See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317364367

Pure Heaving and Pure Pitching Motion of an Underwater Glider

Article  in  Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience · February 2017

DOI: 10.1166/asl.2017.8361

CITATIONS READS

0 53

6 authors, including:

Muhammad Yasar Javaid Mark Ovinis

Government College University Faisalabad Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
14 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fakhruldin Hashim Adi Maimun

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
115 PUBLICATIONS   273 CITATIONS    146 PUBLICATIONS   251 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Improved Savonius VAMCT Rotor Performance View project

Amphibious boat with Air-cushion Effect. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Yasar Javaid on 03 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RESEARCH ARTICLE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Copyright © 2015 American Scientific Publishers Advanced Science Letters

All rights reserved Vol. XXXXXXXXX
Printed in the United States of America

Pure Heaving and Pure Pitching Motion of

an Underwater Glider
Muhammad Yasar Javaid 1, Mark Ovinis1, Fakhruldin B M Hashim1, Adi Maimun2, Yasser M. Ahmed2, 3, Barkat Ullah 1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Perak, Malaysia
2
Marine Technology Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
3
Dept. of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

When in motion, a glider experiences forces and moment which may destabilize it. Typically, towing tank tests are used to
determine its hydrodynamic forces and moments. In this paper, an alternative method to determine these forces and moments
based on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) are proposed and validated analytically. In addition, the determination of
added masses and inertia masses of a newly developed underwater glider based on its pure heaving and pure pitching motion
are described. In conclusion, CFD simulation can be used as an alternative method to evaluate the acceleration based
derivatives of an underwater glider.

Keywords: Underwater Glider, Heave motion, Pitch motion

1. INTRODUCTION

When in motion, an underwater glider experiences
hydrodynamic forces and moments which may
destabilize it. Therefore, the hydrodynamic
characteristics of a glider play an important role in its
motion [1]. Currently, different experimental methods
are available to evaluate these hydrodynamic
characteristics i.e. Planar Motion Mechanism (PMM)
test, Rotating Arm Test, Rectilinear Drift Test, etc.
However, these experimental tests are tedious and time
consuming to perform, requiring dedicated and
expensive test facilities, prototype fabrication and
lengthy experimental setup.
Recently, CFD was shown to be a good alternative to
the above mention tests [2-5] have employed the CFD
simulation to validate with experimental results under
steady state conditions e.g. straight line resistance test,
pitch/drift angle etc. Zhang et al. [6] and Pan et al. [7]
simulation to calculate the acceleration base
hydrodynamic derivatives of the submarine and
underwater vehicles under unsteady conditions e.g. pure
heaving, pure pitching, pure swaying, pure yawing etc.
Mostly, they had simulated the cylindrical bar shape hull
of vehicles without external wings etc.
*
Email Address: yasar248@gmail.com
1 Adv. Sci. Lett. Vol. xx, No. yy, 2016
They employed a separate fluid domain around the
hull and FLUENT based solver with User Define
Function (UDF) to make the domain motion translation
or rotational according to the test. However, this
simulation method with UDF was complicated because
it was written in C programing language and difficult to
handle the simple mesh topology and increased the
simulation cost.
In this study, CFD is used to determine the
hydrodynamic characteristics of a newly developed
underwater glider. These derivatives are subsequently
used to assess the maneuverability of an underwater
glider. For this purpose, the hydrodynamic
characteristics were determined analytically and
numerically [8]. Specifically, for the numerical
simulation, a PMM test was replicated using CFX
version 16.1 with two simple domain e.g. fluid domain
and glider domain.
2. EQUATIONS OF MOTION
The 6 DOF motion of underwater glider is described
by using two frames of references, i.e. body fixed frame,
and earth-fixed frame as shown in Figure 1.
Let x, y, z denote the axes in the body frame and X,
1936-6612/2011/4/400/008 doi:10.1166/asl.2011.1261
Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXX–XXX, 2015 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Y, Z the axes in the earth frame respectively. x and y lies coefficient, it is assumed that the acceleration is zero i.e.
in the horizontal plane and is perpendicular to the w  0 and w  a ω in Equation 4 and 5. The velocity,
0
gravity along the wings of the glider. The z-axis is
w is the cosine function in lateral direction that is 90
positive downwards and lies in the direction of gravity.
degrees out of phase with lateral displacement, Z). The
The equation of motion for the glider is nonlinear
velocity coefficients are derived from these out-of-phase
because of the presence of coupling forces and moments
in 6 DOF [9]. forces (e.g., Zout and M out ) as given in Equation 9:
Z out M out
Zw  and M w   (9)
a 0ω a 0ω
Likewise, the acceleration based w coefficients are
determined based on the in-phase components
(e.g. Z in and M in ). Acceleration is the sine function that
is in-phase with the lateral displacement, Z). The
acceleration based coefficient is given in Equation 10,
whereby the velocity is equal to zero
( w  0 and w 2
  a ω );
0
Figure 1Frames of references of a glider Z in M in
m  Zw
  and mx G  M w
 
(10)
2 2
a 0ω a 0ω
In this work, a simplified linearized equation of
4. PURE PITCH MOTION
motion along the vertical plane is used as given in
Equation (1) – (3);
The pitch motion is a sinusoidal motion of the glider
- X U  (m  X )U  0 (1)
u u along the x-z plane at a constant speed along the x-axis,
 - Z w  (mx  Z )q  (mU  Z )q  0
(m - Z )w (2) as shown in Figure 3.

w w G q q

- (mx  M )w
  (I - M )q - M w  (mx U - M )q  0 (3)
G 
w yy q w G q
3. PURE HEAVE MOTION

Heave motion is a cyclic oscillation motion in the z-

axis with constant velocity along the x-axis or a function
of sinusoidal motion along x-z coordinates, as shown in
Figure 3: Pitching motion of a glider
Figure 2.
The relationship between the pitching displacement
for this cyclic oscillation, θ and its association with the
motion parameters are given by Equation 11 - 13
θ  θ 0 cosωt  (11)
z (12)
tanθ 
U0
Figure 2: Heave motion of a glider
During the cyclic oscillation, the heading along the The pitching velocity (q) and acceleration ( q ) are
x-axis is fixed and kept parallel to the centre line of the derived from the pitching displacement, as given in
water tank. Under this assumption, the equation of Equation 13 - 14,
motion can be simplified for normal force, Z and q  θ  θ 0 ωsinωt (13)
moment, M as: q  θ  θ ω 2 cost
0
(14)
 Z w w  (m  Z w  Z
 )w (4)
For pure pitching motion i.e. ( z  w  w
  0 ), the
 M w w  (M w
 - mx  M
)w (5) equations simplify to Equation 15 and 16
G
. The acceleration component on the glider in heave (Zq - mU)q  (Zq - mx)q  Z (15)
G
direction is given in Equation (6) – (8):
(M w - mx U)q  (I - M q )q  M (16)
z  a 0 sint (6) G yy
w  z  a 0 ωcosωt (7) The force and moment due to rotational motion are
calculated by dividing the force, Z and moment, M
  z  a 0 ω 2 sint
w (8) components associated with the in-phase and out-phase
Here, a 0 is a fixed amplitude, ω is the frequency of with angular displacement, θ ), as given in Equation 17
and 18:
glider model and ‘t’ is time. For the velocity based
2
 RESEARCH ARTICLE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Z out M out
Z q  mU  and M q  mx G U   (17)
θ 0ω θ 0ω
Z in M
mx G  Z q   and M q  I yy   in (18)
θ 0ω2 θ 0ω2
5. ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION

Lamb [8] described a method to investigate the effect

of added masses during heaving and pitching motion of
submerged bodies. A submerged body is considered as
the ellipsoid with origin at the center of the ellipsoid
with ‘a’ the semi-axis horizontal length of glider along
the x-direction and ‘b’ represent the semi-axis along the
y and z-direction, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 5: Fluid Domain for Heaving Motion
PMM Pitch Motion: - To replicate the PMM test for
pitching motion the inner domain (glider) is given a
pitching motion at the glider’s center of gravity. The
outer fluid domain is kept constant.

Figure 6 Fluid Domain for Pitching Motion

Figure 4 illustration of major and minor axes [7] Governing Equations: The conservative form of the
The total mass of displaced fluid by glider hull unsteady Reynold Average Navier-Stokes (URANS)
4 equations, as shown in Equation 27-28, is used for the
m  πρab 2 (21)
3 Ansys CFX solver:
And the added inertia matrix of ellipsoid hull is given  
by Equation 22 - 24  (U i )  0 (27)
t x j
 α0 
mx   m (22) U i


(U iU j )  
p


( ij  u i u j )  S M
(28)
2α  t x j xi x j
 0
 β0  Where τ presents the stress tensor of normal and shear
my  mz   m (23)
2β  components. ρ u i u j represents the Reynold average stress.
 0
m (b 2  a 2 )(α 0  β 0 ) Turbulence Model: The SST k-ω viscosity model
Iz  (24) and k-ε turbulence model were used to solve the
5 2(b 2  a 2 )  (b 2  a 2 )(α  β )
0 0 Reynold stresses, as it better predicts the hydrodynamic
Where derivatives of a submerged body [10].
2(1  e 2 )  1 1  e  Mesh Generation: A fine unstructured mesh was
α0   ln  e (25) created using a build in function in CFD FLUENT. An
e 2  2 1 e 
unstructured mesh with the use of inflation layers to
1 1  e2  1  e  capture boundary layers is recommended to achieve high
β0    ln  (26)
e2 2e 2  1  e  accuracy [11]. The inflation layers were generated
6. METHODOLOGY around the glider wall to capture more accuracy. The
height of inflation layer was calculated based on an
PMM Heave Motion: - To replicate PMM test for empirical formula derived by Schlichting [12], based on
heaving motion, the flow domain is modeled similar as a the boundary layer theory for a flat plate, as given in
towing tank test. It consists of two domains; an inner Equation 29.
domain and an outer domain. The outer domain is fixed  Δyμ τ
in a similar way to a towing tank with the glider moving Δy  (29)
ν
vertical along the tank, as shown in Figure 5.
where, Δy represents the height of first cell from the
τ
body surface, μ τ  w
, τ the shear stress of
ρ w
wall and ν the sea water kinematic viscosity. Therefore,
the height of the inflation layer, Δy+ is given by Equation
30.
3
Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXX–XXX, 2015 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Δy
Δy   0.172 Re 0.9 (30)
L L
The location of first cell was calculated based on
Equation 30 at between 10 and 30. Figure 7 shows the
mesh density of the glider and fluid domain, which
consist of 338,593 meshes. This approach provides
better computation efficiency as compared to a
structured mesh.

Figure 9 Moment acting on glider during heaving motion (ω=0.2)

Figure 7 Mesh generation of glider

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pure Heaving Motion:

The heaving motion of a newly developed glider was
investigated through CFD simulation to evaluate the
dynamic forces and moments at different lateral
accelerations, based on Equation (8), at various
frequencies and amplitudes, as given in Table 1 and Table
2. A constant axial speed, U of 0.3 m/sec was used as an Figure 10 Lateral force coefficient heaving motion
underwater glider moves at low speeds of 0.25 m/sec to
0.5 m/sec [13]. The axial acceleration of glider model
was set to zero. Figure 8 and Figure 9 shows the time
history of the variation in normal force and moment at
different amplitudes (i.e. a=0.25, 0.5) for the same
frequency (ω=0.2 Hz). The results show that the
magnitude of force and moment increases with
increasing amplitude, with the number of cycle and
phase angle the same during oscillatory motion.

Figure 11 Pitch force coefficient heaving motion

A comparison between lateral force and moment
coefficients of tapered wings is shown in Figure 10 and
Figure 11. The added masses and coupled inertia masses
derived from the lateral forces and coupled inertia
Figure 8 Normal force acting on glider during heaving motion moments is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.
(ω=0.2) Table 1 Added mass derived from the pure heave motion
at amplitude 0.5 m
ω(rad/s) (CFD (Theoretical % Error
simulation) value)
  0.2 -47.327 -43.863 7.3
  0.3 -43.1677 -43.863 1.6
  0.4 -43.5964 -43.863 0.61

4
 RESEARCH ARTICLE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Table 2 Added mass derived from the pure heave motion surfaces e.g. wings and rudder, because the analytical
at amplitude 0.25 m expression has limitation to determine the all surface
ω(rad/s) (CFD (Theoretical % Error inertia effect during oscillation.
simulation) value) Table 3 Inertia mass derived from the pure pitch motion
  0.2 -48.645 -43.863 9.85 ω(rad/s) (CFD (Theoretical % Error
simulation) value)
  0.3 -43.677 -43.863 0.43
  0.4 -2.00421 -1.36639 31.82392
  0.4 -43.942 -43.863 0.19
The CFD simulation results shows good agreement with   0.5 -1.88476 -1.36639 27.50307
the theoretical calculation based on Equation 22-26, with   0.6 -1.88244 -1.36639 27.41404
a maximum discrepancy of around 9.85%. This reason CONCLUSION
for this discrepancy can be attributed to differences in In this paper, the PMM test for heaving and pitching
the model shape e.g. with wings and rudder, also motion of an underwater glider was replicated the
neglected the viscous effect, which may be difficult to through CFD simulation. Because the experimental
determine through analytical expression. The calculation of heaving and pitching motion are
discrepancies can also be attributed to the selection of expensive and required special facilities and equipment.
mesh deformation or grid size and fluid domain around A comparison of the added mass derivatives obtained
the glider. from the pitching and heaving motion showed good
Pure pitch motion: agreement with theoretical calculation during heaving
The corresponding lateral force and pitch moment motion. But the results discrepancy was high during
coefficient of the glider for pitching motions at different pitching motion because of no accurate method to
angular acceleration at different frequencies and determine the effect of external surfaces of the glider.
constant amplitude, as given in Table 3 are shown in Based on this study, it was concluded that the CFD
Figure 12 and Figure 13 . simulation is a useful tool to determine the
hydrodynamic derivatives of submerged vehicles such as
the submarine, torpedoes and autonomous underwater
gliders.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS for providing the resources required for
this work.

Figure 12 Lateral force coefficient pitching motion
Figure 13 Pitch moment coefficient pitching motion
CFD simulation results had shown the maximum
discrepancy 31% at frequency 0.4 Hz. This discrepancy
occurs of fluid attraction with the glider external
5
REFERENCES
[1] M. Y. Javaid, M. Ovinis, T. Nagarajan, and F. B. Hashim,
"Underwater Gliders: A Review," in MATEC Web of
Conferences, 2014, p. 02020.
[2] P. Jagadeesh, K. Murali, and V. Idichandy, "Experimental
investigation of hydrodynamic force coefficients over AUV
hull form," Ocean Engineering, vol. 36, pp. 113-118, 2009.
[3] F. Azarsina and C. D. Williams, "Manoeuvring simulation
of the MUN Explorer AUV based on the empirical
hydrodynamics of axi-symmetric bare hulls," Applied
Ocean Research, vol. 32, pp. 443-453, 2010.
[4] P. Jagadeesh and K. Murali, "RANS predictions of free
surface effects on axisymmetric underwater body,"
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid
Mechanics, vol. 4, pp. 301-313, 2010.
[5] A. B. Phillips, "Simulations of a self propelled autonomous
underwater vehicle," University of Southampton, 2010.
[6] H. Zhang, Y.-r. Xu, and H.-p. Cai, "Using CFD software to
calculate hydrodynamic coefficients," Journal of Marine
Science and Application, vol. 9, pp. 149-155, 2010.
[7] S. Malik and P. Guang, "Transient Numerical Simulation
for Hydrodynamic Derivates Predictions of an
Axisymmetric Submersible Vehicle," Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, vol. 5, pp.
5003-5011, 2013.
[8] H. Lamb, "Hydrodynamics. 1932," Article, vol. 257, pp.
440-442, 1945.
[9] T. I. Fossen, Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics
and Motion Control: Wiley, 2011.
[10] J. Fonfach and C. G. Soares, "Improving the resistance of a
Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXX–XXX, 2015 RESEARCH ARTICLE

series 60 vessel with a CFD code," in V European

Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2010.
[11] B. G. A. Phillips, S. Lewis, S. Turnock, D. Hudson, and M.
Tan, "The simulation of free surface flows with
Computational Fluid Dynamics," in ANSYS UK User
Conference, 2008.
[12] H. Schlichting and K. Gersten, Boundary-layer theory:
Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.
[13] S. Zhang, J. Yu, A. Zhang, and F. Zhang, "Spiraling motion
of underwater gliders: Modeling, analysis, and
experimental results," Ocean Engineering, vol. 60, pp. 1-13,
2013.

View publication stats