International Journal of Mechanical and Production

Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6890; ISSN(E): 2249-8001
Vol. 9, Issue 3, Jun 2019, 645-654
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE DRAG

CHARACTERISTICS OF AUV HULLS

HIMANSHU UPPAL1, MANOJ T ISAAC2 & SHAMEEM. B. M1

1
Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, Academy of Maritime Education and
Training, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2
Department of Ship Technology, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Kochi, Kerala, India
ABSTRACT

Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) are self-propelled robotic platforms that carry a suite of
instruments and sensors which enable the vehicle to navigate the depths of the ocean using its onboard power. Due to
the limited power onboard the vehicle, efficient streamlining is an important design consideration for maximum
endurance of a cruising type AUV. Torpedo-shaped hull forms are very common among cruising type AUVs, which
consist of a nose section, a cylindrical mid-body section, and a tail section. This paper discusses different torpedo-shaped
bare-hulls formed by changing the nose and tail sections to identify which combination of nose and tail renders the most
hydrodynamically efficient hull form. A torpedo-shaped AUV bare-hull for which experimental results were available is

Original Article
selected as the base model and CFD analysis is performed and validated. With the validated CFD model, the different
shaped hull configuration is changed by modifying its nose and tail profiles. A total of seven configurations were
analyzed for three different speeds. The least drag shaped configuration is identified and recommended for further
inclusion of control surfaces.

KEYWORDS: AUV, CFD, Drag & Torpedo-Shape

Received: Mar 19, 2019; Accepted: Apr 09, 2019; Published: May 06, 2019; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN201971

Nomenclature

FD Drag force (N)

X Length (m)
R Maximum radius of nose profile (m)
N Nose index
Θ Semi-tail angle
U Speed (m/s)
C Tail length (m)
T Time (s)
Ω Total control volume bounded
A Total length of nose (m)
V Volume of displacement of the hull (m3)
Cdv Volumetric Drag Coefficient

1. INTRODUCTION

An Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) is a self-propelled robotic vehicle controlled and piloted by
an onboard computer, which is capable of maneuvering in 3D space without the supervision of an operator. Under

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

646 Himanshu Uppal, Manoj T Isaac & Shameem.
Shameem B. M

most environmental conditions the vehicle can

ca follow precise pre-programmed
programmed trajectories. Sensors onboard the AUV
sample the water column, providing the ability to make both spatial and time series measurements. Data collected
c by an
AUV is automatically geospatially and temporally referenced and normally
normally of superior quality. Multiple vehicle surveys
can increase productivity and insure adequate temporal and spatial sampling thereby provide a means of investigating the
coherence
oherence of the ocean in time and space [1]. AUVs find application in various fields such as research, oil exploration,
defense purpose, etc. Underwater vehicles fall into two basic categories: (a) Manned and (b) Unmanned. The manned
versions include submarines
rines and passenger carrying submersibles. The costs and risks associated with the manned
underwater vehicles are more that in the recent past decades there has been an obvious trend toward unmanned vehicles.
Unmanned underwater vehicles include towed vehicles,
vehicles, ROVs and AUVs. A towed vehicle normally does not have any
propulsion system and is generally connected to vessel by a cable. An ROV is a tethered vehicle but has thrusters for
maneuvering in 3D space and generally controlled by an operator from a surface
surface ship. In addition, they are powered
through tethers and transfer of data is established from the vessel operator to receive commands during its operations.
As far as AUVs are concerned, they are not connected by tethers or cables for its operation during
dur a mission. The fact that
AUVs are untethered brings in the necessity for onboard
onboard power on an AUV. Hence, the endurance of an AUV is limited by
the battery power they carry onboard.
board. An autonomous underwater vehicle is typically designed to operate at a nominal
speed range of 0.4 to 2 m/s [2]. Since, the availability of battery power on board is limited, to minimize the powering
needs, a streamlined hull-form
form is generally preferred for a cruising type AUV. This reduces the resistance experienced by
the hull in the fluid medium. There are different hull forms but the most common hull-forms
hull forms preferred for cruising type
AUVs are: i) Torpedo shaped profile ii) Low drag profile, Figures
Fig 1 and 2

A low-drag
drag profile has the advantage of a more streamlined flow around the body and hence the drag is less.
However, constraints like fixed size (lack of modular flexibility) and costlier fabrication constitute the difficulties [12].

Figure 1: Torpedo Shaped Profile (Nose, Cylindrical Mid-Body,

Mid Body, Tail), [7]

Figure 2: Low Drag Streamlined Profile (Radius Varies along the Length),
), Sea-glider [11]

A torpedo-shaped
shaped AUV as shown in Figure
Fig 1 on the other hand, is modular in design consisting of a forward nose
section, a mid-body
body and an aft tail section. The easy to fabricate cylindrical mid-section
mid section and the feasibility of modular
interchange outweigh the demerits such as increased drag and structural
structural weight. As hull geometry largely influences the
ability of an AUV to efficiently maneuver in the water, the focus of this study is to compare the effect of hull geometry
(profile shape) on hydrodynamic efficiency. In this paper, a torpedo-shaped
torpedo hull is selected and numerical analysis has

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Numerical Investigation on the Drag Characteristics of AUV Hulls 647

been carried out using CFD techniques by modifying the bare hull with a different nose and tail configurations to obtain
the hydro dynamically efficient (least drag) profile.

2. METHODOLOGY

The bare hull selected is the standard profile proposed by D. F. Myring with a cylindrical midbody [9]. The
bare-hull geometry presented in [6]is taken as the base model, see Figure 3. The equations defining the nose and tail
profiles are given below,

= 1 − , (Nose) (1)

= − − − + − − , (Tail) (2)

Where, r = maximum radius of nose profile, a = total length of nose, x= length, n= nose index, α= semi-tail
angle, c= tail length etc. Variables such as nose index (n), semi-tale angle (θ0), were identified responsible for the fullness
of both nose and tail sections respectively. This model had a semi-elliptical nose profile which confirmed to a shape
described by Eq.(1) when the Myring parameter n takes a value equal to 2 and the tail is termed as Huang tail [4]. The
methodology adopted is to obtain the least drag profile through numerical investigation using CFD. The experimental
results available [9] is taken as the reference data.

Figure 3: Bare-Hull Geometry (all Dimensions in mm)

Nose Shape Myring, (n=2) with Huang Tail

In the present study, a total of seven different profiles consisting of four different noses and three tails has been
configured and analyzed. These different configurations were obtained by changing the parameters n and θ0 in the Myring
equation. The configured profiles of nose and tail shapes are shown in Figures 4 and 5 respectively.

Figure 4: Configured Nose Profiles using Eq (1) and Hemispherical Shape

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

648 Himanshu Uppal, Manoj T Isaac & Shameem.
Shameem B. M

Fig
Figure 5: Configured Tail Profiles using Eq. (2)

The analysis has been carried out in three phases. In the first phase, the selected combination and the available
experimental results from the literature are validated with CFD. In the second phase, with the validated CFD solver
parameters, the nose shape of the same model is being replaced by a different combinations. The AUV hull models of
different nose profiles with Huang tail [4] is shown in Figure
Fig 6. The low drag nose profile is found from these
combinations, i. e., n = 3, and then the tail of the AUV models are replaced by combination of tail profiles as shown in
Figure 7. Finally, a least drag hull profile is obtained with a combination of least drag nose
nose and tail profile amongst all
models. Total seven profiles are tested in both the stages at different speeds (0.6, 1.0 and 1.4 m/s) and drag coefficients of
o
all the models are compared and tabulated.

Figure 6: AUV Models with Modified Nose Profiles Figure 7: AUV Models with Modified Tail Profiles

3. NUMERICAL MODELING

To investigate the single-phase

phase flow of fluid around the bare hull geometry, RANSE solver has been used for the
numerical investigation using the Siemens STARCCM+ module, considering the viscous effects. The equation for RANSE
is given below:

!& "#$% + !Γ '( ) − )* . ,-. = !Ψ Γ0φ. ndS + !Ω q ,6 dV (3)

The parameters Ω is total control volume bounded by control surface is given byψ.. ‘t’ is time, ρ is the density of
the fluid medium, v is velocity vector of fluid.

The computational domain around the bare hull geometry of AUV is taken as shown in Figure 8 where the
velocity inlet is at 10D from the nose end in bow, pressure outlet is at 39D from tail end of the bare hull, wall boundaries
are at 5D from both in top and bottom and along port and starboard sides. D is the maximum diameter of the bare hull i. e.
0.14m.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Numerical Investigation on the Drag Characteristics of AUV Hulls 649

Figure 8: Computational Domain

The domain is divided into three regions for 3D grid generation, the region differs in term of the size of the cells
and the associated growth ratio of cell dimensions perpendicular to the surface of the AUV hull. The mesh generated
around the hull is shown in the Figures 9 and 10. The boundary conditions used for the computational domain are shown in
Table 1.

ure 9: Volume Mesh Generation around the Hull

Figure

Figure 10: Volume Mesh Generation on AUV Bare Hull

Table 1: Boundary Conditions for the Computational Domain

Parts Boundary Condition
AUV bare hull Wall no-slip
Inlet boundary Velocity inlet
Outlet boundary Pressure outlet
Exterior boundary Wall-slip

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

DISCUSSION

The model [9] is first put into numerical investigation using CFD. The results at three speeds (0.6, 1, 1.4 m/s) are
computed and compared with the experimental work for validation. The drag force is obtained from the CFD solver and
the results are plotted for the coefficient of drag. The following empirical formulae are used for obtaining the drag

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

650 Himanshu Uppal, Manoj T Isaac & Shameem. B. M

coefficient,
9:
8 6 = (4)
;.< = > ? /A

Where Cdv is the volumetric coefficient of drag, FD is the drag force, V is volume (m3) of displacement of the hull
and U is the speed (m/s) and ' is the density (kg/m3) of the fluid medium. Next, the hulls are modified with the nose and
tail profiles keeping the L/D ratio as 10 for the uniformity and comparison. Due to the changes in the nose and tail profiles,
there is minimal variation in overall volume among the AUV models. The CFD results obtained has only a maximum
percentage error deviation of 1.45%. Henceforth the domain size and boundaries applied here is considered as the reference
for further investigations with different configurations of AUV hulls. The validation of the CFD results and the
experimental work from the literature are shown in Figure 11. Table 2 shows the percentage error deviation of the CFD
results with the published literature.

Figure 11: Comparison of CFD Results with the Available Experimental Results

Table 2: Error Comparison of Experiment with CFD Results

Experimental Results
CFD Results
Velocity U (m/s) (Literature) Deviation %
Cdv Cdv
0.6 0.0489 0.0481 1.45
1 0.0419 0.0421 0.58
1.4 0.0389 0.0387 0.43

4.1 Comparison Results for Different Nose Profiles

With the validated computational domain, the drag estimation is carried out for different nose profiles with Huang
tail combination for the selected speeds. The comparison of these results on the drag coefficient with the modification in
the nose is shown in Figure 12 and tabulated in Table 3.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Numerical Investigation on the Drag Characteristics of AUV Hulls 651

Figure 12: Comparison of the Drag Coefficient for Different Nose Geometry

Table 3: Drag Coefficient Values for Different Nose Profiles

Drag Coefficient Values for Different Nose Profiles (Cdv)
Base Model (n=2) and
n =1.25 n = 3.0 Hemi-Spherical
Spherical
Huang Tail
0.60 0.0482 0.0550 0.0477 0.0510
1.00 0.0421 0.0430 0.0417 0.0440
1.40 0.0387 0.0390 0.0377 0.0370

It can be seen that for the nose with n=1.25 and Hemispherical
Hemispherical shapes, the coefficient of drag is maximum at
lower speeds and reduces when the speed increases. In the case of the hemispherical
spherical nose, the separation occurred in the
forward part due to a sudden change in the geometric profile. But when the speed
speed increases, it is observed that the drag
reduced only at the maximum considered speed. From this analysis, it can be stated that the Myring nose, n=3 profile
produces less drag constantly moving from lower to higher speeds. An error comparison has been made
m and tabulated in
Table 4 with the base model and the selected nose profile n = 3 for further studies by incorporating the tail sections. The
deviation(%) shows that the obtained drag coefficient results from the CFD results for the model with nose profile
prof n=3 is
better than all the other profiles.

Table 4: Error Comparison of Cdv of Base Profile (Literature) and n=3

Speed Volumetric Drag Coefficient Values (n) Deviation
(m/s ) Cdv for n=2 Cdv for n=3 %
0.60 0.0482 0.0477 1.05
1.00 0.0421 0.0417 0.96
1.40 0.0387 0.0377 2.65

4.2 Comparison Results for Different Tail Profiles

The model with nose n=3 and Huang tail is considered as the least drag profile combination for the bare hull. It is
further required to investigate these models by changing the tail profiles of the hull. The optimum tail profile is obtained by
changing the value of semi-tail angle (θ)
(θ in the Myring tail equation. Three profiles are considered. The models are then
tested with the inclusion of tail profiles to identify the hydrodynamically low drag profile for the bare hull. The CFD
simulation has been carried out with the modified hull with different tail profiles. The comparison of the results is shown in
Figure 13 and the results are tabulated in Table 5.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

652 Himanshu Uppal, Manoj T Isaac & Shameem.
Shameem B. M

Figure 13: Comparison of Drag Coefficient for Different Tail Profiles

Table 5: Drag Coefficient Values for Different Tail Profiles

Coefficients of Volumetric Drag (Cdv)
Speed (m/s) For Different Semi-Tail Angle (θ)
Huang tail (θ)=00 (θ)=150 (θ)=250
0.6 0.0482 0.0501 0.0476 0.0497
1 0.0421 0.043 0.0415 0.0426
1.4 0.0387 0.0392 0.0382 0.0391

It can be seen that the tail profile with 150 semi-tail angles is the optimum tail with Myring, nose n=3. The results
from CFD analysis shows that, the combination of Myring nose (n=3) and Myring tail semi--tail angles (150) is having the
minimum drag. The comparison of the final AUV model with the modified tail, i. e., 150 semi-tail
semi angles are tabulated and
presented in Table 6. The percentage deviation indicates that tail profile with (θ) = 150 is having lesser drag coefficient
values than Huang tail.

Table 6:
6 Comparison of Least Drag tail with Huang Tail
Volumetric Drag Coefficients (Cdv)
Speed (m/s)
Base Model (n=2) and Huang Tail (θ) = 150 Deviation %
0.6 0.0482 0.0476 1.3020
1.0 0.0421 0.0415 1.3374
1.4 0.0387 0.0382 1.3419

5. CONCLUSIONS

In the present investigation, a numerical analysis using the CFD technique has been carried out to obtain the low
drag profile for the selected AUV models. This is an initial research work for developing a biomimetic AUV model with
higher capabilities of hovering
overing and surveillance for military purpose. The numerical results are first compared and
validated with the published research to obtain standard settings in the CFD tool. Various nose and tail profiles have been
generated with the Myring equation and further
further the CFD analysis has been carried out. The Myring nose with n = 3 with
semi tail angle of θ, 150 is found to be the lowest drag profile among the selected hull forms. In the future, the hull would
be modified with biomimetic propulsion with the control
control surface and experiments to be carried out to validate the
developed model.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Numerical Investigation on the Drag Characteristics of AUV Hulls 653

REFERENCES

1. Griffiths, G, Technology and Applications of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, of ocean Science and technology, CRC Press,
Pp. 37-38, (2002).

2. Mc. Phail S., Ocean Margin Systems, Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, pp 79-97 (2000)

3. Sighard F. Hoerner, Fluid- Dynamic theoretical, experimental and statistical information New York, USA, (1965).

4. Huang, T. T., Santelli, N., Belt, G. Stern boundary-layer flow on axisymmetric bodies. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth ONR
Symposium on Naval Hydro-dynamics Washington D. C., pp. 127–157, (1978).

5. Jagadeesh P,. Murali K Application of low-Re turbulence models for flow simulations past underwater vehicle hull forms. The
Journal of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering1 (2), 41–54, (2005).

6. Jagadeesh P & Murali K (2009). Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic force coefficients over AUV hull form. Ocean
Engineering Journal 36:113–118, (2009).

7. T Wulff, Thorben Entwicklung eines Wasserprobennahmesystems als wissenschaftliche Nutzlast eines autonomen
Tauchfahrzeugs, pp 6, 2009.

8. Deshpande, NEELA., Kulkarni, S. S., Pawar, Tejaswinee., & Gunde, Vijay. (2014). Experimental investigation on strength
characteristics of concrete using tyre rubber as aggregates in concrete. International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research and Development, 4(2), 97-108.

9. Phillips, A., M. Furlong. The Use of Computational Fluid Dynamics to Assess the Hull Resistance of Concept Autonomous
Underwater Vehicles. IEEE: OCEANS 2007: Europe. Pp. 1-6, (2007).

10. Myring D. F, The effect of body shape and Mach number on the drag of bodies of revolution in subcritical axis-symmetric
flow. Aeronautical Quarterly, Pg. 186-194, (1976).

11. Y N Kormilitsin, O A Khalizev, Theory of Submarine Design, Riviera Maritime Media, pp 272-290, (2001).

12. Wu J, Zhang M, Hydrodynamic Characteristics of the Main Parts of a Hybrid Driven `Underwater Glider PETREL.
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Edited by Nuno A. Cruz, InTech, Croatia, pp. 39-64, (2011).

13. C. C. Eriksen, T. J. Osse, R. D. Light, T, et al, (2001)“Sea glider: A long range autonomous underwater vehicle for
oceanographic research,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. 26, 2001, pp. 424–436.

14. Ananthakrishnan, P., Zhang, K.-Q. AUV motion in a wave field. In: Proceedings of the IEEE OCEANS’98 Conference, Nice,
France, pp. 1059–1063(1998).

15. Anil Dash, Panneerselvam, S., Idichandy, V. G., Vendhan, C. P. Multicomponent force measurement on submerged bodies. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference in Ocean Engineering COE’96, IIT Madras, India, 17–20 December, pp. 553–
557 (1996).

16. Choi, S. K., Ching, J. C. Navier–Stokes solution of complete turbulent flow past finite axisymmetric bodies. AIAA Journal 29
(6), 998–1001(1991).

17. Suresh, R., & Kumar, M. P. (2013). Investigation of tribological behavior and its relation with processing and microstructures
of Al 6061 metal matrix composites. International Journal of Research in Engineering & Technology, 1(2), 91-104.

18. Gertler, M. Resistance experiments on a systematic series of streamlined bodies of revolution—for application to the design of
high-speed submarines. DTRC (1950).

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

654 Himanshu Uppal, Manoj T Isaac & Shameem. B. M

19. Jagadeesh, P., Murali, K. Investigation of alternative turbulence closure models for axisymmetric underwater hull forms. The
Journal of Ocean Technology 1 (2), 37–57(2006).

20. Phillips, A. B., Furlong, M., and Turnock, S. R. The use of computational fluid dynamics to assess the hull resistance of
concept autonomous under-water vehicles. In Proceedings of the OCEANS2007 Europe TS/IEEE conference and Exhibition,
Aberdeen, UK, 18–21 June 2007, pp. 1–6(IEEE, New York).

21. Stevenson, P., Furlong, M., and Dormer, D. AUV shapes – combining the practical and hydrodynamic considerations. In
Proceedings of the OCEANS Europe MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, Aber- deen, UK, 18–21 June 2007, pp. 1–6
(2007).

22. Curtis, T. L., Perrault, D., Williams, C., and Bose, N. N-Scout: a general-purpose AUV for systems research. In proceedings of
the 2000 International Symposium on Underwater technology, pp. 73–77 (2000)

23. Fallows, C. D. Characterization of the propulsion system of autonomous underwater vehicles. PhD Thesis, University of
Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK, (2004).

24. Pashias, C. Shape optimization of a long range autonomous underwater vehicle using computa- tional fluid dynamics. Ship
Science Part III Honors Report SS583, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK, (2001).

25. Rathod, Chandar., & Reddy, G. K. (2016). Experimental investigation of angular distortion and transverse shrinkage in CO2
arc welding process. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 5(4), 21-28.

26. Burcher, R. and Rydill, L. Concepts in submarine design, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) (1994).

27. Katz, J. and Plotkin, A. Low-speed aerodynamics: from wing theory to panel methods, 1991 (McGraw- Hill, New York)(
1991).

28. Versteeg, H. K. and Malalasekere, W. An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method, 2nd
edition,(Pearson Prentice Hall, Saddle River, New Jersey) (2007)

29. G. Stante, M. Nahon and C. D. Williams. Simulation of an underwater glider. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Symposium on unmanned untethered submersible Technology conference (UUST’07), Durham, NH, USA, 19 to 20 August.
AUSI (2007).

30. Inoue, T., H. Suzuki, R. Kitamoto, Y. Watanabe and H. Yoshida.. Hull Form Design of Underwater Vehicle Applying CFD
(Computational Fluid Dynamics). OCEANS 2010 IEEE – Sydney. Pp 1-5 (2010).

31. Sagala F. and R. Bambang. Development of Sea Glider Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Platform for Marine Exploration
and Monitering. Indian Journal of Geo Marine Sciences: Vol. 40, N. 2. Pp. 287-295 (2011).

32. Stevenson P., M. Furlong, and D. Dormer. AUV shapes - Combining the Practical and Hydrodynamic Considerations.
OCEANS 2007 – Europe. Pp. 1-6 (2007).

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11