Conference on OCEANS (pp. 1-10).
441. Sonnenburg, C. R. (2012). Modeling, identification, and control of an un-
Sakthivel, R., Selvaraj, P., Mathiyalagan, K., & Park, J. H. (2015). Robust fault- manned surface vehicle. PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
tolerant H∞ control for offshore steel jacket platforms via sampled-data ap- State University.
proach. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 352(6), 2259-2279. Sonnenburg, C. R., & Woolsey, C. A. (2013). Modeling, identification, and
Sarrafan, A., Zareh, S. H., Khayyat, A. A. A., & Zabihollah, A. (2012). Neuro- control of an unmanned surface vehicle. Journal of Field Robotics, 30(3),
fuzzy control strategy for an offshore steel jacket platform subjected to 371-398.
wave-induced forces using magnetorheological dampers. Journal of Me- Sørensen, A. J. (2011). A survey of dynamic positioning control systems. An-
chanical Science and Technology, 26(4), 1179-1196. nual Reviews in Control, 35(1), 123-136.
Savitz, S., Blickstein, I., Buryk, P., Button, R. W., DeLuca, P., Dryden, J., Mast- Statheros, T., Howells, G., & Maier, K. M. (2008). Autonomous ship colli-
baum, J., Osburg, J., Padilla, P., & Potter, A. (2013). US navy employment sion avoidance navigation concepts, technologies and techniques. Journal
options for unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). Rand National Defense Re- of Navigation, 61(1), 129-142.
search Inst Santa Monica CA. Subramanian, A., Gong, X., Riggins, J. N., Stilwell, D. J., & Wyatt, C.
Schoerling, D., Van Kleeck, C., Fahimi, F., Koch, C. R., Ams, A., & Lber, P. L. (2006). Shoreline mapping using an omni-directional camera for au-
(2010). Experimental test of a robust formation controller for marine un- tonomous surface vehicle applications. In Proceedings of IEEE Interna-
manned surface vessels. Autonomous Robots, 28(2), 213-230. tional Conference on OCEANS (pp. 1-6).
Selvam, R. P., Bhattacharyya, S. K., & Haddara, M. (2005). A frequency do- Sutton, R., Sharma, S., & Xao, T. (2011). Adaptive navigation systems for an
main system identification method for linear ship maneuvering. Interna- unmanned surface vehicle. Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology,
tional Shipbuilding Progress, 52(1), 5-27. 10(3), 3-20.
Shah, B. C., Svec, P., Bertaska, I. R., Klinger, W., Sinisterra, A. J., von Ellen- Svec, P., Schwartz, M., Thakur, A., & Gupta, S. K. (2011). Trajectory planning
rieder, K., Dhanak, M., & Gupta, S. K. (2014). Trajectory planning with with look-ahead for unmanned sea surface vehicles to handle environmen-
adaptive control primitives for autonomous surface vehicles operating in tal disturbances. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
congested civilian traffic. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1154-1159).
Robots and Systems (pp. 2312-2318). Svec, P., & Gupta, S. K. (2011). Automated planning logic synthesis for au-
Sharifi, F., Zhang, Y. M., & Aghdam, A. G. (2014). A distributed deployment tonomous unmanned vehicles in competitive environments with deceptive
strategy for multi-agent systems subject to health degradation and communi- adversaries. In New Horizons in Evolutionary Robotics (pp. 171-193). Berlin
cation delays. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 73(1-4), 623-633. Heidelberg: Springer.
Sharma, S. K., Naeem, W., & Sutton, R. (2012). An autopilot based on a local Svec, P., & Gupta, S. K. (2012). Automated synthesis of action selection poli-
control network design for an unmanned surface vehicle. Journal of Navi- cies for unmanned vehicles operating in adverse environments. Autonomous
gation, 65(2), 281-301. Robots, 32(2), 149-164.
Sharma, S. K., & Sutton, R. (2012). Modelling the yaw dynamics of an unin- Svec, P., Thakur, A., Shah, B. C., & Gupta, S. K. (2012, August). USV tra-
habited surface vehicle for navigation and control systems design. Journal jectory planning for time varying motion goals in an environment with ob-
of Marine Engineering and Technology, 11(3), 9-20. stacles. In ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Con-
Sharma, S. K., & Sutton, R. (2013). A genetic algorithm based nonlinear guid- ferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp.
ance and control system for an uninhabited surface vehicle. Journal of Ma- 1297-1306). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
rine Engineering and Technology, 12(2), 29-40. Svec, P., Shah, B. C., Bertaska, I. R., Alvarez, J., Sinisterra, A. J., von El-
Sharma, S. K., Sutton, R., Motwani, A., & Annamalai, A. (2014). Non-linear lenrieder, K., Dhanak, M., & Gupta, S. K. (2013). Dynamics-aware target
control algorithms for an unmanned surface vehicle. Proceedings of the In- following for an autonomous surface vehicle operating under COLREGs in
stitution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the civilian traffic. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Maritime Environment, 228(2), 146-155. Systems (pp. 3871-3878).
Skjetne, R., Smogeli, Ø. N., & Fossen, T. I. (2004a). A nonlinear ship ma- Svec, P., Shah, B. C., Bertaska, I. R., Klinger, W., Sinisterra, A. J., von Ellen-
noeuvering model: Identification and adaptive control with experiments for rieder, K., Dhanak, M., & Gupta, S. K. (2014a). Adaptive sampling based
a model ship. Modeling, Identification and Control, 25(1), 3-27. COLREGS-compliant obstacle avoidance for autonomous surface vehicles.
Skjetne, R., Fossen, T. I., & Kokotović, P. V. (2004b). Robust output maneuver- ICRA 2014 Workshop on Persistent Autonomy for Marine Robotics.
ing for a class of nonlinear systems. Automatica, 40(3), 373-383. Svec, P., Thakur, A., Raboin, E., Shah, B. C., & Gupta, S. K. (2014b). Target
Skjetne, R., Fossen, T. I., & Kokotović, P. V. (2005). Adaptive maneuvering, following with motion prediction for unmanned surface vehicle operating in
with experiments, for a model ship in a marine control laboratory. Automat- cluttered environments. Autonomous Robots, 36(4), 383-405.
ica, 41(2), 289-298. Tam, C., & Bucknall, R. (2013). Cooperative path planning algorithm for ma-
Skjetne, R. (2005). The maneuvering problem. PhD Thesis, Norwegian Univer- rine surface vessels. Ocean Engineering, 57, 25-33.
sity of Science and Technology. Tee, K. P., & Ge, S. S. (2006). Control of fully actuated ocean surface vessels
Skejic, R., Breivik, M., Fossen, T. I., & Faltinsen, O. M. (2009). Modeling and using a class of feedforward approximators. IEEE Transactions on Control
control of underway replenishment operations in calm water. In 8th IFAC Systems Technology, 14(4), 750-756.
International Conference on Manoeuvring and Control of Marine Craft, Terro, M. J., Mahmoud, M. S., & Abdel-Rohman, M. (1999). Multi-loop feed-
September 16-18, 2009. Elsevier IFAC Publications. back control of offshore steel jacket platforms. Computers & Structures,
Soltan, R. A., Ashrafiuon, H., & Muske, K. R. (2009). Trajectory real-time 70(2), 185-202.
obstacle avoidance for underactuated unmanned surface vessels. In ASME Thakur, A., & Gupta, S. K. (2011). Real-time dynamics simulation of un-
2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Comput- manned sea surface vehicle for virtual environments. Journal of Computing
ers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 1059-1067). American and Information Science in Engineering, 11(3), 031005.
Society of Mechanical Engineers. Thakur, A., Svec, P., & Gupta, S. K. (2012). GPU based generation of state
Soltan, R. A., Ashrafiuon, H., & Muske, K. R. (2011). ODE-based obstacle transition models using simulations for unmanned surface vehicle trajectory
avoidance and trajectory planning for unmanned surface vessels. Robotica, planning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 60(12), 1457-1471.
29(5), 691-703. Tokekar, P., Bhadauria, D., Studenski, A., & Isler, V. (2010). A robotic system
Song, R. (2014). Path planning and bi-directional communication for monitoring carp in Minnesota lakes. Journal of Field Robotics, 27(6),
for unmanned surface vehicle. MIDAS Technical Report, MIDAS 779-789.
MSE.2014.TR.011. Tran, N. H., Choi, H. S., Baek, S. H., & Shin, H. Y. (2014). Tracking control

24
 of an unmanned surface vehicle. In International Conference on Advanced vehicles. Intelligent Service Robotics, 4(4), 221-231.
Engineering Theory and Application: Recent Advances in Electrical Engi- Yu, X., & Zhang, Y. M. (2015). Sense and avoid technologies with applications
neering and Related Sciences (pp. 575-584). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. to unmanned aircraft systems: review and prospects. Progress in Aerospace
Vaneck, T. W., Rodriguez-Ortiz, C. D., Schmidt, M. C., & Manley, J. E. Sciences, 74, 152-166.
(1996). Automated bathymetry using an autonomous surface craft. Navi- Zhang, Y. M., & Jiang, J. (2008). Bibliographical review on reconfigurable
gation, 43(4), 407-417. fault-tolerant control systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 32(2), 229-252.
Vaneck, T. W. (1997). Fuzzy guidance controller for an autonomous boat. IEEE Zhang, L. J., Jia, H. M., & Qi, X. (2011a). NNFFC-adaptive output feedback
Control Systems Magazine, 17(2), 43-51. trajectory tracking control for a surface ship at high speed. Ocean Engineer-
Vasconcelos, J. F., Cardeira, B., Silvestre, C., Oliveira, P., & Batista, P. (2011a). ing, 38(13), 1430-1438.
Discrete-time complementary filters for attitude and position estimation: Zhang, X. M., Han, Q. L., & Han, D. (2011b). Effects of small time-delays on
Design, analysis and experimental validation. IEEE Transactions on Con- dynamic output feedback control of offshore steel jacket structures. Journal
trol Systems Technology, 19(1), 181-198. of Sound and Vibration, 330(16), 3883-3900.
Vasconcelos, J. F., Silvestre, C., & Oliveira, P. (2011b). INS/GPS aided by Zhuang, J. Y., Su, Y. M., Liao, Y. L., & Sun, H. B. (2011). Motion planning of
frequency contents of vector observations with application to autonomous USV based on marine rules. Procedia Engineering, 15, 269-276.
surface crafts. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 36(2), 347-363. Zhuang, J. Y., Su, Y. M., Liao, Y. L., & Sun, H. B. (2012). Unmanned sur-
Viegas, D., Batista, P., Oliveira, P., & Silvestre, C. (2014). Position and ve- face vehicle local path planning based on marine radar. Journal of Shanghai
locity filters for ASC/I-AUV tandems based on single range measurements. Jiaotong University, 46(9), 1371-1375.
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 74(3-4), 745-768. Zhang, B. L., Hu, Y. H., & Tang, G. Y. (2012). Stabilization control for offshore
Viegas, D., Batista, P., Oliveira, P., Silvestre, C., & Chen, C. P. (2015). Dis- steel jacket platforms with actuator time-delays. Nonlinear Dynamics, 70(2),
tributed state estimation for linear multi-agent systems with time-varying 1593-1603.
measurement topology. Automatica, 54, 72-79. Zhang, B. L., Ma, L., & Han, Q. L. (2013a). Sliding mode H∞ control for off-
Wolf, M. T., Assad, C., Kuwata, Y., Howard, A., Aghazarian, H., Zhu, D., ... & shore steel jacket platforms subject to nonlinear self-excited wave force and
Huntsberger, T. (2010). 360-degree visual detection and target tracking on external disturbance. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 14(1),
an autonomous surface vehicle. Journal of Field Robotics, 27(6), 819-833. 163-178.
Wondergem, M. (2004). Experimental results on synchronization control of Zhang, B. L., & Tang, G. Y. (2013b). Active vibration H∞ control of offshore
ship rendezvous operations. In IFAC Conference on Control Applications steel jacket platforms using delayed feedback. Journal of Sound and Vibra-
in Marine System (pp. 453-458). tion,332(22), 5662-5677.
Wondergem, M., Lefeber, E., Pettersen, K. Y., & Nijmeijer, H. (2011). Output Zhang, B. L., Feng, A. M., & Li, J. (2014a). Observer-based optimal fault-
feedback tracking of ships. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technol- tolerant control for offshore platforms. Computers & Electrical Engineering,
ogy, 19(2), 442-448. 40(7), 2204-2215.
Xiao, B., Hu, Q.-L., & Zhang, Y. M. (2011). Fault-tolerant attitude control for Zhang, B. L., Han, Q. L., Zhang, X. M., & Yu, X. (2014b). Sliding mode
flexible spacecraft without angular velocity magnitude measurement. Jour- control with mixed current and delayed states for offshore steel jacket plat-
nal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 34(5), 1556-1561. forms.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 22(5), 1769-1783.
Xiao, B., Hu, Q.-L., Zhang, Y. M., & Huo, X. (2014). Fault-tolerant tracking Zhang, B. L., Huang, Z. W., & Han, Q. L. (2015). Delayed non-fragile control
control of spacecraft with attitude-only measurement under actuator failures. for offshore steel jacket platforms. Journal of Vibration and Control, 21(5),
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 37(3), 838-849. 959-974.
Xu, B., Stilwell, D. J., & Kurdila, A. J. (2013). Fast path re-planning based
on fast marching and level sets. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems,
71(3-4), 303-317.
Xu, Q., Yang, H., Jiang, B., Zhou, D. H., & Zhang, Y. M. (2014). Fault toler-
ant formation control of UAVs subject to permanent and intermittent faults.
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 73(1-4), 589-602.
Xu, T., Chudley, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). A fault tolerant multi-sensor naviga-
tion system for an unmanned surface vehicle. In IFAC Symposium on Fault
Detection, Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes, 6(1), 1503-1508.
Xu, T., Sutton, R., & Sharma, S. (2007). A multi-sensor data fusion navigation
system for an unmanned surface vehicle. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime
Environment, 221(4), 167-182.
Yan, R. J., Pang, S., Sun, H. B., & Pang, Y. J. (2010). Development and missions
of unmanned surface vehicle. Journal of Marine Science and Application,
9(4), 451-457.
Yakimenko, O., & Kragelund, S. (2011). Real-time optimal guidance and obsta-
cle avoidance for UMVS. In Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. New York:
InTech.
Yang, W. R., Chen, C. Y., Hsu, C. M., Tseng, C. J., & Yang, W. C. (2011).
Multifunctional inshore survey platform with unmanned surface vehicles.
International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 1(2), 19-25.
Yang, Y., Du, J., Liu, H., Guo, C., & Abraham, A. (2014). A trajectory track-
ing robust controller of surface vessels with disturbance uncertainties. IEEE
Transaction on Control Systems Technology, 22(4), 1511-1518.
Yoon, H. K., & Rhee, K. P. (2003). Identification of hydrodynamic coefficients
in ship maneuvering equations of motion by estimation-before-modeling
technique. Ocean Engineering, 30(18), 2379-2404.
Yu, Z., Bao, X., & Nonami, K. (2008). Course keeping control of an au-
tonomous boat using low cost sensors. Journal of System Design and Dy-
namics, 2(1), 389-400.
Yu, R., Zhu, Q., Xia, G., & Liu, Z. (2012). Sliding mode tracking control of
an underactuated surface vessel. IET Control Theory & Applications, 6(3),
461-466.
Yuh, J., Marani, G., & Blidberg, D. R. (2011). Applications of marine robotic

25

View publication stats