AUV DYNAMICS: MODELING AND

PARAMETER ESTIMATION USING

ANALYTICAL, SEMI-EMPIRICAL, AND CFD
METHODS

E. A. de Barros* 1 , A. Pascoal**, E. de Sa***

* Department of Mechatronics Engineering and Mechanical

Systems, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP. Brazil.
Email: eabarros@usp.br
** Institute for Systems and Robotics (ISR) and Dept.
Electrical Engineering and Computers, Instituto Superior
Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal. Email: antonio@isr.ist.utl.pt
*** National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa,
India. Email: elgar@darya. nio. org

Abstract: The paper addresses the problem of autonomous underwater vehicle

(AUV) modeling and parameter estimation as a means to predict the expected
dynamic performance of underwater vehicles and thus provide solid guidelines
during their design phase. The use of analytical and semi-empirical (ASE) methods
to predict the hydrodynamic derivatives of a large class of AUVs with conventional,
streamlined bodies is discussed. An application is made to the estimation of the
hydrodynamic derivatives of the MAYA AUV, an autonomous vehicle that is being
developed under a joint Indian-Portuguese project. The estimates are used to
predict the behavior of the vehicle in the vertical plane and to assess the impact
of stern plane size on its expected performance. Copyright © 2004 IFAC.

Keywords: Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, AUV Modeling, Parameter

Estimation, Computational Fluid Dynamics

1. INTRODUCTION use of analytical and semi-empirical methods to

The paper addresses the problem of autonomous
underwater vehicle (AUV) modeling and parame-
ter estimation as a means to predict the expected
dynamic performance of underwater vehicles and
thus provide solid guidelines during their design
phase, well before they can be tested at sea. The
main core of the paper provides a roadmap to the
1 Work supported in part by the Portuguese FCT POSl
Programme under framework QCA III and by project
MAYA of the Ad!. The work of the first author was
supported in part by the Brazilian Ministry of Education
through a "CAPES" scholarship.
predict the hydrodynamic derivatives of a large
class of AUVs with conventional, streamlined bod-
ies An application is made to the estimation of
a set of hydrodynamic derivatives for the MAYA
AUV, an autonomous vehicle that is being de-
veloped under a joint Indian-Portuguese project,
see Figure 1. These estimates are used to predict
the behavior of the vehicle in the vertical plane
and to assess the impact of stern plane size on its
expected performarrce.
This work should be viewed as part of a long
term research effort that aims to contribute to the
development of computational methods for com-

CAMS 2004 369

bined plant/ controller optimization (PCO), that
is, for the combined design of AUVs and respective
controllers to achieve increased performance at
sea while meeting stringent energy requirements.
See for example Silvestre et al. (1998), and the
references therein for an introduction to combined
PCO methods in the field of marine robotics. Cen-
tral to the development of efficient PCO design
methods is the availability of procedures to esti-
mate the hydrodynamic parameters of an AUV
before it can be actually built and tested.
Methods for parameter estimation based on the
geometry and mass distribution of marine vehicles
have been used for decades in the ship building
industry. Important steps have also been taken
in order to adapt parameter estimation methods,
originated in aeronautics , to the prediction of
submarine and AUV dynamics (Maeda and Tat-
suta, 1989; Bohlmann, 1990). Recently, spawned
by the widespread availability of powerful comput-
ers , there has also been a surge of interest in apply-
ing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) meth-
ods to the prediction of stability derivatives for
airplanes and marine vehicles (Humphreys, 2001).
However, to the best of our knowledge, no in-
depth , systematic studies have been done on the
evaluation and validation of the above methods
for AUV parameter estimation. As a consequence,
there seems to be lacking an established approach
for AUV parameter estimation allowing for the
computation of the modeling errors incurred. It
is therefore important to try and compare the
types of estimates that are obtained with ASE
and CFD methods and to later judge the precision
of those estimates by resorting to towing tank
experiments. This type of information will cer-
tainly play a major role during the phase of vehicle
design to meet desired open loop performance
requirements. At the same time, once bounds are
known for the inaccuracies that are inherent to
prediction methods (and thus for AUV parame-
ter uncertainties), better control methods can be
devised to explicitly deal in closed-loop with the
uncertainties of the design models obtained.
Motivated by the above considerations, and as
a contribution towards meeting the above goals,
the paper guides the reader through the steps
involved in the estimation of the parameters of
slender body AUVs in the vertical plan, using
information available from a number of sources,
mainly the Datcom stability and control hand-
book (Hoak and Finck, 1978) . The paper is or-
ganized as follows. Section 2 introduces the main
concepts and formulas that are at the root of
the ASE parameter estimation methods used to
compute a full set of hydrodynamic derivatives for
the MAYA A UV in the vertical plane. Section 3
discusses very briefly preliminary results of CFD
analysis of the vehicle. Using the parameters ob-
370
Fig. 1. A diagram of the MAYA AUV (NIO
design); the fin arrangement is not shown
tained in Section 2, Section 4 provides a study of
the dynamics of the AUV in the vertical plane and
of the impact of the position and size of the stern
planes on open loop performance. Finally, Section
5 provides a critical review of the results obtained
and discusses issues that warrant further research.
2. ESTIMATION OF HYDRODYNAMIC
DERIVATIVES USING ANALYTICAL AND
SEMI-EMPIRICAL(ASE) METHODS
Analytical and semi-empirical methods for the
estimation of the hydrodynamic derivatives of
marine vehicles are well rooted in the theory of
hydrodynamics. The use of a particular method
is decided by taking into consideration the phys-
ical nature of each of the parameters to be esti-
mated, together with the underlying simplifying
assumptions adopted when modeling the vehicle.
In what follows, the computation of the hydro-
dynamic derivatives of a fully submerged body is
organized by groups according to the nature of
the physical phenomena involved. The presenta-
tion is restricted to those methods that were used
to predict the hydrodynamic derivatives of the
MAYA AUV. However, the methodology adopted
for parameter estimation applies to AUVs with
slender bare hulls that are solids of revolution and
with fin-type control surfaces at the stern.
In what follows we restrict ourselves to motions
in the vertical plane and adopt the usual notation
for marine vehicles described in SNAME (1950).
Methods are described for the computation of the
force and moment experienced by a fully sub-
merged slender body when its motion is restricted
to small perturbations about steady motion in the
vertical plane (that is , about the equilibrium con-
dition that corresponds to the vehicle moving for-
ward at a fixed speed U , with the angle of attack
et, pitch rate q, and pitch angle () set to zero). The
end result is the set of so-called stability deriva-
tives for the submerged body (SNAME, 1950).
For the sake of clarity, some basic notation is
now introduced with the help of Figure 2, where
a torpedo-shaped AUV is depicted. The vehicle
consists of the main hull with length L and di-
ameter d, together with nose and tail sections,
and two stern planes that can be deflected by the
same angle 8e . The vehicle's body frame with axis
{x, z } is centered at point O. It is convenient to
define x* as the axial coordinate of a generic point
CAMS 2004

L- Jt
8 into the body axis, in a non-dimensional form.
z
Fig. 2. Coordinate System Adopted
along the x- axis of the vehicle, as measured from
the nose tip, positive aft. The axial coordinate of
the nose base section is denoted xiv , while that of
reference point 0 is called xo. We warn the reader
that we use the terms fins to refer to the all moving
planes at the stern of the AUV. However, the
hydrodynamic paramet ers that account for the
effect of those surfaces take the subscript W (from
wings) because this will simplify the consultation
of related, relevant literature on aerodynamics.
2.1 Added-Mass Coefficients
The added-mass coefficients allow for the com-
putation of the forces and moments exerted on
a body as if it were moving in an ideal fluid
(Newman, 1977). A number of reliable methods
for their estimation are available in the literature.
In their essence, all methods rely on the compu-
tation of a scalar velocity potential function from
which the velocity of the particles (that is, the
flow) around a marine vehicle can be derived. In
the case of simple bodies, the flow can be obtained
by combining the velocity potentials due to a
distribution of sources and sinks. These results
have been tabulated for a number of conventional
shapes, assuming the motion takes place in an
unbounded fluid. For other types of slender ve-
hicle shapes, the three-dimensional added-mass
coefficients can be approximated by a strip-theory
synthesis, that is, by integrating bi-dimensional
added-mass coefficients for each section along the
vehicle's length.
In the case of the MAYA AUV, the added mass
coefficient in surge was computed by fitting ap-
proximately an ellipsoidal shape to the vehi-
cle's hull. The other added-mass coefficients for
the body and fin ensemble were computed using
strip-theory and the formulas for bi-dimensional
added-mass coefficients of circles and finned cir-
cles (Newman, 1977) . The results are tabulated
in Section 4.
2.2 Static Coefficients
This section describes the computation of the
force and moment exerted by the fluid on a
CAMS 2004
vehicle when it moves at a small angle of at-
tack. As it is customary, the computation of the
stability derivatives will be done by computing
the lift, drag, and moment terms that are natu-
rally expressed in the flow axis, and map those
As a simple example, consider the expression
Z(a) = -[L(a)cos(a) + D(a)sin(a)] that relates
the body-axis force Z with lift L and drag D. Sim-
ple computations show that the hydrodynamic
i
derivative Z~ = D~~Q) , where q is dynamic pres-
sure, equals -(CD(O) + CLJ, where CD(O) is the
drag coefficient for a = 0 and the lift coefficient
CL", = DC;~Q) Q=O denotes the derivative of the
normalized lift curve CL (a) at zero. Thus the
importance of computing lift as a function of angle
of attack and drag at zero lift angle. Identical
considerations apply to the computation of the
other hydrodynamic derivatives in Table 1. The
organization of the section reflects the different
steps involved in the computation of lift and mo-
ment, as well as drag.
2.2.1. Lift on the Bare Hull
The computation of the lift term for a slender
body moving at an angle of attack with respect
to the fluid requires careful consideration. In fact,
if one were to make the simplifying assumption
that the motion took place in an ideal fluid, then
the theory of slender body hydrodynamics would
show that a body with a pointy nose and tail
would produce a zero lift force . However, this
does not occur in practice because viscous effects
induce the appearance of vortices and changes in
the pressure distribution at the stern, even in the
case of small angles of attack. As a result, lift
occurs in a non-ideal fluid. Experimentally, it is
verified that the pressure distribution at the fore
part of a streamlined body agrees quite well with
the ideal flow prediction(Hoerner, 1985) . However,
the pressure at the after body is reduced over
a region that starts at a point where the vortex
production or the boundary layer separation takes
place and progresses all the way to the rear end of
the body. The transition point at the after body
is likely to occur at places where the change in
the hull slope is bigger. Taking this phenomenon
into account , the formula proposed by the US Air
Force Datcom (Hoak and Finck, 1978) to compute
lift on a slender body considers the same value of
the lift coefficient as that obtained in the ideal flow
case, but taking only in consideration the length
of the body from the tip of the nose to the point
where the ideal flow hypothesis is no longer valid.
In the case of missiles or torpedo shapes AUVs like
MAYA, the region where ideal flow predictions are
accurate is restricted to the nose. In this case, the
bare hull lift coefficient CLOB (normalized by the
square of the vehicle length L), is given by
371
 that builds on the methodology derived in Pitts
C = (8CLB) =2(k2_k1)SN (1)
LOB 8a L2 et al. (1957) for aircraft and missiles. The key
<>=0
idea is to compute the so-called interference fac-
where C LB denotes lift as a function of a and SN
tors between the lift surfaces and the body using
is the cross section area at the nose end coordinate
slender-body theory. The first step in this pro-
x'N. In the above expression, k2 - k1 is the "Munk" cedure assumes that the fins do not deflect, the
apparent mass factor , which is a function of the
effect of the deflection being taken into account
fitness ratio f = ~ of the body. For values of the
at a later stage. This step yields an approximate
fitness ratio 4 ~ f ~ 19, the "Munk" factor can
expression for the total (body plus fins) lift coef-
be approximated by the polynomial interpolation
ficient CL a (WB ) (where the notation W B borrows
(k2 - k 1) = -0.0006548 f2 + 0.0256 f + 0.73. (2) from aircraft wing-body interactions), given by
Under the same simplifying assumptions, the mo-
CL
a(WB)
= CL
OB
+ CL a W ( B) + CL a w) (5)
ment coefficient (normalized by the cubic of the
S
vehicle length) is given by: = C Lo B + (KW(B) + KB (W »)(CL,, )e L~
C
mUB
- 2(k2 - k1)
- L3
J
x;.,.
dS x '* * *
dx* (x - xo)dx , (3)
where Se is the total exposed fin surface area,
(CL a )e is the lift coefficient of the exposed fin
o surfaces, and KB (W ) and KW(B ) are the interfer-
where Sx' denotes the body section area at x*. ence factors from the surfaces to the body, and
From the above, it follows that the hydrodynamic from the body to the surfaces, respectively. Let b
center of the body, normalized by L and expressed be the maximum span of the fins in combination
in body-axis coordinates, is located at x' with the hull, that is, the total distance between
Cm" B B control surface tips as if they extended inside the
CL U B ' hull, and define
2.2.2. Lift Produced by Small Aspect Ratio Fins d
k= t; . (6)
Then, the interference factors can be written as
Studies on the lift force CL produced by small 2
K _ 2 (1 - k4) (1 - k (2
aspect ratio fins have been conducted by many WeB ) - (7)
researchers and have led to closed formula approx- - 11" (1 - k)2
imations that are widely available in the litera- and
ture. In this study we adopt the approximation
for CLow = (a~~w) proposed by Whicker
KB(w) = (1 + k)2 - KW(B), (8)
<>=0
where
and Fehlner (1958) and used by Bohlmann (1990)
to compute lift in submarine hydroplanes, given (1 = [~tan-1(~(k-1 - k)) +~] (9)
by
and
C Low 21f
(4) (2 = [(k- 1 - k) + 2tan- 1 k].(10)
AR 2+ v#d co j/;\:/4 + 4cos 2
A c/ 4 ) The estimation of the corresponding total moment
coefficient Cm O( W B) is given by the product of
where AR is the lift surface aspect ratio, Ac/4
is the sweep angle at one fourth of the chord the lift coefficient computed above and the po-
length, and TJ is a factor to correct for viscous sition X(WB) of the new hydrodynamic center,
effects (adopted as 0.9). The above expression normalized by L, computed by taking into con-
yields results that are very close to the to the ones sideration the interaction between the hull and
described in Hoerner (1985) for small aspect ratio the fins. To compute x(WB)' start by defining
surfaces. Classical results can be used to compute X:V (B ) and x~(W) as the cent er of the hull-lift
the hydrodynamic center of the fin (Abbot and carryover on the lift surface and the center of the
Doenhoff, 1949) . In what follows , x:V denotes the fin-lift carryover on the body, respectively. The
axial coordinate of the hydrodynamic cent er of the first can be taken as approximately equal to the
AUV fins, in body-axis. hydrodynamic center of the fins x~. The latter is
given by
, I b- d
2.2.3. Fins and Body Combination xB(W) = 4 + -2- tan Ac/ 4 * P, (11)
cr e
There is a mutual influence between the fins and
where
the main body of an AUV due to the changes
k
in the flow past each of these components caused P=-l-k+
by the presence of the other. To account for the
impact of these effects on the total lift experienced
by a fully submerged body, we follow the proce-
J1-2kln( ¥ + iJ1-2k) - (1- k) + ~k
dure described in Datcom (Hoak and Finck, 1978) k ( l k)
v'1 - 2k
In( 1-k k + 1.k VI
/f=2k)
- '('r.;
+ (1 - kk ) 2 _ 2!:(1
2
- k)

372 CAMS 2004

where Cr. is the exposed tip root chord, and -(CDo + CL"' (WB»
Ac/4 is the sweep angle at one fourth of the root -(CL q +X~)
chord length. This expression above assumes that Cm"' (WB )
the aspect ratio is greater than or equal to 4. C mq
For smaller values of the aspect ratio, the reader - CL 6e
should consult an interpolation procedure used at C m6•
Datcom. It is now possible to compute Table 1. Equivalence between stabil-
C L "' W (B ) x'W (B) +CL "' B(W ) x'B(W ) +Cm "' B ity derivatives and hydrodynamic coef-
I
X(WB) = C ficients
L"'(WB )
(12) mass (m) 47.5 (Kg)
To capture the effects due to the deflection of moment of inertia (Iyy) 8.923 (Kgm 2 )
reference length (L) 1.64m
the control surfaces, the methodology described main diameter (d) 0.2m
in Datcom leads to the control surfaces lift and tail span (b) 0.44m
torque coefficients C L6e and C m6 e , respectively tail exposed area (Se) 0.018(m2)
given by tail and hull combined area (Sw) 0.0385(m2)
tail aspect ratio (AR) 5.02
Se tail exposed aspect ratio (ARe) 3.2
C L6 e = (kB(w) + kW(B ) )(CL", )e L2 (13)
tail exposed taper ratio (A) 0.667
and cruising Speed (U) 1.5(m/s)
C m 6e = CL 6e X~ (14) Table 2. Particulars of Maya
where be is the deflection angle of the lift surfaces
and x~ is the center location of the exposed lift m' 21.145 M' -0.612
surfaces. It is important to remark that kB( w ) +
Q

I~y 1.48 M'q -1.677

kW(B) = KW(fJ) X'u -0.478 M' -2.323
Z'q -0.612 M'"q -3.221
Zl. -24.138 M'8e -8.089
2.2.4. Drag Coefficient Z'" -68.862 Z'8e -30.615
Z~" -11.712 M~ -1.84
This section details the computation of drag coef-
ficient of an AUV at zero angle of attack. As dis- Table 3. The Maya Derivatives (*10- 3 )
cussed before, this is the only drag-related infor-
mation required to compute the stability deriva- moment, respectively to variations in the pitch
tive Z~. In this case, drag equals the pressure plus angular velocity. Simple approximations to the
friction drag. The bare hull drag coefficient is cal- coefficients can be obtained by emphasizing the
culated in Datcom as a function of the Reynolds contribution of the control surfaces, yielding
number Re, the fitness ratio 1, and the base diam-
eter db. To compute the zero-lift drag coefficient C Lq = -(KB(w ) + KW( B»)(CLQ ) e ~~X;¥( B) (19)
C D o , start by defining

CD = C f [l + 60r 3 + 0.00251] ~~ (15)

where Ss is the total body wetted area and Cm. = - (KB (W ) + KW( B»)(CLQ ) e ~~(X:"( BY
0.075 (20)
C f = (log Re _ 2)2 + 0.00025 (16)

is the skin friction drag coefficient, as given by the

ITTC. Further define the base-drag coefficient 2.4 Stability Derivatives

CD b = 0.029(~)3(CD)-O.5 . (17) As explained before it is customary, when mod-

where db is the base diameter, that is, the diame-
ter of the sternmost section of the body. Then,
CDo =C D+ C D b
Results on the fin drag coefficient are provided by
Abbot and Doenhoff (1949).
2.3 Dynamic Coefficients
The dynamic coefficients C Lq and Cmq of a sub-
merged body relate the heave force and pitch
eling marine vehicles, to parameterize the mod-
els in terms of so-called stability derivatives, as
described in SNAME. The equivalence between
(18) non-dimensional stability derivatives and the hy-
drodynamic coefficients determined before is sum-
marized in Table 1 (see also Blakelock (1991) for
a lucid exposition of the subject in the aircraft
area) . In preparation for the study that follows,
the particulars and stability derivatives of the
MAYA AUV in the vertical plane are given in
Tables Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. The bare
hull shape is based on the geometry proposed in
(Myring, 1976).

CAMS 2004 373

 3. CFD BASED METHODS (m' - Z~)L/U ao (I'yy - M:)(L/U)'l.
z' bo (M~ - m'x'c;)L/U
To estimate the hydrodynamic coefficients of (Z'q + m'x"~)(L/U)2 co (M~ + m'x~)L/U
(Z~ + m')L/U do M'
MAYA, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
eo Mo"
methods are also being exploited by the National
Institute of Oceanography in Goa, in India which Table 4. Transfer function coefficients
has access to the FLOWSOLVER machine at
Bangalore. At the time of writing of this paper, the center of mass. From the above equations, it
only results on the drag coefficient at zero-lift follows that
angle were available. Depending on the convec- o:(s) N",(s)
(24)
tion and turbulence scheme used, the drag coef- oe(s) D(s) ,
ficient(based on the maximum section area) was B(s) Ne(s)
found to vary between 0.08 and 0.127. The same (25)
oe(s) D(s) ,
coefficient calculated using Datcom yield 0.143. A
where
careful analysis of these results and the extension
of CFD methods to compute the lift related coeffi- , [(1-xw-
N", (s ) = aeZlie , C"') s 2 +(be , d",) s- -ee 1,
---Xw-
cients are planned for future work. Together with ae ae ae ae
(26)
real data from tank or open ocean tests, this study
is expected to shed light into the accuracy of the ce )s + (b",
Ne (s ) = Mli, ea", [(1 - -,-- -- de
- --,-)],
results that can be obtained with CFD methods
xwa", a", a",x w
(27)
for AUVs of this type.

4. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The set of stability derivatives obtained above is
now used to predict the dynamic behaviour of
the AUV in the vertical plane and to evaluate
the impact of stern plane size on its expected
performance.
4.1 Open loop transfer functions
To study the dynamics of the AUV in open
loop, it is sufficient to compute and analyze the
transfer functions from stern plane deflection to
pitch and heave motions. Let o:(s), O(s), and oe(s)
denote the Laplace transforms of 0:, 0, and oe,
respectively. Neglecting the surge equation, the
(28)
The denominator was simplified by neglecting the
products Cec"" cedo:, and co:de when compared to
the other terms contributing to the coefficients of
the same power of s. This is a consequence of the
body symmetry characteristics, which imply small
values for the added mass terms Z4
and M~. The
term D(s) can be further simplified by noticing
that Ido: de I « I-eea", + b",bel. This follows from
the following observations: for vehicles of the
type considered d", is generally positive, with
magnitude less than half of a",. Furthermore,
de (which equals the static moment coefficient
Cm ~ ) has the same order of magnitude or less
" ( W B)

linearized model of the AUV in the vertical plane when compared to ee and be. Finally, b", has a
(about its steady forward motion at trimming large magnitude when compared to the previous
speed) is easily seen to be given by coefficients. With the simplifications above, D(s)
can be written as
(a", s - b",) o:(s) + (-c",s2 - d",s)B(s) = Z~eoe(s)
(21) D(s) ~ a",ae(s - b",) [s2 _ be s + ~( - ee)] .
a", ae ae
and
(29)
(- ces - de) 0:(s) + (aes2-bes - ee)B(s) = M~eoe(s), The first order term in D(s) captures the heave
(22) dynamics, while the second order term is related
where the relationship between the hydrodynamic to the pitch dynamics.
derivatives and the coefficients above are given The small Cm U( W B) hypothesis allows for a further
in Table 4. Further let ib (s) denote the Laplace
simplification in the pitch transfer function. To see
transform of depth rate in non-dimensional form,
this, start by noticing that the pitch motion can be
where depth is measured from the surface, posi-
practically de coupled from the heave dynamics by
tive downwards. Linearizing the depth coordinate
neglecting the coefficient Ce and the term ~ in
dynamics about trimming yields aaX UJ

Ne (s). The last simplification becomes clear when

ib(s) = o:(s) - O(s) (23) the last term in Ne(s) is re-written as
In order to simplify the analysis, assume that (_ b", _ ~) = _ bo: (1 +, X'(~B)), (30)
the origin 0 of the body axis is coincident with ao: ao:xw a", Xw

374 CAMS 2004

where 0 < 'Y < 1 due to the drag coefficient con-
tribution in Z~, see Table 1. As long as ICm a(WB) I
is small enough, so is the ratio between the hy-
drodynamic center of the vehicle and that of the
fins, and the expression above degenerates approx-
imately to - ~. As a consequence, there is an
almost pole-zero cancellation (in the pitch transfer
function) tied with the heave dynamics. Although
the present version of Maya does not have a very
small value of ICma(WB) I, the simplifications above
result in reasonable approximations to the trans-
fer functions . In fact, the poles obtained from
expression (28) are
-1.166, - 0.571 ± 0.500i rads- 1 ,
while those obtained from the simplified expres-
sion (29) are
-1.373, - 0.467 ± 0.637i rads- 1
The zero in the pitch transfer function is -1.198
rads- 1 . From (23)-(30) and the expressions in
Table 4, it is also possible to derive the transfer
function from stern plane deflection to depth rate
as
ib No(s) (31)
c5e D(s) '
where
() =ao
N DS ~ Z' [2 LZ:'x\,y
oes - -
o
- - s - x\,yba+e ]
U ao ao
(32)
By examining the signs and relative magnitude of
the coefficients involved, it follows that the depth
dynamics exhibit non-minimum phase character-
istics.
4.2 Maneuvering performance
Since the hydrodynamic derivatives depend on the
overall hull geometry and fin arrangement of an
AUV, they are expected to play a key role in the
development of methodologies for vehicle design.
In this paper, and as an illustrative example, we
consider the problem of optimizing the maneu-
verability of an AUV in the vertical plane, when
the bare-hull profile is fixed , by proper choice of
the stern plane dimensions and location. Clearly,
this entails the definition of a performance index
to capture the maneuverability requirements in a
rigorous manner, as explained below.
Suppose the objective it is to achieve a fast re-
sponse in a surfacing/ diving emergency maneuver
(e.g. for collision avoidance), while keeping the
angle of attack small so as to stay in the region of
validity of the linear design model. In this case,
a possible choice for the performance index is
the ratio q'(O) /a ss , where ass is the steady state
value of the angle of attack in response to a stern
plane step deflection and q'(O) is the resulting
CAMS 2004
pitch acceleration at time zero. To compute this
ratio, use the transfer functions defined before and
apply the initial and final value theorems to the
calculated step responses of pitch and heave to
obtain
q(O) = M~e~a = -x:V ba (33)
ass aoZoe ao
In order to simplify the analysis, suppose that the
problem is limited to searching the optimal span
and location of the stern planes, taken as two rect-
angular, non-cambered fins . Further assume that
the modification of the fins does not change the
center of mass of the vehicle significantly. Notice
that the changing in the span of the fins affects
both ao and ba . When the span is increased, the
change in ba is mainly due to an increase in the
magnitude of the lift force, whereas the change
in ao is mainly due to an increase in magnitude
of the added-mass coefficient M 4. To compute the
change in the latter coefficient, start by computing
the sectional (heave) added mass coefficient of a
finned circle, given by (Newman, 1977)
(34)
where be = b - d is the total exposed fin span.
It is then straightforward, using strip theory, to
obtain the contribution of the fins to the new value
of M 4. This is done by multiplying the sectional
added mass coefficient above by the square of the
distance from the section to the origin 0 of the
body-axis and integrating the contributions over
the lift surface chord. Clearly, from (34), for a
fixed position of the hydrodynamic center of the
fins, the variation in M4 (and therefore in ao)
is practically proportional to the square of the
surface span. The change in ba takes place in a
more complex form, as the discussions in sections
2.2. 2 and 2.2.3 show.
The performance index must also take into ac-
count the increase in energy consumption of the
vehicle in steady motion (that is, with zero angle
of attack) due to an increase in fin span. Clearly,
this will be due to added drag. Since the fins are
rectangular and have a fixed chord, the added drag
force (at zero angle of attack) is proportional to
the fin span. As a consequence, the energy penalty
factor is inversely proportional to the fin span.
In this study, the combined span of the fins was
allowed to vary between 0.3m and 1.0m. In the
current design of MAYA, the corresponding figure
is 0.44m. With the largest span considered, the
stern plane contribution to the vehicle total drag
rises to about 30 percent. It is also important
that the performance index should penalize the
difficulties in vehicle handling that arise when the
span of the surfaces assumes large values. Again,
this calls for a penalty factor that is inversely
proportional to the span size. Based on the above
375
considerations, the final expression adopted for
the performance index is
1= 1 4'(0) (35)
(0.5 + 2b e ) ass
where the factor that multiplies the ratio q'(O) is
Q ss
• •
normalIzed III such a way as to yield the value 1 for
the current MAYA surface span, and slightly less
than 0.5 for the largest span. Figure 3 is a series of
plots of the performance index versus total span,
for three different locations of the stern plane hy-
drodynamic center. The middle plot corresponds
to the original location (0.459m aft the center of
mass), whereas the two other plots correspond to
locations closer to the center of mass (-0.204m)
and further away from it (-0.604m ). The latter
case yields the largest performance index. Inter-
estingly enough, increasing the distance from the
fins hydrodynamic center to the cent er of mass of
the vehicle, allows for smaller optimal fin sizes.
There is no advantage in increasing the size of the
fins past the optimal value of a particular curve,
because the added moment of inertia takes over
and forces the performance index curve to slope
down.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH.
The use of analytical and semi-empirical estimates
(ASE) for the hydrodynamic derivatives of AUVs
holds great potential to the development of power-
ful tools for optimal vehicle design. The estimates
can be used to predict the dynamic behavior of the
vehicle and to assess the impact of fin arrangement
on its expected performance. It is therefore impor-
tant to try and compare the types of estimates
that are obtained with ASE and CFD methods
and to later judge the precision of these estimates
by resorting to towing tank experiments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank A. Alcocer, H.
B0, and S. Fekri for their help with the text format
and figures.
REFERENCES
Abbot, 1. and A. Von Doenhoff(1949). Theory of
Wing Sections. Dover Publications Inc., New
York.
Blakelock, J. (1991). Automatic Control of Air-
craft and Missiles. Second Edition, John Wi-
ley Sons, Inc.
Bohlmann, H. (1990). Berechnung Hydrody-
namischer Koeffizienten von Ubooten zur
Vohrhersage des Bewegungsverhaltens. PhD
thesis. Institut fur Schifbau der Universitat
Hamburg.
376
-6
j
~
5
i
0. 4
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Total Span: b(m)
Fig. 3. Effect of stern plane span on maneuvering
performance
Hoak, D. and R. Finck(1978). USAF Stability and
Control Datcom. Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio.
Hoerner, S. (1985). Fluid Dynamic Lift. Hoerner,
Liselotte A.
Humphreys , D. (2001). Correlation and Valida-
tion of a CFD Based Hydrodynamic & Dy-
namic Model for a Towed Underwater Vehi-
cle. Proc. MTS/ IEEE OCEANS 2001, Hon-
olulu, Hawaii.
Maeda, H. and S. Tatsuta (1989). Prediction
method of hydrodynamic stability derivatives
of an autonomous non-tethered submerged
vehicle. Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Offshore
Mechanics and Artic Engineering.
Myring, D F (1976) . A theoretical study of body
drag in sub critical axisymmetric flow. Aero-
nautical Quarterly 27(3) , pp. 186- 194.
Newman, J N (1977). Marine Hydrodynamics. 9th
ed., M.LT., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Pitts, William C, Jack N Nielsen and George E
Kaattari (1957). Lift and cent er of pressure
of wing-body-tail combinations at subsonic,
transonic, and supersonic speeds. Technical
report, NACA.
SNAME, The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers (1950). Nomenclature for
Treating the Motion of a Submerged Body
Through a Fluid. Technical and Research Bul-
letin, No. 1-5.
Silvestre, P., A Pascoal, I Kaminer, and A Healey
(1998). Combined plant/ controller optimiza-
tion with application to autonomous un-
derwater vehicles. Proc. CAMS'98, Fukuoka,
Japan.
Todd, F. (1967). Resistance and Propulsion. Prin-
ciples of Naval Architecture, Chapter VII.
John P. Comstock, Ed. New York.
Whicker, L F and L F Fehlner (1958). Free-stream
characteristics of a family of low-aspect-ratio,
all-movable control surfaces for application
to ship design. Technical report 933, David
Taylor Model Basin.
CAMS 2004