Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 150–163 | Cite as

Modeling and testing of hydrodynamic damping model for a complex-shaped remotely-operated vehicle for control

Article

Abstract

In this paper, numerical modeling and model testing of a complex-shaped remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) were shown. The paper emphasized the systematic modeling of hydrodynamic damping using the computational fluid dynamic software ANSYS-CFX™ on the complex-shaped ROV, a practice that is not commonly applied. For initial design and prototype testing during the developmental stage, small-scale testing using a free-decaying experiment was used to verify the theoretical models obtained from ANSYS-CFX™, Simulation results are shown to coincide with the experimental tests. The proposed method could determine the hydrodynamic damping coefficients of the ROV.

Keywords

remotely-operated vehicle hydrodynamic damping ANSYS-CFX™ modeling simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Jalving B (1994). The NDRE-AUV flight controls system. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 194), 497–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Healey AJ, Lienard D (1993). Multivariable sliding mode control for autonomous diving and steering of unmanned underwater vehicles. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 18(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gomes RMF, Sousa JB, Pereira FL (2003). Modelling and control of the IES project ROV. Proceedings of European Control Conference, Cambridge, UK, 1–6.Google Scholar
  4. Antonelli G, Chiaverini S, Sarkar N, West M (2001). Adaptive control of an autonomous underwater vehicle: Experimental results on ODIN. Transactions on Control Systems Technology, IEEE.Google Scholar
  5. Fjellstad OE, Fossen TI (1994). Position and attitude tracking of AUVs: A quaternion feedback approach. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 19(4), 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fossen TI (1994). Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Fossen TI (2002). Marine control systems; guidance, navigation and control of ships. Rigs and underwater vehicles. Marine Cybernetics.Google Scholar
  8. Goheen KR (1991). Modeling methods for underwater robotic vehicle dynamics. Journal of Robotic Systems, 8(3), 295–317.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. An PE, Folleco A (2003). Modeling and simulation of autonomous underwater vehicles: design and implementation. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 28(2), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomes RMF, Sousa JB, Pereira FL (2003). Modelling and control of the IES project ROV. Proceedings of European Control Conference, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman A (1960). Experimental techniques and methods of analysis used in submerged body research. Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Office of Naval Research.Google Scholar
  12. Williams CD, Mackay M, Perron C, Muselet C (2000) The NRC-IMD marine dynamic test facility: A six-degree-of-freedom forced-motion test apparatus for underwater vehicle testing. International UUV Symposium, Newport, RI, 1–6.Google Scholar
  13. Jones DA, Clarke DB, Brayshaw IB (2002). The calculationof hydrodynamic coefficients for underwater vehicles. DSTO Platforms Sciences Laboratory, Fishermans Bend, Australia, Report. DSTO-TR-1329.Google Scholar
  14. Sarkar T, Sayer PG, Fraser SM (1997). A study of autonomous underwater vehicle hull forms using computational fluid dynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 25(11), 1301–1313.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tyagi A, Sen D (2006). Calculation of transverse hydrodynamic coefficients using computational fluid dynamic approach, Ocean Engineering, 33(5), 798–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilson R, Paterson E, Stern F (2006). Unsteady RANS CFD method for naval combatant in waves. Proceedings of the 22nd ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington DC, 532–549.Google Scholar
  17. WS Atkins Consultants (2002). Best Practices Guidelines for Marine Applications of CFD, MARNET-CFD Report.Google Scholar
  18. Conte G, Zanoli SM, Scaradozzi D, Conti A (2004). Evaluation of hydrodynamics parameters of a UUV. A preliminary study, International Symposium on Control. Communications and Signal Processing, ISCCSP, Hammamet.Google Scholar
  19. MSS. Marine Systems Simulator (2010). Viewed 26.06.2011, http://www.marinecontrol.org.
  20. Eng YH (2007) Identification of hydrodynamic terms for underwater robotic vehicle. Master First Year Report, NTU, Robotic Research Center, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.Google Scholar
  21. Eng YH, Lau WS, Low E, Seet GL, Chin CS (2009). A novel method to determine the hydrodynamic coefficients of an eyeball ROV. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1089, 11–22.Google Scholar
  22. Eng YH, Lau WS, Low E, Seet GL, Chin CS (2008). Estimation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of an ROV using free Decay Pendulum motion. Engineering Letters, 16(3), 326–331.Google Scholar
  23. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comp. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3, 269–289.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim D, Choi H (2002). Laminar flow past a sphere rotating in the stream wise direction. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 461, 365–386.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson TA, Patel VC (1999). Flow past a sphere up to a Reynolds number of 300. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 378(1), 19–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Achenbach E (1972). Experiments on the flow past spheres at very high Reynolds number. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 54, 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Constantinescu GS, Pacheco R, Squires, KD (2002), Detached-Eddy simulation of flow over a sphere. AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Paper 2002-0425.Google Scholar
  28. Hoerner SF (1965). Fluid-dynamic drag: Practical information on aerodynamic drag and hydrodynamic resistance. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Washington.Google Scholar
  29. Prestero T (2001). Verification of a six-degree of freedom simulation model for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle. Master’s thesis, Mechanical and Oceanographic Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.Google Scholar
  30. Ng EYK, Tan CK (1998). Viscous flow simulation around a moving projectile and URV. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 11, 350–362.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine Science and TechnologyUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations