In this proposed method, which is based on combination of the nonlinear Hybrid Extended Kalman Filter (HEKF) observer, Analytical and Semi-Empirical (ASE) formulas, and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, all of the hydrodynamic coefficients of a REMUS AUV are estimated to simulate its motions in 6 Degrees of Freedom (6-DoF). First, Using ASE formulas along with necessary static simulations of the AUV using commercial CFD code of ANSYS CFX software, some hydrodynamic derivatives like drag, lift, and fin coefficients are obtained. Then, utilizing the dynamic simulation of the Straight-Line Test (SLT), the longitudinal added mass coefficient is derived. Finally, benefiting from the HEKF code based on the parameter identification, other unknown coefficients like added mass and damping are estimated in the MATLAB software environment. In HEKF, positions and velocities of the vehicle, which are the system output vector, are obtained from a 6-DoF dynamic maneuver in CFX. It is worth mentioning that, in the present study, the remeshing algorithm in the dynamic mesh approach is used to simulate the dynamic maneuvers of the vehicle. Results, obtained from the proposed combined method, indicate a good agreement for estimated coefficients in comparison with the available analytical and experimental values.
BoardOSCouncilNR.Future needs in deep submergence science: occupied and unoccupied vehicles in basic ocean research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.
2.
FeldmanJ.DTNSRDC revised standard submarine equations of motion. Bethesda, MD: David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center.
3.
MalikSGuangP.Transient numerical simulation for hydrodynamic derivates predictions of an axisymmetric submersible vehicle. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol2013; 5: 5003–5011.
4.
LambH.Hydrodynamics, 6th ed.New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1945.
5.
FossenTI.Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. New York, NY: Wiley, 1994.
6.
PresteroTTJ. Verification of a six-degree of freedom simulation model for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 2001.
7.
KorotkinAI. Added masses of three-dimensional bodies in infinite fluid. In: Added masses of ship structures. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2009, pp.81–102.
8.
FerreiraBPintoMMatosA, et al. Hydrodynamic modeling and motion limits of auv mares. In: IECON: 2009 35th annual conference of IEEE industrial electronics, vols. 1–6, 2009. Porto, Portugal: IEEE.
9.
ShadlaghaniAMansoorzadehS. Calculation of linear added mass coefficients for a submerged vehicle using numerical and analytical methods. In: 6th International offshore industries conference. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology, 2015.
10.
NouriNMostafapourKBahadoriR.An apparatus to estimate the hydrodynamic coefficients of autonomous underwater vehicles using water tunnel testing. Rev Sci Instrum2016; 87: 065106.
11.
AageCSmittLW. Hydrodynamic manoeuvrability data of a flatfish type AUV. In: Oceans-conference, 1994, pp.425–430. Brest, France: IEEE.
12.
LeongZRanmuthugalaDPenesisI, et al. RANS-based CFD prediction of the hydrodynamic coefficients of DARPA SUBOFF geometry in straight-line and rotating arm manoeuvres. Int J Maritime Eng2015; 157: A41–A52.
13.
JohnsonDC. A coning motion apparatus for hydrodynamic model testing in a non-planar cross-flow. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 1989.
14.
RheeKYoonH-KSungT, et al. An experimental study on hydrodynamic coefficients of submerged body using planar motion mechanism and coning motion device. In: International workshop on ship manoeuvrability at the Hamburg Ship Model Basin, 2000, pp.1–20. Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA).
15.
GertlerM.The DTMB planar-motion-mechanism system. Bethesda, MD: David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, 1967.
16.
FeldmanJ.Straightline and rotating arm captive-model experiments to investigate the stability and control characteristics of submarines and other submerged vehicles. Bethesda, MD: David Taylor Research Center Ship Hydromechanics Department, 1987.
17.
LeeS-KJoungT-HCheoS-J, et al. Evaluation of the added mass for a spheroid-type unmanned underwater vehicle by vertical planar motion mechanism test. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2011; 3: 174–180.
18.
KorotkinAI. Methods for experimental determination of added masses. In: Added masses of ship structures. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2009, pp.355–379.
19.
NahonM. Determination of undersea vehicle hydrodynamic derivatives using the USAF DATCOM. In: OCEANS’93 engineering in harmony with ocean proceedings, Victoria, BC, Canada, 1993, vol. 282, New York: pp.II283–II288. New York: IEEE.
20.
NahonM. A simplified dynamics model for autonomous underwater vehicles. In: Autonomous underwater vehicle technology, 1996 AUV’96, proceedings of the 1996 symposium on 1996, Monterey, CA, 1996, pp.373–379. New York: IEEE.
21.
PerraultDE. Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) sensitivity of motion response to geometric and hydrodynamic parameters and AUV behaviours with control plane faults. Doctoral (PhD) Thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, 2002.
22.
EvansJP.Dynamic modelling and performance evaluation of an autonomous underwater vehicle. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill University, 2003.
23.
RidleyPFontanJCorkeP. Submarine dynamic modelling. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Australasian conference on robotics & automation, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2003. Sydney: Australian Robotics & Automation Association.
24.
de BarrosEADantasJLPascoalAM, et al. Investigation of normal force and moment coefficients for an AUV at nonlinear angle of attack and sideslip range. IEEE J Ocean Eng2008; 33: 538–549.
25.
SahinICraneJWWatsonKP.Application of a panel method to hydrodynamics of underwater vehicles. Ocean Eng1997; 24: 501–512.
26.
LinZLiaoS.Calculation of added mass coefficients of 3D complicated underwater bodies by FMBEM. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul2011; 16: 187–194.
27.
GhassemiHYariE.The Added Mass Coefficient computation of sphere, ellipsoid and marine propellers using Boundary Element Method. Polish Maritime Res2011; 18: 17–26.
28.
WuB-SXingFKuangX-F, et al. Investigation of hydrodynamic characteristics of submarine moving close to the sea bottom with CFD methods. J Ship Mech2005; 3: 003.
29.
TyagiASenD.Calculation of transverse hydrodynamic coefficients using computational fluid dynamic approach. Ocean Eng2006; 33: 798–809.
30.
HuZLinYGuH-t.On numerical computation of viscous hydrodynamics of unmanned underwater vehicle. Robot2007; 29: 145–150.
31.
BrogliaR. A parallel unsteady RANS code for the numerical simulations of free surface flows. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on marine research and transportation, Ischia, Naples, Italy, 2007. Naples: University of Naples “Federico II” & University of Naples “Parthenope”.
32.
PhillipsAFurlongMTurnockS. Virtual planar motion mechanism tests of the autonomous underwater vehicle autosub. In: STG-conference/lecture day “CFD in Ship Design”. Hamburg, Germany, 25 September 2007. Hamburg: Institute M-8, Hamburg University of Technology.
33.
VazGToxopeusSHolmesS. Calculation of manoeuvring forces on submarines using two viscous-flow solvers. In: ASME 2010 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, 2010, pp.621–633. Shanghai, China: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
34.
CanM. Numerical simulation of hydrodynamic planar motion mechanism test for underwater vehicles. Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 2014.
35.
LeongZRanmuthugalaDPenesisI, et al. Transient analysis of hydrodynamic interaction effects on an autonomous underwater vehicle in proximity of a moving submarine. Int J Maritime Eng2015; 157: A205–A218.
36.
LiB.Dynamics and control of autonomous underwater vehicles with internal actuators. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University, 2016.
37.
AraniHAMahdiM.Numerical analysis of oscillation frequency and amplitude effects on the AUV hydrodynamic derivatives in the pure heave motion. Underw Eng J2016; 1: 63–73.
38.
MadanADManojTI.Hydrodynamic analysis of AUV hulls using semi-empirical and CFD approach. Univ J Mech Eng2017; 5: 137–143.
39.
KimHRanmuthugalaDLeongZQ, et al. Six-DOF simulations of an underwater vehicle undergoing straight line and steady turning manoeuvres. Ocean Eng2018; 150: 102–112.
40.
NonakaKMoriMMatsumotoN.Estimating maneuvering coefficients from free-running Trials. 20th National Maritime Research Institute Report, 1972.
41.
AbkowitzMA.Measurement of hydrodynamic characteristics from ship maneuvering trials by system identification. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of SNAME,1980. New York, NY: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
42.
AlessandriACacciaMIndiveriG, et al. Application of LS and EKF techniques to the identification of underwater vehicles. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on control applications, 1998, pp.1084–1088.
43.
KimJKimKChoiHS, et al. Estimation of hydrodynamic coefficients for an AUV using nonlinear observers. IEEE J Ocean Eng2002; 27: 830–840.
44.
LuqueJCDonhaDC.Auv identification and robust control. In: Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World Congress. Milano, Italy: Elsevier2011.
45.
ArakiMSadat-HosseiniHSanadaY, et al. Estimating maneuvering coefficients using system identification methods with experimental, system-based, and CFD free-running trial data. Ocean Eng2012; 51: 63–84.
46.
SabetMTSarhadiPZariniM.Extended and unscented Kalman filters for parameter estimation of an autonomous underwater vehicle. Ocean Eng2014; 91: 329–339.
47.
SabetMTDanialiHMFathiA, et al. Identification of an autonomous underwater vehicle hydrodynamic model using the extended, cubature, and transformed unscented Kalman filter. IEEE J Ocean Eng2018; 43: 457–467.
48.
LeongZQRanmuthugalaDPenesisI, et al. Computational fluid dynamics re-mesh method to generating hydrodynamic models for maneuvering simulation of two submerged bodies in relative motion. J Comput Sci Cybern2011; 27: 353–362.
49.
CFXA. Release 18.2, Help system, theory guide, ANSYS CFX. Inc, 2018.
50.
LeongZQ. Effects of hydrodynamic interaction on an AUV operating close to a moving submarine. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania, Australian Maritime College, Australia, 2014.
51.
FossenTI. Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
52.
SaoutO.Computation of hydrodynamic coefficients and determination of dynamic stability characteristics of an underwater vehicle including free surface effects. Master’s Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, USA, 2003.
53.
LjungL. System identification: theory for the user. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall, 1987.
54.
MysorewalaMFChededLQureshiA. Comparison of nonlinear filters for the estimation of parametrized spatial field by robotic sampling. In: Industrial electronics and applications (ICIEA), 2011 6th IEEE conference on 2011, pp.2005–2010. Beijing, China: IEEE.
55.
SimonD.Optimal state estimation: Kalman H infinity, and nonlinear approaches. Hoboken, NJ: John & Wiley Sons, 2006.
56.
AzimiVMuntherDFakoorianSA, et al. Hybrid extended Kalman filtering and noise statistics optimization for produce wash state estimation. J Food Eng2017; 212: 136–145.
57.
ChuiCChenG.Kalman filtering: with real-time applications, ser. Springer Ser Inform Sci1987; 3: 17.
58.
YoonHKRheeKP.Identification of hydrodynamic coefficients in ship maneuvering equations of motion by estimation-before-modeling technique. Ocean Eng2003; 30: 2379–2404.
59.
LeongZRanmuthugalaDPenesisI, et al. Numerical simulation of spheres in relative motion using dynamic meshing techniques. In: Proceedings of the 18th Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Launceston, Australia, 2012. pp.1–4.
60.
LeongZQRanmuthugalaDPenesisI, et al. Quasi-static analysis of the hydrodynamic interaction effects on an autonomous underwater vehicle operating in proximity to a moving submarine. Ocean Eng2015; 106: 175–188.
61.
DudaBMenterFHansenT, et al. Scale-adaptive simulation of a hot jet in cross flow. In: Journal of physics: conference series, European Turbulence Conference (ETC13), 2011, p.042050. Warsaw, Poland: IOP Publishing.
62.
ZhanJ-MCaiW-HHuW-Q, et al. Numerical study on the six-DOF anchoring process of gravity anchor using a new mesh update strategy. Mar Struct2017; 52: 173–187.
63.
ZhengJChenJZhengY, et al. An improved local remeshing algorithm for moving boundary problems. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2016; 10: 403–426.
