Journal of Marine Science and Technology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 199–212 | Cite as

Dynamic modeling of an autonomous underwater vehicle

Original article


The EcoMapper is an autonomous underwater vehicle that has broad applications, such as water quality monitoring and bathymetric survey. To simulate its dynamics and to precisely control it, a dynamic model is needed. In this paper, we develop a mathematical model of the EcoMapper based on computational-fluid-dynamics calculations, strip theory, and open-water tests. We validate the proposed model with the results of the field experiments carried out in the west pond in the Georgia Tech Savannah Campus.


Autonomous underwater vehicle Dynamic modeling  


  1. 1.
    Ellison R, Slocum D (2008) High spatial resolution mapping of water quality and bathymetry with a person-deployable, low cost autonomous underwater vehicle. OCEANS 2008:1–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollinger G, Mitra U, Sukhatme G (2012) Active and adaptive dive planning for dense bathymetric mapping. In: Proceedings of the international conference on experimental robotics (ISER), pp 1–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mukhopadhyay S, Wang C, Bradshaw S, Maxon S, Patterson M, Zhang F (2012) Controller performance of marine robots in reminiscent oil surveys. In: Proceeding of the 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2012), pp 1766–1771Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murphy R, Steimle E, Hall M, Lindemuth M, Trejo D, Hurlebaus S, Medina-Cetina Z, Slocum D (2009) Robot-assisted bridge inspection after hurricane IKE. In: 2009 IEEE international workshop on safety, security rescue robotics (SSRR), pp 1–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeArruda J (2010) Oceanserver IVER2 autonomous underwater vehicle remote Helm functionality. OCEANS 2010:1–5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antonelli G (2006) Underwater robots-motion and force control of vehicle-manipulator systems. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fossen TI (1994) Gaudiance and control of ocean vehicles. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Barros E, Dantas J, Pascoal A, de Sa E (2008) Investigation of normal force and moment coefficients for an AUV at nonlinear angle of attack and sideslip range. IEEE J Oceanic Eng 33:538–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hwang YL (2003) Hydrodynamic modeling of LMRS unmanned underwater vehicle and tow tank test validation. OCEANS 2003:1425–1430Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams C, Curtis T, Doucet J, Issac M, Azarsina F (2006) Effects of hull length on the hydrodynamic loads on a slender underwater vehicle during manoeuvres. OCEANS 2006:1–6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prestero T (2001) Verification of a six-degree of freedom simulation model for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Von Alt C, Grassle J (1992) Leo-15 an unmanned long term environmental observatory. OCEANS 1992(2):849–854Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boger DA, Dreyer JJ (2006) Prediction of hydrodynamic forces and moments for underwater vehicles using overset grids. In: Proceeding of 44th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chin C, Lau M (2012) Modeling and testing of hydrodynamic damping model for a complex-shaped remotely-operated vehicle for control. J Mar Sci Appl 11:150–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jagadeesh P, Murali K (2006) Investigation of alternative turbulence closure models for axis symmetric underwater hull forms. J Ocean Technol 1:37–57Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mulvany N, Tu JY, Chen L, Anderson B (2004) Assessment of two-equation turbulence modeling for high Reynolds number hydrofoil flow. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 45:275–299MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Racine BJ, Paterson EG (2005) CFD-based method for simulation of marine-vehicle maneuvering. In: Proceeding of 35th AIAA fluid dynamics conference and exhibit, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. J Marine Sci Technol 14:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakatani T, Ura T, Ito Y, Kojima J, Tamura K, Sakamaki T, Nose Y (2008) AUV “TUNA-SAND” and its exploration of hydrothermal vents at Kagoshima Bay. In: OCEANS 2008, MTS/IEEE Kobe Techno-Ocean, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perez T (2010) Ship motion control: course keeping and roll stabilisation using rudder and fins. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeMarco K, West M, Collins T (2011) An implementation of ROS on the yellowfin autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV). OCEANS 2011:1–7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melim A, West M (2011) Towards autonomous navigation with the yellowfin AUV. OCEANS 2011:1–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© JASNAOE 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringThe Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringThe Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations