Advertisement

Journal of Bionic Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 759–769 | Cite as

Research on Location Characteristics and Algorithms based on Frequency Domain for a 2D Underwater Active Electrolocation Positioning System

Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Weakly electric fish has an ability to generate a low-frequency electric field actively to locate the surrounding object in complete darkness by sensing the change of the electric field. This ability is called active electrolocation. In this paper, we designed a two-dimensional (2D) experimental platform of underwater active electrolocation system by simulating weakly electric fish. On the platform, location characteristics based on frequency domain were investigated. Results indicated that surface shape of 3D location characteristic curves for the 2D underwater active electrolocation positioning system was convex upwards or concave down which was influenced by the material of probed objects and the frequency of the electric field excitation signal. Experiments also confirmed that the amplitude of the electric field excitation signal and the size of the probed object will only influence the amplitude corresponding to 3D location characteristic curves. Based on above location characteristics, we present three location algorithms including Cross Location Algorithm (CLA), Stochastic Location Algorithm (SLA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) location algorithm in frequency domain and achieved the task of the underwater positioning system. Our work may have reference value for underwater detection study.

Keywords

underwater active electrolocation location characteristics location algorithms frequency domain bionics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Lissmann H W, Machin K E. The mechanism of object location in Gymnarchus niloticus and similar fish. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1958, 35, 451–486.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Turner R W, Malerand L, Burrows M. Electroreception and electrocommunication. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1999, 202, 1167–1458.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    MacIver M A, Sharabash N M, Nelson M E. Prey-capture behavior in gymnotid electric fish: Motion analysis and effects of water conductivity. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2001, 204, 543–557.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Snyder J B, Nelson M E, Burdick J W, Maciver M A. Omnidirectional sensory and motor volumes in electric fish. Plos Biology, 2007, 5, 2671–2683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    von der Emde G, Fetz S. Distance, shape and more: Recognition of object features during active electrolocation in a weakly electric fish. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2007, 210, 3082–3095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Friedman J, Srivastava D T M B, Cho Y H. Submerged biomimetic electrostatic imaging in salt water. IEEE Sensors Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2010, 821–824.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Friedman J, Herman H, Truong N, Srivastava M B. A 16-electrode biomimetic electrostatic imaging system for ocean use. IEEE Sensors Conference, Limerick, Ireland, 2011, 986–989.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Metzen M G, Biswas S, Bousack H, Gottwald M G, Mayekar K, von der Emde A G. A biomimetic active electrolocation sensor for detection of atherosclerotic lesions in blood vessels. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2012, 12, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    von der Emde G, Mayekar K, Bousack H, Pabst M. Simulation of bionic electrolocation sensor based on weakly electric fish. World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired Computing, Coimbatore, India, 2009, 830–834.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Mohan M, Mayekar K, Zhou R, von der Emde G, Bousack H. Investigation of a bubble detector based on active electrolocation of weakly electric fish. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2013, 434, 012088.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Peng J, He C, Dong G, Wu J. A new internal detection method for fluid transportation pipeline leak based on active electrolocation. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 2014, 24, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    He W, Zhang S, Ge S S. Robust adaptive control of a thruster assisted position mooring system. Automatica, 2014, 50, 1843–1851.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    He W, He X, Ge S S. Modeling and vibration control of a coupled vessel-mooring-riser system. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2015, 20, 2832–2840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    He W, He X, Ge S S. Vibration control of flexible marine riser systems with input saturation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2016, 21, 254–265.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    He W, Ge S S. Cooperative control of a nonuniform gantry crane with constrained tension, Automatica, 2016, 66, 146–154.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    MacIver M A, Nelson M E. Towards a biorobotic electrosensory system. Autonomous Robots, 2001, 11, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    MacIver M A, Fontaine E, Burdick J W. Designing future underwater vehicles: Principles and mechanisms of the weakly electric fish. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 2004, 29, 651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Solberg J R, Lynch K M, MacIver M A. Active electrolocation for underwater target localization. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2008, 27, 529–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Silverman Y, Snyder J, Bai Y, MacIver M A. Location and orientation estimation with an electrosense robot. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Algarve, Portugal, 2012, 4218–4223.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Servagent N, Jawad B, Bouvier S, Boyer F, Girin A, Gomez F, Lebastard V, Stefanini C, Gossiaux P B. Electrolocation sensors in conducting water bio-inspired by electric fish. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2013, 13, 1865–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lebastard Vincent, Chevallereau C, Girin A, Servagent N, Gossiaux P B, Boyer F. Environment reconstruction and navigation with electric sense based on a Kalman filter. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2013, 32, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Dimble K D, Faddy J M, Humbert J S. Electrolocation-based underwater obstacle avoidance using wide-field integration methods. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, 2014, 9, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Chevallereau C, Benachenhou M R, Lebastard V, Boyer F. Electric-sensor-based control of underwater robot groups. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2014, 30, 604–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Bai Y, Snyder J B, Peshkin M, MacIver M A. Finding and identifying simple objects underwater with active electrosense. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2015, 34, 1255–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Morel Y, Lebastard V, Boyer F. Neural-based underwater spherical object localization through electrolocation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Washington, USA, 2015, 23–28.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Dimble K D, Ranganathan B N, Keshavan J, Humbert J S. Computationally efficient underwater navigational strategy in electrically heterogeneous environments using electrolocation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Washington, USA, 2015, 1172–1177.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Truong N, Shoukry Y, Srivastava M. Bio-inspired underwater electrolocation through adaptive system identification. American Control Conference, Chicago, USA, 2015, 4473–4478.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Mintchev S, Ranzani R, Fabiani F, Stefanini C. Towards docking for small scale underwater robots. Autonomous Robots, 2015, 38, 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Boyer F, Lebastard V, Chevallereau C, Mintchev S, Stefanini C. Underwater navigation based on passive electric sense: New perspectives for underwater docking. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2015, 34, 1228–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Zhu Y. Research on Target Location in Underwater Terminal Docking Based on Active Electrolocation, Master thesis, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 2017, 24–28. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Peng J. A study of amplitude information-frequency characteristics for underwater active electrolocation system. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, 2015, 6, 27–27.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Peng J G, Yong T, Wang W L. A biomimetic very low frequency (VLF) active electrolocation system based on FFT feature extraction localization algorithm. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2016, 52, 157–165. (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Peng J, Wu J. A numerical simulation model of the induce polarization: Ideal electric field coupling system for underwater active electrolocation method. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 2016, 26, 1–5.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Peng J, Wang Y, Liu L. A research on effect of probed object shape on Frequency Inflection Point (FIP) of underwater active electrolocation system. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 2016, 26, 0501505.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R C. Particle swam optimization. IEEE International Conference on Neural Network, Perth, Australia, 1995, 1942–1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Kennedy J. The particle swarm: Social adaptation of knowledge. IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 1997, 303–308.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Shi Y, Eberhart R. A Modified particle swarm optimizer. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Anchorage, AK, USA, 1998, 69–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jilin University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Automation Engineering and Center for RoboticsUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina

Personalised recommendations