Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 298–304 | Cite as

Numerical investigation of hydrodynamic flow over an AUV moving in the water-surface vicinity considering the laminar-turbulent transition



Nowadays, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) are frequently used for exploring the oceans. The hydrodynamics of AUVs moving in the vicinity of the water surface are significantly different at higher depths. In this paper, the hydrodynamic coefficients of an AUV in non-dimensional depths of 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, and 4D are obtained for movement close to the free-surface. Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes Equations (RANS) are discretized using the finite volume approach and the water-surface effects modeled using the Volume of Fraction (VOF) method. As the operating speeds of AUVs are usually low, the boundary layer over them is not fully laminar or fully turbulent, so the effect of boundary layer transition from laminar to turbulent flow was considered in the simulations. Two different turbulence/transition models were used: 1) a full-turbulence model, the k-ε model, and 2) a turbulence/transition model, Menter's Transition-SST model. The results show that the Menter’s Transition-SST model has a better consistency with experimental results. In addition, the wave-making effects of these bodies are studied at different immersion depths in the sea-surface vicinity or at finite depths. It is observed that the relevant pitch moments and lift coefficients are non-zero for these axi-symmetric bodies when they move close to the sea-surface. This is not expected for greater depths.


autonomous underwater vehicles sea surface effects computational fluid dynamics hydrodynamics laminar to turbulent transition 

考虑层流—湍流转捩的近水面AUV 水动力流的数值研究


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertram V, 2012. Practical ship hydrodynamics. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Hajmohammadi MR, Nourazar SS, 2014a. On the insertion of a thin gas layer in micro cylindrical Couette flows involving power-law liquids. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 75(31), 97–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.03.065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hajmohammadi MR, Nourazar SS, Campo A, 2014b. Analytical solution for two-phase flow between two rotating cylinders filled with power law liquid and a micro layer of gas. Journal of Mechanical Science Technology, 28(5), 1849–1854. DOI: 10.1007/s12206-014-0332-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hirt CW, Nichols BD, 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. Journal of computational physics. 39(1), 201–25. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Jagadeesh P, Murali K, 2010. RANS predictions of free surface effects on axisymmetric underwater body. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 4(2), 301–313. DOI: 10.1080/19942060.2010.11015318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jagadeesh P, Murali K, Idichandy VG, 2009. Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic force coefficients over AUV hull form. Journal of Ocean Engineering, 36(1), 113–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lee SK, Joung TH, Cheo SJ, Jang TS, Lee JH, 2011. Evaluation of the added mass for a spheroid-type unmanned underwater vehicle by vertical planar motion mechanism test. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 3(3), 174–180. DOI: 10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Malavasi S, Guadagnini A, 2007. Interactions between a rectangular cylinder and a free-surface flow. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 23(8), 1137–1148. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2007.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malik, SA, Pan G, Liu YA, 2013. Numerical simulations for the prediction of wave forces on underwater vehicle using 3D panel method code. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 5(21), 5012–5021.Google Scholar
  10. Menter FR, Langtry RB, Likki SR, Suzen YB, Huang PG, V? lker S, 2006. A correlation-based transition model using local variablespart I: model formulation. Journal of Turbomachinery, 128(3), 413–422. DOI: 10.1115/1.2184352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nematollahi A, Dadvand A, Dawoodian M, 2015. An axisymmetric underwater vehicle-free surface interaction: a numerical study. Journal of Ocean Engineering, 96, 205–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.12.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Phillips A, Turnock SR, Furlong M, 2010. The use of computational fluid dynamics to aid cost-effective hydrodynamic design of autonomous underwater vehicles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for Maritime Environment, 224(4), 239–254. DOI: 10.1243/14750902JEME199Google Scholar
  13. Rawson KJ, 2001. Basic ship theory. Vol. 1, Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  14. Ross A, Fossen TI, Johansen TA, 2004. Identification of underwater vehicle hydrodynamic coefficients using free decay tests. IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems, Ancona, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Shao WY, Zhang YP, Zhu DZ, Zhang TQ, 2013. Drag force on a free surface-piercing yawed circular cylinder in steady flow. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 43, 145–163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shen YM, Ng CO, Zheng YH, 2004. Simulation of wave propagation over a submerged bar using the VOF method with a two-equation k–e turbulence modeling. Journal of Ocean Engineering, 31(1), 87–95. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-8018(03)00111-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Taghavi ZR, Salari M, 2006. Prediction of Boundary Layer Transition at High Freestream Turbulence Conditions Using a Physical Model. Aerospace Mechanics Journal, 2(2), 85–95.Google Scholar
  18. Taghavi ZR, Salari M, Etemadi M, 2008. Prediction of laminar, transitional and turbulent flow regimes, based on three-equation k-? turbulence model. Aeronautical Journal, 112(1134), 469–476. DOI: 10.1017/S0001924000002438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Taghavi ZR, Salari M, Kolaei A, 2009. Prediction of boundary layer transition based on modeling of laminar fluctuations using RANS approach. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 22(2), 113–120. DOI: 10.1016/S1000-9361(08)60076-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tang S, Ura T, Nakatani T, Thornton B, Jiang T, 2009. Estimation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of the complex-shaped autonomous underwater vehicle TUNA-SAND. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 14(3), 373–386 DOI: 10.1007/s00773-009-0055-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tome MF, McKee S, 1994. GENSMAC: A computational marker and cell method for free surface flows in general domains. Journal of Computational Physics, 110(1), 171–186. DOI: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1013CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Vorus WS, Paulling JR, 2010. The Principles of Naval Architecture Series.Google Scholar
  23. Willy CJ, 1994. Attitude control of an underwater vehicle subjected to waves. Ph.D thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhao M, Cheng L, Zhou T, 2009. Direct numerical simulation of three-dimensional flow past a yawed circular cylinder of infinite length. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 25(5), 831–847. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2009.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhao XZ, Hu CH, Sun ZC, 2010. Numerical simulation of extreme wave generation using VOF method. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 22(4), 466–477. DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(09)60078-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringImam Hossein UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations