In this article, the hydrodynamic characteristics of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) are investigated and analyzed under the influence of rotating flow fields, which were generated in a recirculating water tank via a rotating propeller. Initially, experiments were carried out to measure flow field variables and quantities of Interest across the AUV in the presence of the rotating propeller while varying the rotational speed and the extent of rotational flow strength. The flow field across the AUV was measured using an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV). These measured turbulent flow statistics were used to validate the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) based numerical predictions in a commercial CFD solver. After preliminary validation of the turbulent flow statistics with the numerical predictions, a series of numerical simulations were performed to investigate the effect of the rotational flow field of the propeller on the drag, skin friction, and pressure coefficients of the AUV. The operating speed and location of the propeller were also varied to check their effects on the hydrodynamic performance of the AUV. The results provided in this article will be useful for the design optimization of AUVs cruising in shallow water where the flow is highly rotational because of wave-current interactions. Additionally, the results and analysis are relevant to study the design and operation of AUVs that have to operate in a group of unmanned underwater vehicles or near submarines and ships where the flow field is highly complex and such rotational effects are present.
PandaJPMitraAWarriorHV. A review on the hydrodynamic characteristics of autonomous underwater vehicles. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2021; 235(1): 15–29.
2.
SahooADwivedySKRobiP. Advancements in the field of autonomous underwater vehicle. Ocean Eng2019; 181: 145–160.
3.
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.
4.
LeongZRanmuthugalaDForrestA, et al. Numerical investigation of the hydrodynamic interaction between two underwater bodies in relative motion. Appl Ocean Res2015; 51: 14–24.
5.
TianWSongBDingH. Numerical research on the influence of surface waves on the hydrodynamic performance of an AUV. Ocean Eng2019; 183: 40–56.
6.
AmiriMMEsperançaPTVitolaMA, et al. How does the free surface affect the hydrodynamics of a shallowly submerged submarine?Appl Ocean Res2018; 76: 34–50.
7.
JagadeeshPMuraliKIdichandyVG. Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic force coefficients over AUV hull formOcean Eng2009; 36(1): 113–118.
8.
HuangHZhouZLiH, et al. The effects of the circulating water tunnel wall and support struts on hydrodynamic coefficients estimation for autonomous underwater vehicles. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2020; 12: 1–10.
9.
JagadeeshPMuraliK. Application of low-re turbulence models for flow simulations past underwater vehicle hull formsJournal Nav Archit Mar Eng2005; 2(1): 41–54.
10.
MansoorzadehSJavanmardE. An investigation of free surface effects on drag and lift coefficients of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) using computational and experimental fluid dynamics methods. J Fluids Struct2014; 51: 161–171.
11.
SaeidinezhadADehghanAADehghan ManshadiM. Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic characteristics of a submersible vehicle model with a non-axisymmetric nose in pitch maneuver. Ocean Eng2015; 100: 26–34.
12.
MitraAPandaJPWarriorHV. The effects of free stream turbulence on the hydrodynamic characteristics of an AUV hull form. Ocean Eng2019; 174: 148–158.
13.
AmiriMMSphaierSHVitolaMA, et al. Urans investigation of the interaction between the free surface and a shallowly submerged underwater vehicle at steady drift. Appl Ocean Res2019; 84: 192–205.
14.
AmiriMMEsperançaPTVitolaMA, et al. An initial evaluation of the free surface effect on the maneuverability of underwater vehicles. Ocean Eng2020; 196: 106851.
15.
Bao-JiZXin-DiLWen-XuanS. Resistance performance simulation of remotely operated vehicle in deep sea considering propeller rotation. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2020; 234: 585–598.
16.
TyagiASenD. Calculation of transverse hydrodynamic coefficients using computational fluid dynamic approachOcean Eng2006; 33(5-6): 798–809.
17.
SalariMRavaA. Numerical investigation of hydrodynamic flow over an AUV moving in the water-surface vicinity considering the laminar-turbulent transitionJ Mar Sci Appl2017; 16(3): 298–304.
18.
ChenCWJiangYHuangHC, et al. Computational fluid dynamics study of the motion stability of an autonomous underwater helicopterOcean Eng2017; 143: 227–239.
19.
MostafapourKNouriNMZeinaliM. The effects of the Reynolds number on the hydrodynamics characteristics of an AUV. J Appl Fluid Mech2018; 11(2): 343–352.
MitraAPandaJPWarriorHV. Experimental and numerical investigation of the hydrodynamic characteristics of autonomous underwater vehicles over sea-beds with complex topography. Ocean Eng2020; 198: 106978.
22.
da Silva CostaGRuizAReisMA, et al. Numerical analysis of stability and manoeuvrability of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) with fishtail shape. Ocean Eng2017; 144: 320–326.
23.
da Silva CostaGAlmeidaMPde Melo FilhoARV, et al. 3-D realistic simulations over a flatfish shaped AUV submitted to ocean currents. Appl Ocean Res2019; 90: 101849.
24.
ZhangDPanGShiY, et al. Investigation of the resistance characteristics of a multi-AUV system. Appl Ocean Res2019; 89: 59–70.
25.
PandaJPWarriorHV. Numerical studies on drag reduction of an axisymmetric body of revolution with antiturbulence surface. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng2021; 143(6): 064501.
26.
CrouchJDMillerGDSpalartPR. Active-control system for breakup of airplane trailing vortices. AIAA J2001; 39(12): 2374–2381.
27.
RossowVJ. Lift-generated vortex wakes of subsonic transport aircraft. Prog Aerosp Sci1999; 35(6): 507–660.
28.
VoulgarisGTrowbridgeJH. Evaluation of the acoustic doppler velocimeter (ADV) for turbulence measurements. J Atmos Ocean Technol1998; 15(1): 272–289.
29.
PopeS. Turbulent flows. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
SiemensS. STAR CCM+ user guide version 12.04. New York, NY: Siemens, 2017.
39.
GibsonMMLaunderBE. Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer. J Fluid Mech1978; 86(3): 491–511.
40.
FukagataKIwamotoKKasagiN. Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in wall-bounded flows. Phys Fluids2002; 14(11): L73–L76.
41.
MonteSSagautPGomezT. Analysis of turbulent skin friction generated in flow along a cylinder. Phys Fluids2011; 23(6): 065106.
42.
SonKChoiJJeonWP, et al. Effect of free-stream turbulence on the flow over a spherePhys Fluids2010; 22(4): 045101.
43.
Victor Nunes de SousaJRoberto Lins de MacêdoAFerreira de Amorim JuniorW, et al. Numerical analysis of turbulent fluid flow and drag coefficient for optimizing the AUV hull design. Open J Fluid Dyn2014; 4(3): 263–277.
44.
BakicV. Experimental investigation of turbulent flows around a sphere. Hamburg-Harburg: Arbeitsbereiche Schiffbau der Techn. Univ, 2003.
45.
BridgesDHBlantonJNBrewerWH, et al. Experimental investigation of the flow past a submarine at angle of drift. AIAA J2003; 41(1): 71–81.
