13 views

Uploaded by Muhammad Yasar Javaid

cvbcb

- 1211.4464
- 2018IntroCFD_C7
- 06184606.pdf
- Evaluation of Smoke Management
- Full Text 01
- Coding Tutorials for CFD
- Procedure
- Computational Fluid Dynamics
- p215
- 73_ftp.pdf
- Process Simulation Modeling as a Means of Improving CMMI Levels v0.38 en - Rev 02
- A Computational Study on the Flow Characteristics of a Self-compensating Liquid Balancer
- Bungee Jumping Phsyics Research Paper [1397]
- Flying Insects
- Verification and Validation of CFD Simulations
- ansys-capabilities-15.0.pdf
- deen_ned
- Application of computational fluid dynamics to the design of pico propeller turbines
- modelamento matemático
- Di Francescantonio - 1997 - A New Boundary Integral Formulation for the Prediction of Sound Radiation

You are on page 1of 14

DOI 10.1007/s00773-014-0259-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Chuanfeng Wang Fumin Zhang Dirk Schaefer

JASNAOE 2014

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.

Keywords

modeling

1 Introduction

The YSI EcoMapper autonomous underwater vehicle (Fig. 1)

has a large sensor payload, a small size for rapid deployment

by one person, and intuitive mission planning software. It is

widely used in environmental mapping [14]. Using the

remote helm functionality of the EcoMapper, users can take

full control of the vehicle [5]. To precisely control the

EcoMapper, a dynamic model is needed. However, to the

best of our knowledge, no dynamic model of the EcoMapper

C. Wang (&) F. Zhang

The School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

The Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

e-mail: cwang329@gatech.edu

F. Zhang

e-mail: fumin@ece.gatech.edu

C. Wang D. Schaefer

The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,

The Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

e-mail: dirk.schaefer@me.gatech.edu

mathematical dynamic model of the EcoMapper to serve the

purpose of simulation and real-time control.

As shown in Fig. 1, the main body of the EcoMapper is a

slender cylinder with two horizontal fins for pitch angle

control, and two vertical fins for yaw angle control. The

thrust of the EcoMapper is generated by a two-blade propeller. To build the dynamic model, we need to identify the

rigid-body inertia matrix, the rigid-body Coriolis and

centripetal matrix, the hydrodynamic added inertia matrix,

the hydrodynamic added Coriolis and centripetal matrix,

the hydrodynamic damping terms, and the propeller coefficient. We determine the rigid-body inertia matrix and the

rigid-body Coriolis and centripetal matrix using the software Solidworks and calculate the hydrodynamic added

inertia matrix and the hydrodynamic added Coriolis and

centripetal matrix using strip theory [6, 7].

The hydrodynamic damping forces and moments are

usually studied through conventional tow-tank experiments

[810]. For example in [11], tow-tank experiments were

used to build and verify a motion model of REMUS (an

autonomous underwater vehicles developed by von Alt and

associates at the Oceanographic Systems Laboratory at the

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [12]). However,

tow-tank experiments are expensive. As the computation

technology advances, the computational fluid dynamics

(CFD) method become important as a less expensive

alternative [8, 1317]. For example, in [18], CFD simulations were used to estimate hydrodynamic coefficients of

TUNA-SAND (a remotely operated underwater vehicle

developed by URA Laboratory, The University of Tokyo

[19]). In this paper, we combine both the CFD method and

field tests to study the hydrodynamic damping terms to

build a practical motion model for the EcoMapper at low

cost. We split the hydrodynamic damping forces and

123

vertical and horizontal fins. We explicitly derive the form

of this part, i.e., fin-related hydrodynamic damping terms;

then CFD simulations are used to identify parameters in

this part. Different from CFD experiments for TUNASAND in [18] and RRC ROV in [14], which have no

control surfaces, CFD experiments for the EcoMapper are

performed at a range of fin angles so that the CFD experiments results can provide enough data to identify parameters in the relationships between hydrodynamic damping

terms and fin angles. One advantage of this approach is that

the analytical analysis of the geometry of control surfaces

(e.g., Chap. 5 in [20]) can be avoided. This approach also

applies to other underwater vehicles with control surfaces,

for example, the Yellowfin (an autonomous underwater

vehicle developed at the Georgia Tech Research Institute

[21, 22]). After the fin-related hydrodynamic damping

terms are identified, the remaining hydrodynamic damping

dynamics are identified through a field test. Finally, we

carry out open-water experiments to obtain the thruster

coefficient to complete the dynamic model. The complete

model is validated by field experiments carried out in the

west pond in the Georgia Tech Savannah Campus.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2

gives the six-degree-of-freedom model for the EcoMapper.

Section 3 explains the detailed procedure to calculate the

parameters in this model and the parameter identification

results. Section 4 provides field experiment results that validate

the proposed model. Conclusions are presented in Sect. 5.

of the EcoMapper at its center of buoyancy. Figure 2 shows

the body-fixed frame, earth-fixed frame, and the elementary motions of an AUV. Because the EcoMapper is usually ballasted to neutral buoyancy in water without control,

which means that the sum of the buoyancy force and the

gravitational force is zero, there is no restoring force acting

on the EcoMapper along upright direction. The EcoMapper has a bottom-heavy design so the restoring moment

on roll will keep the roll angle stabilized around 0; therefore, we do not consider the control for roll moments. To

simplify the problem, we assume the EcoMapper homogeneous and completely immersed in water, so the center

of buoyancy and the center of gravity coincide. We can

also infer that the density of the EcoMapper is the same as

the density of the surrounding fluid (fresh water in this

paper). We define g1 x; y; zT , g2 /; h; wT , g

gT1 ; gT2 T , V1 u; v; wT , V2 p; q; rT , V V1T ; V2T T ,

s1 sx ; sy ; sz T , s2 s/ ; sh ; sw T , shydr sT1 ; sT2 T , and

sthrust fthrust ; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0T , where x; y; zT represents the

EcoMapper position in the earth-fixed frame; /; h; wT

represents the Euler angle vector for roll, pitch, and yaw of

the EcoMapper in the earth-fixed frame; u; v; wT represents the body-fixed linear velocity vector for surge, sway,

and heave; p; q; rT represents the body-fixed angular

speed vector for roll, pitch, and yaw; sx ; sy ; sz are finrelated hydrodynamic damping forces along x, y, and z

directions, respectively; s/ ; sh ; sw are fin-related hydrodynamic damping moments along x, y, and z directions,

respectively; fthrust is the thrust force of the propeller, which

is along x direction. The dynamics of the EcoMapper can

be expressed by the following two equations:

vehicles

We apply a six-degree-of-freedom motion model [7] to the

EcoMapper to describe its surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch,

123

g_ Jg2 V;

body-fixed frame to the earth-fixed frame:

J1 g2 033

Jg2

;

3

033 J2 g2

where

2

swc/ cwshs/

cwc/ s/shsw

cwch

6

J1 g2 4 swch

sh

3

sws/ cwc/sh

7

cws/ shswc/ 5

chs/

0

6 0

6

6

6 0

CRB V 6

6 0

6

6

4 mw

mv

chc/

and

1

6

J2 g2 4 0

0

s/th

c/

s/=ch

denotes the hydrodynamic added inertia. They are represented by the following two equations:

3

2

m 0 0

0

0

0

60 m 0

0

0

0 7

7

6

7

6

7

60 0 m

0

0

0

7

6

7

MRB 6

7;

60 0 0

I

I

I

x

xy

xz 7

7

6

7

6

Iy

Iyz 5

4 0 0 0 Iyx

Izy

Xw_

Xp_

Xq_

Yw_

Yp_

Yq_

Zw_

Zp_

Zq_

Kw_

Kp_

Kq_

Mw_

Mp_

Mq_

Nw_

Np_

Nq_

Iz

Xr_

7

Yr_ 7

7

Zr_ 7

7

7;

Kr_ 7

7

Mr_ 7

5

Nr_

mv

mw

0

mv

mu

0

Iyz q Ixz p Iz r

mu

mw

0

Iyz r Ixy p Iy q

3

mv

7

mu

7

7

7

0

7;

Iyz r Ixy p Iy q 7

7

7

Ixz r Ixy q Ix p 5

6

6

6

6

CA V 6

6

6

6

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

a3

a3

0

a2

a1

0

a3

a3

0

a2

a1

0

b3

b3

0

a2

a1

b2

b1

10

3

a2

a1 7

7

7

0 7

7;

b2 7

7

7

b1 5

0

11

where

a1 Xu_ u Xv_ v Xw_ w Xp_ p Xq_ q Xr_r;

a2 Xv_ u Yv_ v Yw_ w Yp_ p Yq_ q Yr_r;

a3 Xw_ u Yw_ v Zw_ w Zp_ p Zq_ q Zr_r;

b1 Xp_ u Yp_ v Zp_ w Kp_ p Kq_ q Kr_r;

b2 Xq_ u Yq_ v Zq_ w Kq_ p Mq_ q Mr_r;

12

2

3

Ix

Ixy Ixz

4 Iyx

Iy

Iyz 5 is the inertia tensor of the EcoMIzx Izy

Iz

apper in the body-fixed frame, and all terms in MA are

hydrodynamic added mass force coefficients.

In Eq. 2,

CV CRB V CA V;

Ixz r Ixy q Ix p

M MRB MA ;

Izx

0

mw

3

c/th

7

s/ 5:

c/=ch

In Eq. 2,

0 0 0

2

Xu_ Xv_

6

6 Yu_ Yv_

6

6 Zu_ Zv_

6

MA 6

6 Ku_ Kv_

6

6M M

4 u_

v_

Nu_ Nv_

0

0

mu

Iyz q Ixz p Iz r

4

2

0

0

Coriolis and centripetal terms and CA V is the coefficient

matrix for hydrodynamic added Coriolis and centripetal

terms. They are expressed in the following two matrices:

identify the controllable part of the hydrodynamic damping

forces and moments and denote this part as shydr in Eq. 2.

The remaining part is DV in Eq. 2, where D is a damping

matrix. The controllable part shydr is controlled by vertical

and horizontal fins so we can manipulate the EcoMapper

via this part by changing the four fin angles. The remaining

part DV is not related to the four fins and cannot be

manipulated. As the speed of EcoMapper is usually below

2 m/s, which is relatively low, we consider only linear

damping terms in DV, and neglect the coupling dissipative

terms. Therefore, we define

D diagfXu ; Yv ; Zw ; Kp ; Mq ; Nr g;

13

coefficients.

In Eq. 2, shydr includes the fin-related hydrodynamic

damping terms, which are functions of the fin angles and

the vehicle speed. During operations of the EcoMapper, the

123

the two vertical fins have the same angle, denoted by b.

Because the horizontal fins of the EcoMapper are always

symmetric about xz plane, their corresponding hydrodynamic forces on right and left side of the EcoMapper produced by the flow along x direction have the same

magnitude and opposite directions; therefore, they do not

affect the total hydrodynamic forces along y direction, i.e.,

sy does not depend on a. Similarly, s/ , and sw do not depend

on a. As the vertical fins of the EcoMapper are symmetric

about xy plane, they do not generate moments around x and

y axes and forces along z axis; therefore sz ; s/ , and sh do not

depend on b. As the EcoMapper is designed to be selfstabilized in roll angle, we assume / 0 and

s/ 0

14

23

we obtain UTb1 b0sy 0, and then from Eq. 17, we get

UTb2 b00sy 0. Therefore, Eq. 22 reduces to

sy UTb bsy :

24

sw UTb bsw ;

25

Applying the fourth-order Maclaurins expansion to sz ,

we get

sz UTa bsz UTa1 b0sz UTa2 b00sz ;

26

EcoMapper is parallel with the vehicle body. Now we

summarize the relationship between the fin-related hydrodynamic damping terms and the fin angles into the following equations:

sx sx u; a; b; sy sy u; b; sz sz u; a;

s/ 0; sh sh u; a; sw sw u; b:

when u 0, all the hydrodynamic terms are zero, i.e.,

sx 0; a; b sy 0; b sz 0; a sh 0; a sw 0; b 0:

sh UTa bsh ;

15

As the EcoMapper is symmetric about xz plane without

considering vertical fins, and the vertical fins are symmetric

about xy plane, it is easy to derive the following properties

from physics.

sx u; a; b sx u; a; b;

16

sy u; b sy u; b;

17

sw u; b sw u; b:

18

are symmetric about xy plane, we get

sz u; a sz u; 0 sz u; a sz u; 0;

19

sh u; a sh u; 0 sh u; a sh u; 0;

20

sx u; a; b sx u; a; b:

21

obtain

sy UTb bsy UTb1 b0sy UTb2 b00sy ;

where Ub1 1; b; b2 ; b3 ; b4 T ,

u3 ; u4 T , and

123

22

Ub2 u; b2 u; u2 ; b2 u2 ;

27

we obtain UTa1 b0bsz 0, and then from Eq. 19, we get

sz UTa bsz :

28

29

Now we apply the fourth-order Maclaurins expansion

to sx and get

sx UT1 b1 UT2 b2 UT3 b3 UTab bsx ;

30

au3 ; a3 uT , U3 bu; bu2 ; bu3 ; b3 uT , and Uab u; u2 ; u3 ;

a2 u; b2 u; u4 ; a2 u2 ; b2 u2 T . b1 , b2 , b3 , and bsx are coefficient

vectors. From f1 0; a; b 0, we get UT1 b1 0; then by

plugging Eq. 16 into Eq. 30, we obtain UT2 b2 0. In addition, Eq. 21 leads to UT3 b3 0. Therefore, Eq. 30 reduces to

sx UTab bsx ;

31

expressed by Eqs. 14, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 31, where bsy , bsw ,

bsz , bsh , and bsx are hydrodynamic damping coefficients.

In Eq. 2, sthrust fthrust ; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0T and fthrust is the

thrust provided by the propeller. It is a function of the

propeller diameter, which is fixed in this paper, the density

and viscosity of water, which are assumed to be constant here, and propeller rotation speed, i.e., revolutions per

unit time, denoted by n. Now fthrust can be described by the

following equation:

symmetry and that a rigid body with three planes of symmetry has a diagonal inertia matrix. Now Eq. 33 and elements of matrix I specify all parameters for MRB and CRB

in Eqs. 7 and 10, so we can get

MRB diagf27:2; 27:2; 27:2; 0:0743; 4:723; 4:7159g;

35

2

fthrust cn2 ;

32

3 Parameter identification

This section provides the procedure to calculate MRB , MA ,

CRB , CA , hydrodynamic damping coefficients bsx , bsy , bsz ,

bsh , and bsw , and propeller coefficient c for the dynamic

model of the EcoMapper.

3.1 MRB and CRB

We use Solidworks, a three-dimensional mechanical

computer-aided design software, to calculate inertia matrix

MRB for the EcoMapper. In Solidworks, we draw the

geometry of the EcoMapper as shown in Fig. 3 and use the

mass properties functionality of Solidworks to calculate

inertia matrix MRB . The Solidworks geometry file of the

EcoMapper will be further used as the database file for grid

generating for CFD calculations.

The mass m and density q of the EcoMapper are as

follows:

m 27:2 kg;

33

3

q 1000 kg=m :

34

the inertia tensor I and get Ix 0:0743, Iy 4:723, Iz

4:7159, Ixz Izx 0:0011, Ixy Iyx Iyz Izy 0, with all

2

3

0:0743

0 0:0011

5:

0

4:723

0

units N m2 s2 . Therefore, I 4

0:0011 0

4:7159

I is obviously diagonally dominant. The absolute values of

off-diagonal elements are all less than 1.5 % of the

smallest absolute values of diagonal elements. Therefore,

without causing much errors, we can approximate I to a

diagonal matrix I diagf0:0743;4:723;4:7159g. This

approximation makes sense because that the main body of

0

6

6

0

6

6

0

6

CRB V 6

6

0

6

6 27:2w

4

27:2v

27:2w

27:2v

27:2u

27:2u

27:2w

27:2w

27:2v

27:2u

4:7159r

4:7159r

4:723q

0:0743p

27:2v

36

7

27:2u 7

7

7

0

7

7:

4:723q 7

7

0:0743p 7

5

0

3.2 MA and CA

The nose of the EcoMapper is a light plastic cylindrical

shell, and most spaces in the nose are empty, so we neglect

the mass of the nose when calculating MA and CA . We also

neglect the four fins and treat the EcoMapper as a cylindrical rigid body to simplify the calculation for MA and CA .

We can see this approximation is rational from the fact that

MRB is approximately a diagonal matrix.

According to the strip theory [6], [7] provides the following formulas for all non-zero hydrodynamic added

mass force coefficients for a cylindrical rigid body with a

mass m, a length L, and a radius of the circular section r,

assuming it is immersed in a fluid with density q.

Xu_ 0:1m; Yv_ pqr 2 L; Zw_ pqr 2 L;

1

1

Mq_ pqr 2 L3 ; Nr_ pqr 2 L3 :

12

12

37

water with density qwater 1000 kg=m3 ; as a result, we

obtain all non-zero hydrodynamic added mass force coefficients as follows:

Xu_ 2:72; Yv_ 23:8250; Zw_ 23:8250;

38

MA and CA from Eqs. 8 and 11, so we get

MA diagf2:72; 23:8250; 23:8250; 0; 3:8914; 3:8914g;

39

123

0

6

0

6

6

6

0

CA V 6

6

0

6

6

4 23:8250w

0

0

0

0

23:8250w

0

23:8250v

2:72u

23:8250v

2:72u

0

3

0

23:8250w 23:8250v

7

23:8250w

0

2:72u

7

7

7

23:8250v

2:72u

0

7:

0

3:8914r

3:8914q 7

7

7

5

3:8914r

0

0

3:8914q

40

3.3 shydr

To get enough data to study the hydrodynamic damping

coefficients, we do CFD simulations for the EcoMapper at

four speeds, that is, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 m/s, as the maximum speed of the EcoMapper is designed around 1 m/s. For

each speed, we change the vertical-fin angle from 0 to 35

and horizontal-fin angle from 35 to 35 , with a step size 5 ,

and calculate the corresponding hydrodynamic damping

forces and moments in the CFD software Ansys-CFX.

Therefore, CFD calculations are carried out at 88 data points.

For each specified fin angle, first we draw the corresponding

EcoMapper geometry in Solidworks; then using the Solidworks geometry file as the database file, we generate a mesh

file for the EcoMapper in Gridgen, a mesh generator, and

import it into Ansys-CFX. In CFX, we specify the EcoMapper speed in the boundary condition and calculate the

hydrodynamic damping forces and moments.

To calculate the hydrodynamic damping terms corresponding to a specified EcoMapper speed, which is along x

Fig. 4 Fluid domain

123

static and set the fluid flowing along x direction in

CFD simulation, as the hydrodynamic damping forces and

moments depend only on the relative motion between the

EcoMapper and the fluid. Therefore, we can adopt fixed

mesh generating for CFD calculation, instead of using the

relatively complex dynamic meshes.

To study the hydrodynamic damping terms on the

EcoMapper in an unbounded fluid domain, we need to use

a large constant-speed flow field. In this paper, we define a

fluid domain, the length, width, and height of which are

five times of the length, width, and height of the EcoMapper, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4. In this fluid domain,

we draw a small box to enclose the area that is close to the

EcoMapper and generate fine block grids within this area.

In the area far from the EcoMapper, we use relatively

coarser block grids to reduce the CFD computation time

(see Fig. 5). To build block grids, we first generate surface

grids on all boundaries, including the surface of the

EcoMapper and the boundary of the fluid domain. In

Gridgen, domains mean surface grids and blocks

mean block grids. On the outer boundary of the fluid

domain, which consists of six rectangles, we generate

structured domain, and on the surface of the EcoMapper,

some parts of which are complex, we generate unstructured domain, shown in Fig. 6; then we generate

unstructured block based on those domains.

The block grids generated in Gridgen are imported into

CFX for CFD calculation. In CFX, we set water as the

fluid, set the inlet and outlet of the flow as Fig. 7, and carry

out single-phase steady-state simulations using shearstress-transport model. Figure 8 shows one of the CFX

simulation results, in which the fluid flow speed is set to

1 m/s, the horizontal-fin angle of the EcoMapper to 0 , and

the vertical-fin angle to 30 . We list simulation results for

Fig. 5 Fine and large block

grids

the EcoMapper surface

4. From data in Tables 1 and 2 in which b 0, we can see

that sy , s/ , and sw do not change with a, and the average

values of sy , s/ , and sw are all close to zero. From data in

Tables 3 and 4 in which a 0, we can see that sz ; s/ , and

sh are all small and do not change with b. From data in

Table 1, we observe that f1 u; a; b f1 u; a; b. These

facts all agree with our assumption in Sect. 2.

Now we use the least-mean-square method to estimate

parameters bsx , bsy , bsz , bsh , and bsw in Eqs. 31, 24, 28, 25,

and 29. We use sy as an example to explain the procedure,

using the 8 4 32 data points provided in Table 3. For

each point sy;i ; bi ; ui , where i 1; 2. . .32, we calculate

the corresponding Ub;i according to Eq. 23. Define Y

sy;1 ; sy;2 sy;N T and A Ub;1 ; Ub;2 Ub;N T , the leastmean-square estimation of bsy is

bsy AT A1 AT Y:

41

bsy , which is listed in Table 5. Using the same procedure,

we get bsx , bsy , bsz , bsh , and bsw , all of which are listed in

Table 5. Now we get all parameters for functions in Eqs.

24, 25, 28, 29, and 31. We plot these functions and the

corresponding original data points in Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

and 14 to illustrate the accordance between original data

and the estimations.

3.4 sthrust

We carry out open-water experiments in a tank (Fig. 15) to

identify the propeller coefficient c in Eq. 32 for propeller thrust calculation. The propeller thrusts and the

123

Fig. 7 Inlet and outlet boundary

condition in CFX

pressure contour in CFX

minutes) in the experiments are listed in Table 6. From

those data, we obtain the least-mean-square estimation of

propeller coefficient

c 1:5849 105 :

42

The original data points and fitted curve are plotted in Fig.

16.

3.5 Damping matrix D

The last term to identify is the damping matrix D, given

which, we will complete the model and be able to simulate

the motion of the EcoMapper, including the linear and

123

experiments and simulations to obtain a least-mean-square

estimation. Now we use Xu to explain the procedure. For Xu ,

we design and carry out a field experiment so that the

Ecoampper goes along a straight line without turning and

diving, during a time period from t t0 to t tN . Then

given an Xu , we can obtain a corresponding simulated forward speed of the EcoMapper, denoted by u^. We choose an

P

optimal Xu satisfying Xu argminXu Ni0 uti u^ti 2 ,

where uti is the sampled forward speed of the Ecoampper

at sample time t ti in the field experiment. After we get

Xu , we plot the field experiment data and simulation results

in Fig. 17 in blue dots and a red curve, respectively. As the

EcoMapper has anti-roll mechanism, we assume / 0 all

Table 1 sx ; sy ; sz vs horizontal-fin angles and the EcoMapper speed

Horizontalfin angle a

u 1 m/s

u 0:75 m/s

u 0:5 m/s

u 0:25 m/s

35

30

25

20

8:3563 0:0193 7:0843

4:7641 0:0090 3:9594

2:1491 0:0310 1:7387

0:5484 0:0046 0:4306

15

10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Horizontal-fin

angle a

u 1 m/s

u 0:75 m/s

u 0:5 m/s

u 0:25 m/s

35

30

25

0:0006 0:2275 0:0030

20

15

10

5

0:0140 1:2764 0:2536

0:0074 0:7140 0:1239

0:0028 0:3145 0:0460

0:0007 0:0773 0:0097

5

10

0:0004 0:2137 0:0005

15

20

25

30

35

the time and do not care about Kp . All other terms are

obtained in similar ways. We listed them below and complete the dynamic model of the EcoMapper.

Xu 7; Yv 231; Zw 229; Mq 53; Nr 48:

43

4 Experiment validation

To demonstrate the validity of the proposed model, we

carried out a series of field experiments in the west pond

(latitude 32.167 , longitude 81:210 ) in the Georgia Tech

collected on 27 January 2013 from 14:00 to 16:00 EST.

During that time, the maximum wind speed was about

11 mph pointing east, which caused intermittent water

currents. During the experiments, the EcoMapper worked

in mission mode and followed paths specified by waypoints

in mission planing software VectorMap. By arranging

the distribution of the waypoints, we let the EcoMapper

perform turning. In addition, we specified different forward

speeds and depths for different waypoints so that the

EcoMapper achieved acceleration, deceleration, diving,

123

Table 3 sx ; sy ; sz vs vertical-fin angles and the EcoMapper speed

Vertical-fin angle b

u 1 m/s

u 0:75 m/s

u 0:5 m/s

u 0:25 m/s

35

30

25

0:5190 0:2575 0:0158

20

15

10

5

0

6:4592 0:3385 0:1455

3:6968 0:1536 0:0847

1:6850 0:0605 0:0376

0:4344 0:0145 0:0069

Vertical-fin angle b

u 1 m/s

u 0:75 m/s

u 0:5 m/s

u 0:25 m/s

35

30

25

20

15

10

vehicle velocity, attitude angles, and depth from surface

through doppler velocity log, a digital compass, and the

YSI Depth Sensor, respectively, and saved these information every 1 second into log files which we can get access

to after the mission completed. The information saved also

includes the geographic coordinates of the vehicle position,

forward speeds, lateral speeds, headings, pitch angles,

depth from surface, propeller command value, and finangles command value. Through the propeller rotation

speeds and fin angles in the experiments, which can be

derived from propeller command values and fin-angle

command values in the log file, we can use the proposed

model to simulate the motion of the EcoMapper and

compare the simulation results with the experiential results.

During simulations, a step size Dt 0:0001 s is used. As

123

updated only once every second in the log files, in simulation there is only one set of propeller rotation speed and

fin angles available and used within 1 second (i.e., 10000

iterations of simulation computation) before they are

updated next second.

Figure 19 plots the simulated forward speed in red and

experimental one in blue. We can see the simulation results

are in accordance with field experiment results in accelerations and decelerations. The average of the absolute

error between the simulated and experimental data is

0.1345 m/s. The average relative error of the simulation is

15.78 %. The maximum relative error is 43.93 % and it

happens at t 101 s, which is in the beginning of an

acceleration. The experimental and simulated lateral

speeds are plotted in Fig. 20 in blue and red, respectively.

lateral speed caused by the vertical fins is small, the lateral

speed is more influenced by environment disturbance, like

wind and water current, which caused the oscillations in

experimental results, as shown by the blue line in Fig. 20.

Comparing with the field experiment data, the average

absolute errors of the simulated lateral speed is

0.000369 m/s. Figure 21 compares the simulated heave

speeds (the red line) with experimental ones (the blue line).

We can see that they agree with each other. The average of

absolute error is 0.0317 m/s. We also compared the simulation and experimental angular velocity (roll speed is

excluded as we assume / 0 all the time). From the log

files, we obtained the heading and pitch angle of the

EcoMapper during missions. Forward difference is used to

estimate the time derivative of these Euler angles, which

123

Table 5 Least-mean-square estimation of parameters bsx , bsy , bsz ,

bs/ , bsh , and bsw (using degree)

bTsx

0:2669; 0:0038; 0:0035

bTsy

bTsz

0:8210; 0:0072; 0:3821

bTsh

0:4481; 0:0040; 0:2066

0:0045; 0:0000; 0:1131; 0:0000

bTsw

n (rpm)

sthrust in

experiment 1

(lb)

sthrust in

experiment

2

sthrust in

experiment

3

sthrust in

experiment

4

186

0.1

371

558

1

1.2

0.2

1

0.2

1

0.2

1

745

1.8

1.9

933

1118

4.1

1304

5.9

1490

1675

9.8

10.8

10.8

10.4

1863

11.8

13.2

11.6

13

2012

14.3

14

14.3

15

according to Eq. 1. The simulation and experimental results

on pitch speed and yaw speed are plotted in Figs. 22 and

23, respectively, where red lines show the simulation

results and blue lines show the experimental data. We can

see that the simulations agree with field experiments,

123

despite some subtle differences. The average of the differences in Figs. 22 and 23 are 0.0438 and 0.0147 rad/s,

respectively.

during experiments, in simulation we can use only one

available set of these values in every second, i.e., 10000

simulation computation iterations, while the actual propeller rotation speed and fin angles were varying continuously within every second. This also causes some

difference between the experimental data and simulation

results. But nevertheless, we see a consistent match

between the field experiments and simulations, which

shows that the EcoMapper model captures the EcoMapper

dynamics to a satisfactory accuracy.

Fig. 21 Experimental and simulated heave speed

experimental data and simulation results. First, the disturbances during experiments, including wind, water currents,

cause some of the difference. Second, because the propeller

5 Conclusion

This paper proposed a dynamic model to describe the

motion of the EcoMapper. Using theoretical calculations,

CFS simulations, and field tests, we identified all the

123

parameters in the model. We also performed field experiments to validate the proposed model, and the experimental

data are consistent with simulation results. Therefore, the

proposed model may be used to simulate the EcoMapper

motions and compute desired control input for the EcoMapper in real-time control. The modeling methods in this

paper may also apply to other underwater vehicles with

control surfaces.

References

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 2008:17

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 17

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 17661771

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 15

5. DeArruda J (2010) Oceanserver IVER2 autonomous underwater

vehicle remote Helm functionality. OCEANS 2010:15

6. Antonelli G (2006) Underwater robots-motion and force control

of vehicle-manipulator systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

7. Fossen TI (1994) Gaudiance and control of ocean vehicles.

Wiley, Chichester

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

33:538549

123

underwater vehicle and tow tank test validation. OCEANS

2003:14251430

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 2006:16

11. Prestero T (2001) Verification of a six-degree of freedom simulation model for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle.

Masters thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USA

12. Von Alt C, Grassle J (1992) Leo-15 an unmanned long term

environmental observatory. OCEANS 1992(2):849854

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 113

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 11:150163

15. Jagadeesh P, Murali K (2006) Investigation of alternative turbulence closure models for axis symmetric underwater hull

forms. J Ocean Technol 1:3757

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 45:275299

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 122

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

14:373386

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 15

20. Perez T (2010) Ship motion control: course keeping and roll

stabilisation using rudder and fins. Springer, New York

21. DeMarco K, West M, Collins T (2011) An implementation of

ROS on the yellowfin autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).

OCEANS 2011:17

22. Melim A, West M (2011) Towards autonomous navigation with

the yellowfin AUV. OCEANS 2011:15

- 1211.4464Uploaded byikhfanyA
- 2018IntroCFD_C7Uploaded byPetru Morar
- 06184606.pdfUploaded byVenkatesh Ramanan
- Evaluation of Smoke ManagementUploaded bydescslam
- Full Text 01Uploaded bySlim Kanoun
- Coding Tutorials for CFDUploaded bySfwan A Mohammed
- ProcedureUploaded byArun Kumar Dhupam
- Computational Fluid DynamicsUploaded byVsm Krishna Sai Eturi
- p215Uploaded byGerardo Franck
- 73_ftp.pdfUploaded byCristi Budau
- Process Simulation Modeling as a Means of Improving CMMI Levels v0.38 en - Rev 02Uploaded bynenad@neobee.net
- A Computational Study on the Flow Characteristics of a Self-compensating Liquid BalancerUploaded bytihom1612
- Bungee Jumping Phsyics Research Paper [1397]Uploaded byJoel Aralikatti
- Flying InsectsUploaded byThalia Juarez
- Verification and Validation of CFD SimulationsUploaded byBadishca Chelu
- ansys-capabilities-15.0.pdfUploaded byAmirul Wafa
- deen_nedUploaded byNadeem Abbas
- Application of computational fluid dynamics to the design of pico propeller turbinesUploaded byAjith Krishnan
- modelamento matemáticoUploaded byDaniella Gomes Rodrigues
- Di Francescantonio - 1997 - A New Boundary Integral Formulation for the Prediction of Sound RadiationUploaded bystefano lovato
- 1443-4446-1-PB CFDUploaded byAnonymous K48Tgvi
- VMOD_Airport_Tutorial.pdfUploaded byPipe Ignacio AG
- 04098856 Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics to Research Vessel DesignUploaded byshimul2008
- 5.1 Simulation Determinatic BehaviourUploaded byriadimazz_910414786
- 2015 Dynamic Modelling of a One Stage Spur Gear System and Vibration Based Tooth Crack Detection Analysis MohammedUploaded byPradeep Kumar Mehta
- CFD_Simulations_of_IC_Engines_Combustion.pdfUploaded byHarshit Saxena
- 10-Transformer Cooling - Radiator AnalysisUploaded byhakandaghan
- Applications of Software in Solar Drying Systems a ReviewUploaded byGianCarlo Espinoza Pariona
- Word Thesis TemplateUploaded byAbhishek Chintagunta
- Navier2d Readme.pdfUploaded byEdgar Clyde Lopez

- 10MSc Engg Chemical Engfdgdfgineering Technology Session 2010 12 (1)Uploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Applied Model-Based Analysis And cx cxUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Module 2 Ktunotes.in MinUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- HeavingUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Pure Heavingand Pure Pitching Motion of an Underwater GliderUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- A Quick Tutorial on Multibodmy DynamicsUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- 1010 WoolseycxvcxUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- 1010 WoolseycxvcxUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- 1010 WoolseycxvcxUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- AMM.393.561 (2)bnbUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- QUOsdcsdTEPLUS_MY_CMR_SMB_29603345.3 (1)Uploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- 441 Lecture 8Uploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Power Plant Technology by El-WakilUploaded byRana Abdul Rehman
- CHAPTER1-1.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- 147355172 Power Plant Technology by El WakilUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- ISI-1b hj,Uploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Trial_lecture (Autonomous Underwater Robotics)Uploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Text Neu BacherbcvbUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Text Neu BacherbcvbUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Dynamics ModelingbcbUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Impact FactorUploaded bysasinfotech
- About — SeaGlidesxUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Naca Report 1382dfgdfUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- 05 CherkasovUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Uav Cfd AnalysisUploaded byRanjeet Singh
- Design of a New Low Cost ROV VehicleUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- ProgrammingUploaded byMehdi Ab Sa
- The Numerical gfhyjuStudy of the Dynamic Behavior of an Underwater VehiclesUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid
- Trimcbcv Calculation Methods for a Dynamical Model of the Remus 100 AUVUploaded byMuhammad Yasar Javaid

- beers law - lab report exampleUploaded byapi-239855791
- Reconfiguration of distribution network considering loop closing constraintsUploaded byCHEIF EDITOR
- 01.Steam Generator 090221Uploaded bySreekanthMylavarapu
- SEMIKRON_DataSheet_SKN_6000_02890170.pdfUploaded byKátia Oliveira
- Chason HDP 2015Uploaded byHenry
- Leibniz Body RealismUploaded byIván
- gc4850_02_dfu_ita.pdfUploaded bybeppe53
- CSE_1-13_01Uploaded byclahu66
- 2013-03-29_FEAofPressureVessel_Part1.pdfUploaded byimamalbarqi
- Chem Model PapersUploaded byRanjan Prasad
- Exponents and Logs DUploaded byMohamed Cherri
- Quality Analysis of Pomegranate by Nondestructive Soft Xray Method 2157 7110.1000341Uploaded bymehul03ec
- Spin ClassificationUploaded bysteve_kadolph
- Lecture 44Uploaded bypelagi7
- Ultimate Tensile StrengthUploaded byphutd09
- IEEE 1368-2006 Aeolian Vibration Field MeasurementsUploaded byjorge pla
- 13624.pdfUploaded byawhahn898548
- Application of InterpolationUploaded byMarkChristianFajardo
- SYRUP CLARIFICATION.pdfUploaded byMiguel Murillo
- CE-0805723-2011Uploaded byVeiliLook
- Simple Mountains in GIMPUploaded byFrank Turfler Jr.
- Film GradientUploaded bynayan vyas
- HM SpecUploaded byShyam Chhetri
- Composite Hydrogel Beads Based on Chitosan and Laponite Preparation, Swelling, And Drug Release BehaviourUploaded byalchemik1515
- Sh Diplome i Rendesishem11Uploaded byStilian Qorri
- Problem Set FINALUploaded byManas
- In NT MRS 1.4r1 Reference GuideUploaded byAlberto Jaime
- 63003en1.PDF FanucUploaded byAmauriGarcia
- M12RR.pdfUploaded byJordan Rock
- 7. Humanities-Application of Wkb Method in Evaluation of Energy Eigen-s.k. OlasunkanmiUploaded byBESTJournals