Advertisement

Manoeuvring and Control

Chapter

Abstract

The equations of motion for submarine manoeuvring are presented and discussed together with a non-linear coefficient based approach for determining the forces and moments on the submarine. Means of determining the coefficients using model tests, including a rotating arm and a planar motion mechanism, are detailed. In addition, the use of Computational Fluid Dynamics; and empirical techniques for determining the manoeuvring coefficients are discussed. Empirical equations for determining the manoeuvring coefficients are presented, and the results compared to published results from experiments. Issues associated with manoeuvring in the horizontal and vertical planes are explained, including: stability in the horizontal plane; the Pivot Point; heel during a turn, including snap roll; the effect of the sail, including the stern dipping effect; the Centre of Lateral Resistance; stability in the vertical plane; the Neutral Point; and the Critical Point, including the effect of speed, and issues at very low speed. Manoeuvring close to the surface, including surface suction, is discussed. Suggested criteria for stability in the horizontal and vertical planes, along with rudder and plane effectiveness are given. The concept of Safe Operating Envelopes, including Manoeuvring Limitation Diagrams and Safe Manoeuvring Envelopes together with the associated Standard Operating Procedures in event of credible failures are presented. Free running model experiments and manoeuvring trials, including submarine definitive manoeuvres and submarine trials procedures are discussed.

References

  1. Abbott IH, Von Doenhoff AE (1960) Theory of wing sections. Dover Publications, Inc. 1960. ISBN 10: 0486605868Google Scholar
  2. Bayliss JA, Kimber NI, Marchant P (2005) Submarine trials and experimentation—dealing with real life data. In: Proceedings of warship 2005: naval submarines 2005, Royal Institution of Naval ArchitectsGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettle MC (2014) Validating Design Methods for Sizing Submarine Tailfins. In: Proceedings of warship 2014: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval ArchitectsGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonci M (2014) Application of system identification methods for the evaluation of manoeuvrability hydrodynamic coefficients from numerical free running tests. Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Ingegneria Navale, Universita Degli Studi Di Genova, pp 19–21Google Scholar
  5. Booth TB, Bishop RED (1973) The planar motion mechanism. Admiralty Experiment Works PublicationGoogle Scholar
  6. Broglia R, Di Mascio A, Muscari R (2007) Numerical study of confined water effects on self-propelled submarine in steady manoeuvres. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 17(2):89–96Google Scholar
  7. Broglia R, Dubbioso G, Durante D, Di Mascio A (2015) Turning analysis of a fully appended twin screw vessel by CFD. part 1: single rudder configuration. Ocean Eng 105(2015):275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crossland P (2013) Profiles of excess mass for a generic submarine operating under waves. In: Pacific 2013: international maritime conference, Sydney, Oct 2013Google Scholar
  9. Crossland P, Marchant P, Thompson N (2011) Evaluating the manoeuvring performance of an X-plane submarine. In: Proceedings of warship 2011: Naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, 29–30 June 2011Google Scholar
  10. Crossland P, Nokes RC, Dunningham S, Marchant P, Kimber N (2014) SRMII—A reconfigurable free running model capability for submarines with large L/D ratios. In: Proceedings of warship 2014: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, 18–19 June 2014Google Scholar
  11. Dempsey EM (1997) Static stability characteristics of a systematic series of stern control surfaces on a body of revolution, DTNSRDC Report 77-0085, Aug 1997Google Scholar
  12. Dong PG (1978) Effective mass and damping of submerged structures. University of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Report No. UCRL-52342, California, Apr 1978Google Scholar
  13. Dubbioso G, Muscari R, Di Mascio A (2013) Analysis of the performances of a marine propeller operating in oblique flow. Comput Fluids 75(2013):86–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubbioso G, Muscari R, Ortolani F, Di Mascio A (2017) Analysis of propeller bearing loads by CFD. Part 1 straight ahead and steady turning manoeuvres. Ocean Eng 130(2017):241–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldman J (1979) DTNSRDC revised standard submarine equations of motion. David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Ship Performance Department, DTNSRDC/SPD-0393-09, June 1979Google Scholar
  16. Fox DM (2001) Small subs provide big payoffs for submarine stealth. Undersea Warfare 3(3)Google Scholar
  17. Gertler M, Hagen GR (1967) Standard equations of motion for submarine simulation. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Report No 2510, Washington, June 1967Google Scholar
  18. Griffin MJ (2002) Numerical predictions of manoeuvring characteristics of submarines operating near the free surface. Ph.D. Thesis in Ocean Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Groves NC, Huang TT, Chang MS (1989) Geometric characteristics of DARPA Suboff models. David Taylor Research Center, SHD 1298-01, Maryland, USA, Mar 1989Google Scholar
  20. Gutsche F (1975) The study of ships′ propellers in oblique flow. Shiffbauforschung 3 3/4 (1964) pp 97–122 (from German), Defence Research Information Centre Translation No 4306, Oct 1975Google Scholar
  21. Harris RG (1918) Forces on a propeller due to sideslip. ARC R & M 427Google Scholar
  22. Haynes D, Bayliss J, Hardon P (2002) Use of the submarine research model to explore the manoeuvring envelope. In: Proceedings of warship 2002, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, June 2002Google Scholar
  23. Itard X (1999) Recovery procedure in case of flooding. In: Proceedings of warship′99: naval submarines, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, June 1999, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen PS, Chislett MS, Romeling JU (1993) Den-Mark 1, an innovative and flexible mathematical model for simulation of ship manoeuvring. In: Proceedings of MARSIM′93, international conference on marine simulation and ship manoeuvrability, St John’sGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones DA, Clarke DB, Brayshaw IB, Barillon JL, Anderson B (2002) The calculation of hydrodynamic coefficients for underwater vehicles, Report Number: DSTO-TR-1329. DSTO Platforms Sciences Laboratory, Fisherman′s Bend, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  26. Korotkin AI (2009) Added mass of ship structure. Fluid mechanics and its applications, vol 88, Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-9431-6Google Scholar
  27. Landrini M, Casciola CM, Coppola C (1993) A nonlinear hydrodynamic model for ship manoeuvrability. In: Proceedings of MARSIM′93, international conference on marine simulation and ship manoeuvrability, St John′sGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd ARJM (1983) Progress towards a rational method of predicting submarine manoeuvers. In: Royal Institution of Naval Architects symposium on naval submarines, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lloyd ARJM, Campbell IMC (1986) Experiments to investigate the vortex shed from a body of revolution. In: 59th meeting of the AGARD fluid dynamics panel symposium, Monterey, Oct 1986Google Scholar
  30. Lyons DJ, Bisgood PL (1950) An analysis of the lift slope of aerofoils of small aspect ratio, including fins, with design charts for aerofoils and control surfaces’, ARC R&M No 2308Google Scholar
  31. Mackay M (2001) Some effects of tailplane efficiency on submarine stability and maneouvring. Defence R&D Canada—Atlantic, Technical Memorandum, 2001-031, Canada, Aug 2001Google Scholar
  32. Mackay M (2003) Wind tunnel experiments with a submarine afterbody model. Defence R&D Canada—Atlantic, Technical Memorandum, 2002-194, Canada, Mar 2003Google Scholar
  33. Mackay M, Williams CD, Derradji-Aouat A (2007) Recent model submarine experiments with the MDTF. In: Proceedings of the 8th Canadian marine hydromechanics and structures conference, St John′s, 16–17 Oct 2007Google Scholar
  34. Marchant P, Kimber N (2014) Assuring the safe operation of submarines with operator guidance, UDT 2014: Liverpool, UK, 10–12 June 2014Google Scholar
  35. Mendenhall MR, Perkins SC (1985) Prediction of the unsteady hydrodynamic characteristics of submersible vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Washington, pp 408–428Google Scholar
  36. Molland AF, Turnock SR (2007) Marine rudders and control surfaces, principles, data, design and applications. Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN: 978-0-75-066944-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Musker AJ (1984) Prediction of wave forces and moments on a near-surface submarine. In: Shipbuilding: marine technology monthly, vol 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ortolani F, Mauro S, Dubbioso G (2015) Investigations of the radial bearing force developed during actual ship operations. Part 1: straight ahead sailing and turning manoeuvres. Ocean Eng 94(2015):67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Overpelt B (2014) Innovation in the hydrodynamic support for design of submarines. In: Proceedings of the 12th international naval engineering conference and exhibition 2014, Institution of marine Engineers, Scientists and Technologists, Amsterdam, 20–22 May 2014Google Scholar
  40. Pitts WC, Nielsen JN, Kaarrari GE (1957) Lift and center of pressure of wing-body-tail combinations at subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speeds. NACA Report 1307:1957Google Scholar
  41. Polis CD, Ranmuthugala D, Duffy J, Renilson MR, Anderson B (2013) Prediction of the safe operating envelope of a submarine when close to the free surface. In: Proceedings of the Pacific 2013 international maritime conference, Sydney, Oct 2013Google Scholar
  42. Praveen PC, Krishnankutty P (2013) Study on the effect of body length on the hydrodynamic performance of an axi-symmetric underwater vehicle. Indian J Geo-Mar Sci 42(8):1013–1022Google Scholar
  43. Pook DA, Seil G, Nguyen M, Ranmuthugala D, Renilson MR (2017) The effect of aft control surface deflection at angles of drift and angles of attack. In: Proceedings of warship 2017 naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Ray AV (2007) Manoeuvring trials of underwater vehicles: approaches and applications. J Ship Technol 3(2)Google Scholar
  45. Ray AV, Singh SN, Sen D (2008) Manoeuvring studies of underwater vehicles—a review. In: Transactions of royal institution of naval architects, vol 150Google Scholar
  46. Renilson MR, Ranmuthugala D, Dawson E, Anderson B. van Steel S, Wilson-Haffenden S (2011) Hydrodynamic design implications for a submarine operating near the surface. In: Proceedings of warship 2011: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 29–30 June 2011Google Scholar
  47. Renilson MR, Polis C, Ranmuthugala D, Duffy J (2014) Prediction of the hydroplane angles required due to high speed submarine operation near the surface. In: Proceedings of warship 2014: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, 18–19 June 2014Google Scholar
  48. Ribner HS (1943) Formulas for propellers in yaw, and charts of the side force derivative. Report E319, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Roddy RF (1990) Investigation of the stability and control characteristics of several configurations of the DARPA SUBOFF model (DTRC Model 5470) from captive-model experiments. David Taylor Research Center, SHD 1298-08, Maryland, USA, Sept 1990Google Scholar
  50. Seil G, Anderson B (2013) The influence of submarine fin design on heave force and pitching moment in steady drift. In: Pacific 2013: international maritime conference, Sydney, Oct 2013Google Scholar
  51. Sen D (2000) A study on sensitivity of manoeuverability performance on the hydrodynamic coefficients for submerged bodies. J Ship Res 44(3):186–196Google Scholar
  52. Spencer JB (1968) Stability and control of submarines—Parts I–IV. J Roy Navy Sci Serv 23(3)Google Scholar
  53. Sun S, Li L, Wang C, Zhang H (2018) Numerical prediction analysis of propeller exciting force for hull-propeller-rudder system in oblique flow. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 10(2018):69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tickle L, Bamford J, Hooper D, Philip N, Pinder G (2014) Sea trials and data analysis of the astute class submarine. In: Proceedings of warship 2014: naval submarines and UUVs, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Bath, 18–19 June 2014Google Scholar
  55. Tinker SJ (1988) A discrete vortex model of separated flows over manoeuvring submersibles. In: International conference on technology common to aero and marine engineering, society for underwater technology, Jan 1988Google Scholar
  56. UCL (undated) Calculation of submarine derivatives. UCL course notesGoogle Scholar
  57. Veillon A, Aillard JM, Brunet P (1996) Submarine depth control under waves: and experimental approach. In: Royal Institution of Naval Architects Warship′96: naval submarines 5—the total weapon system, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward B (1992) Experiments to improve predictions of submarine manoeuvres. In: Proceedings of MCMC′92, Southampton, pp 248–260Google Scholar
  59. Watt GD, Bohlmann H-J (2004) Submarine rising stability: quasi-steady theory and unsteady effects. In: Proceedings of the 25th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, St John’s, Aug 2004Google Scholar
  60. Whicker LF, Fehiner LF (1958) Free stream characteristics of a family of low-aspect-ratio all-movable control surfaces for application to ship design, David Taylor Model Basin Report Number 933, Dec 1958Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Maritime CollegeUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations