Design and Numerical Assessment of the Control Surfaces of an

Underwater Vehicle
By
Biswajit Ghosh
Enrolment No: 30EE13A12001
Progress Report of Thesis work
For the Degree of Master of technology in Applied and Computational
Mechanics of
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR)

CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute

M.G Avenue, Durgapur-713209, West Bengal
December, 2014

CERTIFICATE

I hereby declare that the work which is presented in this report entitled in partial fulfilment of
requirements for the award of M.Tech degree in Applied and Computational Mechanics
submitted in the School of Mechatronics of Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute
(CMERI) under AcSIR, is an authentic record of my own work carried out during a period from
Aug 2014 to Dec 2014 under the supervision of Dr. Sudipta De. The content presented in this
report has not been submitted by me in any other University/Institute.

Biswajit Ghosh
PGRPE 2013

Date

Applied and Computational Mechanics

This is to certify that the above declaration made by the candidate is correct to the best of my
knowledge.

Dr. Sudipta De
Senior Scientist

Date

CSIR-CMERI, Durgapur

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me extreme pleasure to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Sudipta De, Senior Scientist,
for his guidance, and for believing in me and providing me freedom at my work. His suggestions
proved invaluable to me, and were a constant support throughout my part thesis work, without
which this thesis would not have reached to its final shape.

CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE..... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.... 3
LIST OF CONTENTS.. 4-5
INTRODUCTION.... 6
OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 1

The different motion of underwater vehicle----------------------------------------7

1.1. Heave ----------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.2. Sway -----------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.3. Surge -----------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.4. Pitch ------------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.5. Roll -------------------------------------------------------------------------7
1.6. Yaw-------------------------------------------------------------------------8
Chapter 2
Drag---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
2.1. Different Type of Drag--------------------------------------------------------8
2.1.1. Form drag-----------------------------------------------------------8
2.1.2. Skin Friction Drag-------------------------------------------------9
2.1.3.Lift Induced Drag--------------------------------------------------9
2.2. Drag Reduction Technique---------------------------------------------------11

Chapter 3
Control Surface----------------------------------------------------------------------------12
3.1. Rudder-----------------------------------------------------------------------12
3.2. Planes------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Chapter 4
Literature Survey-------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Chapter 5
Design of Control Surface--------------------------------------------------------------15
5.1 CFD Results for an Isolated Control Surface--------------------------17
REFRENCES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Figures
Fig 1: Basic Exterior of AUV ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 07
Fig 5.1: The computational domain for an isolated control surface.---------------------------------------- 18
Fig 5.2: Streamlines at a span wise station for a free-stream speed of U = 3.0 m/s.---------------------- 18
Fig 5.3: Convergence history of drag force (N) for U = 1.0 and 1.5 m/s free-stream speeds.----------- 19
Fig 5.4: Convergence history of drag force (N) for U = 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 m/s free-stream speeds.----- 20
Fig 5.3:Top view and Front view of AUV-500 model-------------------------------------------------------- 22

List of Tables
Table 1: Design parameters of some of the existing underwater vehicles. Note
that all of them have utilized an additional factor on the DnV calculated area.----------------- 16

Introduction:
The origin of underwater vehicles can be tracked back over two millennia. Alexander the great is
said to have descended into the ocean in 332 BC using primitive diving bell. Italian painter &
inventor Leonardo da Vinci created a wooden frame covered with goat skin with oars for
propulsion. A number of cultures, situated near by sea tried their hand in developing underwater
vehicle. But the real development of underwater vehicle started during the early 1900s. In the
second half of 1900s with the development of electronics component it become possible to build
unmanned underwater vehicles, which can be controlled remotely from outside. Then AUV
(Autonomous Underwater Vehicles) came in existence.

Autonomous underwater vehicles or AUVs are unmanned, self-contained systems designed to

carry out task in the marine environment. AUVs typically have one axial propulsor providing
thrust with a complement of moveable wing-like appendage called control surfaces, which
provide maneuvering forces. Unlike remotely operated vehicles, AUVs are almost completely
self-sufficient. Operating with on-board power and sensors, command decisions are made with a
minimum of human intervention.

AUV falls under the category of flight vehicle as they required forward motion to maneuver. The
typical geometry for an AUV is streamlined shape with an axially mounted propeller, as shown
in fig. below. Maneuvering of an AUV is achieved through adjustment of control devices namely
hull, rudder, thruster etc. Expect in very special circumstances, an AUV is a six degree-offreedom system capable of three translation motion and three rotation motion.

Objective:
Issues related to maneuverability of AUVs are becoming increasingly complex and challenging.
In order to meet these demands the next generation of AUVs will need to be faster, to operate for
longer durations, and to be more maneuverable than existing vehicles. It is therefore vital that the
6

hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on a self-propelled maneuvering AUV can be

predicted accurately at the initial design stage. The primary objective of the investigation is to
improve AUV performance by designing an optimal geometrical shape for control surface,
which can reduce the drag force. Reduction of the drag force can save the power required to
drive the vehicle by ample amount as well it can result in smooth maneuvering of the vehicle too.

Control Surface

Thruster
Body

Fig 1.1 : Basic Exterior of AUV

1. The different motion of underwater vehicle :

1.1. Heave: is the linear vertical (up/down) motion
1.2. Sway: is the linear lateral (side-to-side) motion
1.3. Surge: is the linear longitudinal (front/back) motion
1.4. Pitch:
is the rotation of a vessel about its transverse (side-to-side) axis. An offset or deviation from
normal on this axis is referred to as 'trim' or 'out of trim'.

1.5. Roll:
is the rotation of a vessel about its longitudinal (front/back) axis. An offset or deviation from
normal on this axis is referred to as list or heel. Heel refers to an offset that is intentional or
7

expected, as caused by wind pressure on sails, turning, or other crew actions. List normally refers
to an unintentional or unexpected offset, as caused by flooding, battle damage, shifting cargo,
etc.

1.6. Yaw:
is the rotation of a vessel about its vertical axis. An offset or deviation from normal on this axis
is referred to as deviation or set.
In 1950 SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) prepared a set of
nomenclature for treating the motion of a submerged body through a fluid.

2. Drag :
In fluid dynamics drag mean the fluid friction or fluid resistance caused upon a body in the
opposite direction of the moving body. There are different kind of drag caused during the motion
of underwater vehicles.

2.1. Different Type of Drag:

2.1.1. Form drag:
Form drag or pressure drag arises because of the shape of the object. The general size and shape
of the body are the most important factors in form drag; bodies with a larger presented crosssection will have a higher drag than thinner bodies; sleek objects have lower form drag. Form
drag follows the drag equation, meaning that it increases with the square of velocity, and thus
becomes more important for high-speed aircraft.

Form drag depends on the longitudinal section of the body. A prudent choice of body profile is
essential for a low drag coefficient. Streamlines should be continuous, and separation of the
boundary layer with its attendant vortices should be avoided.

2.1.2. Skin Friction drag :

It arises from the friction of the fluid against the "skin" of the object that is moving through it.
Skin friction arises from the interaction between the fluid and the skin of the body, and is directly
related to the wetted surface, the area of the surface of the body that is in contact with the fluid.
As with other components of parasitic drag, skin friction follows the drag equation and rises with
the square of the velocity.
The skin friction coefficient,

where

, is defined by

is the local wall shear stress,

is the fluid density, and

is the free-stream

velocity (usually taken outside the boundary layer or at the inlet). It is related to the
momentum thickness as

Skin friction is caused by viscous drag in the boundary layer around the object. The boundary
layer at the front of the object is usually laminar and relatively thin, but becomes turbulent and
thicker towards the rear. The position of the transition point depends on the shape of the object.
There are two ways to decrease friction drag: the first is to shape the moving body so that
laminar flow is possible, like an airfoil. The second method is to decrease the length and crosssection of the moving object as much as practicable. To do so, a designer can consider the
fineness ratio, which is the length of the aircraft divided by its diameter at the widest point (L/D).

2.1.3. Lift-induced drag:

Lift is produced by the changing direction of the flow around a control surface. The change of
direction results in a change of velocity, which is an acceleration. To change the direction of the
flow therefore requires that a force be applied to the fluid; lift is simply the reaction force of the
fluid acting on the wing.
9

When producing lift, air below the control surface is generally at a higher pressure than the air
pressure above the control surface, while air above the wing is generally at a lower than
atmospheric pressure. On a control surface of finite span, this pressure difference causes air to
flow from the lower surface wing root, around the wingtip, towards the upper surface wing root.
This span-wise flow of air combines with chord-wise flowing air, causing a change in speed and
direction, which twists the airflow and produces vortices along the wing trailing edge. The
vortices created are unstable, and they quickly combine to produce wingtip vortices. The
resulting vortices change the speed and direction of the airflow behind the trailing edge,
deflecting it downwards, and thus inducing downwash behind the wing.
Wingtip vortices modify the airflow around a wing. Compared to a wing of infinite span,
vortices reduce the effectiveness of the wing to generate lift, thus requiring a higher angle of
attack to compensate, which tilts the total hydrodynamic force rearwards. The angular deflection
is small and has little effect on the lift. However, there is an increase in the drag equal to the
product of the lift force and the angle through which it is deflected. Since the deflection is itself a
function of the lift, the additional drag is proportional to the square of the lift.
For a planar wing with an elliptical lift distribution, induced drag is often calculated as follows.
These equations make the induced drag depend on the square of the lift, for a given aspect ratio
and surface area (while varying the angle of attack), but as the accompanying graph shows, this
is only an approximation and is not valid at high angles of attack (and probably not for very high
values of aspect ratio either).

where

and

10

Thus

Hence

where:
is the aspect ratio,
is the induced drag coefficient,
is the lift coefficient,
is the induced drag,
is the wing span efficiency value by which the induced drag exceeds that of an elliptical lift
distribution, typically 0.85 to 0.95,
is the lift,
is the gross wing area: the product of the wing span and the Mean Cord
is the true speed and

is the equivalent speed.

2.2. Drag Reduction Technique:

Drag can be reduced efficiently by the suitable choice of geometry and by smoothening the
surface of the vehicle. lot of work have been done so far to design the optimal geometrical shape
to make the effect of drag minimal. Few of them are done by Parsons et al. (1974), Mair et al.
(1978).

11

3. Control Surface:
control surfaces allow the vehicle to adjust and control its different motions i.e. yaw, pitch, roll.
In UV, the plane & rudder are mainly used as the control surface. Design of the control surface is
very important aspect as they decide the manoeuvring efficiency of the vehicle [19]

3.1. Rudder:
A rudder is one of the oldest innovations in ship design. The earliest rudders were oars, held
vertically, and moved from side to side to steer the ship. The term "starboard" for the right-hand
side of a vessel comes from the old practice of hanging this steering oar from the right stern
quarter of the vessel. The left side was commonly called "larboard" until fairly recently, when
the term "port" became more common. The rudder works by acting against the water flow as the
ship moves through the water. Swinging the rear end of the rudder to the left causes the stern to
move to the right. Traditionally, rudder commands were given based on the direction the forward
end of the tillerwhich exists, even with a wheelmoves in steering the vessel. Thus, a
command to put on so-and-so many degrees of port rudder means the ship will turn to starboard.
The wheels on older ships were rigged to turn in the opposite direction from the vessel. (Which
actually makes some sense, if you think of it as pushing the vessel instead of turning the wheel.)
More recent practice is to say "steer right/left," and rig the wheel so that the ship responds like a
car.
Since rudder action is based on the movement of water across the control surface, the vessel has
been moving before the rudder can work. "Steerage way" is the minimum speed required to steer
a given vessel.

3.2. Planes:
Vertical motion through the water is controlled by the bow and stern planes. These are horizontal
rudders, attached in pairs to either side of the hull, at bow and stern.
Angling these planes up or down causes the boat to rise or sink. The boat itself is normally kept
as close as practical to neutral buoyancy, which is the point at which it will neither rise nor sink.
The flow of water over the planes allows the commander to "fly" the boat through the water.
12

In practice, the stern planes are normally used to control the angle of the boat in the water, while
the bow planes are used to make it rise or sink. Most World War II submarines used a separate
operator for the bow and stern planes. Modern boat designs often combine the rudder and planes
controls in an aircraft-type yoke, with a single operator for all control surfaces.

4. Literature Survey:
Some of the early work regarding the study of the motion and force on the body of the vehicle
was done by (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) in 1950 [1]. Later on this work
has been extended to the detailed study of drag force associated with the surface of the vehicle.
An experimental study of drag for a systematic series of axisymmetric bodies was reported by
Gertler in I950 [2]. Five parameters characterizing the rounded-nose, pointed tail shapes were
perturbed one at a time about a selected "parent model." They tested twenty four model by
towing models through water at Reynolds numbers up to Rv = 5x108. The study did not account
the drag by exploiting laminar flow. It was believed that such flow could not be used effectively
at lower Reynolds numbers (Rv = 3x108) to which the designs were to be extrapolated. The study
suggested that the resistance of submerged streamlined bodies can be reduced by proper
geometrical shaping, and presents a minimum resistance submarine hull shape for all turbulent
flow. More or less similar kind of work was reported by Carmichael in 1966 [3]. The purpose of
the study was to determine if there is any possibility of significant drag reduction through shape
manipulation alone. One of the first methods to calculate the drag mathematically was proposed
by Parsons et al. (1974) [4]. They used a computer driven optimization technique to calculate the
minimum drag. Eight-parameter class of rounded nose, tail boom bodies were developed for the
optimization. In 1976, Paul s. Granville published a departmental report named Elements of The
Drag of Underwater Bodies[5]. Several aspect, including the reason behind different kind of
drag, mathematical expression for calculating drag, suitable measures to reduce drag etc. was
elaborately discussed there.

13

One of the first approach of calculating drag force of AUV was presented by Sarkar et al. (1997)
[6]. They used elliptic form of the governing equations with a least - model of turbulence for
simulating the complex flow past axisymmetric AUVs. The novel model was far more robust
than the available techniques.
Optimal design of control surface of AUV autosub was studied by Merry et al. They tested a
full scale model in wind tunnel to calculate forces on it [18]. Both numerical analysis and free
model testing of control surface of AUV was done by Dantas et al. recently in 2011 and 2013 [7]
[8].
It has been observed through literature that, empirical formulas are dominant over CFD
simulation. But now a days, with the recent advancement of the CFD, really good works are
being carried out through simulations. In 2008, Bettle et al. did the simulation of 6-dof body [9].
They modeled the dynamics of the body to check the rising stability and overall stability of the
body. Later in 2013, an implicit predictorcorrector method is presented by the same author for
the simultaneous integration of the six degrees of-freedom (DOF) equations of motion for a
maneuvering submarine. and the unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes (URANS)
equations describing the vehicle hydrodynamics. In this work different maneuvering condition
like emergency rising, horizontal zigzag were simulated with decent accuracy.
Turning radius is an important aspect for defining the motion characteristics Underwater vehicle.
Lots of literature is available discussing the turning simulation of underwater vehicle. few of
them are being mentioned here. In 2011, Turn and zigzag maneuvers of a surface combatant
were simulated using a URANS approach with dynamic overset grids by Carrica [10].
In 2012, Zhang et al. did a simulation of the flow over axisymmetric submarine hulls in steady
turning[11]. This work is considered to be the one of the best till current date. The study was
done over six different shape of hull. The computational model for the turning problem was
based on the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations (RANS) and the anisotropic Reynolds
Stress Model (RSM) of turbulence. Another good work, that need to be mentioned is by Phillips
et al. they have given a strategic guide to reduce the drag of AUV Autosub 3 and discussed
several measure to be taken to increase the overall efficiency of AUV[12]. A chinese group have
done analysis of hydrodynamic characteristics of unmanned underwater vehicle moving close to
14

the sea bottom[13]. they have used Shear stress transport model (short for SST k- model)
combined the advantages of the k- model and the k- model, which make it have a wider
application.

5. Design of control surfaces:

In this section we discuss the design procedure and sample calculations for the control surfaces
of the CMERI-built underwater vehicle. We follow the "Det Norske Veritas" (DnV) guidelines
outlined in [15] and sample calculations provided in [2] and first calculate the fin area. Current
length of this AUV is 3.52 m, without the propulsion unit at the tail. The basic size can be
calculated as

DL
D
A1
1 25
100
L

The design of our AUV is evolving depending on the requirements, and the calculations
presented here will be based on the sizes of the vehicle at the time of writing this report. Thus we
take the vehicle diameter as D = 43.0 cm, and the length as L = 352 cm. These data produce A1 =
207.83 cm2. We now increase this area by 30% as in our case the control surfaces are not directly
behind the propeller. This gives us A2 = 270.18 cm2. Another 50% increment in fin area follows,
as suggested in [16][20]. The increased area is now A3 = 405.26 cm2. Before freezing this value,
we look into the available information on some of the existing vehicles, as presented in the table
below. In the table, we first follow the above procedure for the given dimensions of three
underwater vehicles. We also calculate the area of the control surface from its dimensions (root
chord, tip chord, span). If we denote this actual area by A0, then we need to note whether this
area is different from what we have computed following the guideline above. The final area of
our vehicle is then computed following the design trend as indicated by the additional factor, if
any, given by A0/A3 for various vehicles. Once the control surface area is frozen, we have to
choose its root and tip chords, restricting ourselves to the surface area already calculated. It
should be mentioned here that the aspect ratio is an important parameter and a high aspect ratio
15

surface produces more lift at a given angle of attack, but stalls earlier. Low aspect ratio control
surfaces will be preferred for our application as the current AUV is being designed for a depth of
500 m. We will keep the aspect ratio close to 2, to have a better range of operations.
Parameter

C-SCOUT

Autosub 3

Maya

Target depth (m)

10 (test tank depth)

1600

200

Hull dia (cm)

40.26

90

23.4

Length (cm)

271.75

700

174.20

A1(cm2)

169.43

890.36

59.15

A2(cm2)

220.26

1157.46

76.9

A3(cm2)

330.39

1736.2

115.34

Root chord (RC, cm)

15.5

36.8

Tip chord (TC, cm)

6.2

27

Span (cm)

33

38.6

16

Area without flap

358.05

1231.34

120

Flap area (cm2)

610.5

Total area (A0, cm2)

358.05

1841.84

120

Additional factor

1.08

1.06

1.04

Root chord / Length

0.0570

0.0526

0.0517

Taper ratio (RC/TC)

2.5

1.36

1.5

Aspect ratio (AR,

5.32

1.43

2.67

(cm2)

(A0/A3)

Span/TC)
Table 1: Design parameters of some of the existing underwater vehicles. Note that all of them
have utilized an additional factor on the DnV calculated area.
16

We now proceed with the calculation of the size parameters of a control surface suitable for our
AUV. Based on the given D and L, the A3 is calculated to be 405.26 cm2. To decide upon the
root chord, we use a RC / L factor of 0.0530 (RCF). The root chord is now RC = RCF L =
18.6560 cm. We now choose the taper ratio of 1.42 such that the aspect ratio is close to 2, which
is between the corresponding values for the Autosub 3 and the Maya. The span is then found to
be 27.0224 cm, and the aspect ratio is 2.06. This completes the specification of the dimensions of
the control surface, except the sweep angle. The sweep angle () is the angle between the spanwise direction and the 25% chord line from root to tip. This angle determines the relative
positioning of the tip chord with respect to the root chord. If one sets the actuator shaft along the
quarter chord line, then this angle becomes zero. The effect of the sweep angle on the slope of
the lift curve of the aerofoil has been found to be small [17]. In our initial designs, we will keep
the trailing edge of the control surface aligned with the span-wise direction, leaving us with a
non-zero sweep angle.
In the above calculations, the taper ratio and aspect ratio have been chosen following other
available designs. It remains to be seen how the control surface performs with these
specifications. In the preliminary design stage, this is done using analytical and semi-empirical
(ASE) methods. These methods produce fast results and early design optimizations are best done
using them. The more accurate but time and resource consuming Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) based calculations can then be performed for performance evaluation of a small number
of chosen designs, to determine the best. In the following, we present results from 3D CFD
simulations on an isolated control surface at zero degree angle of attack.
5.1. CFD Results for an isolated control surface
The control surface geometry is based on an earlier version of our AUV, with a diameter of 40
cm and length of 321.6 cm. The root chord, tip chord and the span of this fin are 170.448 cm,
120.034 cm, and 253.876 cm, respectively. The taper ratio is as above, 1.42. The aspect ratio is
slightly higher at 2.12.

17

Fig 5.1: The computational domain for an isolated control surface.

Fig 5.2: Streamlines at a span wise station for a free-stream speed of U = 3.0 m/s.

18

The computational domain is shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 2, the streamlines for a free-stream speed
of 3 m/s are shown at a span wise plane. The simulations were carried out using a physical time
step of 0.01 s, with the Shear Stress Transport (SST) turbulence model. The convergence history
of calculated drag forces for five different free-stream speed values are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
These simulations were run in ANSYS-CFX in the steady state mode.

Fig 5.3: Convergence history of drag force (N) for U = 1.0 and 1.5 m/s free-stream speeds.

As shown in these figures, the drag force converges fairly quickly by t = 0.8 seconds of physical
time simulated. The calculated drag force also includes the skin friction from the end surfaces,
one of which will be absent when the control surface is placed on the vehicle hull. This
19

additional contribution is small compared to the overall value of the drag force. It should be
noted that these simulations are for zero degree angle of attack, and hence a steady state is
reached. For non-zero angles of attack, such steady state mode runs are likely to produce
oscillations in the converging residuals near the end. This is indicative of the inherent
unsteadiness. It is better to start unsteady mode runs from these so called converged solutions, to
understand the degree of unsteadiness present and quantify the fluctuations in lift and drag
forces.

Fig 5.4: Convergence history of drag force (N) for U = 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 m/s free-stream
speeds.

20

Center of mass: (millimetres )

X = 40.38
Y = 6.53
Z = 1.79

Principal axes of inertia and principal moments of inertia: (grams * square millimetres)
Taken at the center of mass
Ix = (1.00, -0.00, 0.01)

Px = 6780808121.29

Iy = (-0.00, -1.00, 0.00)

Py = 167108444314.68

Iz = (0.01, -0.00, -1.00)

Pz = 167526264235.73

Moments of inertia: (grams * square millimetres)

Taken at the center of mass and aligned with the output coordinate system.
Lxx = 6786463046.56

Lxy = -208241431.45

Lxz = 930316716.60

Lyx = -208241431.45

Lyy = 167108183309.20

Lyz = -3198423.90

Lzx = 930316716.60

Lzy = -3198423.90

Lzz = 167520870

Moments of inertia: (grams * square millimetres)

Taken at the output coordinate system
Ixx = 6800754972.09

Ixy = -185772723.29

Ixz = 1012524606.94
21

Iyx = -185772723.29

Iyy = 167629669468.76

Iyz = 436267.12

Izx = 1012524606.94

Izy = 436267.12

Izz = 168030051386.3

Fig 5.3:Top view and Front view of AUV-500 model

22

References
[1] Saunders et al. Nomenclature for Treating the Motion of a Submerged Body Through a Fluid,
SNAME (1950)
[2] Gertler, M., "Resistance Experiments on a Systematic Series of Streamlined Bodies of
RevolutionFor Application to the Design of High-Speed Submarines," DTMB Rept. C-297,
April 1950, Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, D.C.
[3] Carmichael, B. H., "Underwater Vehicle Drag Reduction Through Choice of Shape," AIAA
Paper 66-657, June 1966.
[4] Parsons et al., Shaping of Axisymmetric Bodies for Minimum Drag in Incompressible Flow
,1974
[5] Granville, Elements of the Drag of Underwater Bodies, 1976
[6] Sarkar et al., A Study of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Hull Forms Using Computational
Fluid Dynamics
[7] Dantas et al., Experimental Research on AUV Manoeuvrability, 2011
[8] Dantas et al., Numerical analysis of control surface effects on AUV manoeuvrability, 2013
[9] Bettle MC, Gerber AG, Watt GD. Unsteady analysis of the six DOF motion of a buoyantly
rising submarine., 2009
[10] Carrica et al., Turn and zigzag maneuvers of a surface combatant using a URANS approach
with dynamic overset grids, 2011.

23

[11] Zhang et al., Simulation of the flow over axisymmetric submarine hulls in steady turning,
2012
[12] Phillips et al., Influence of turbulence closure models on the vortical flow field around a
submarine body undergoing steady drift ,2010
[13] DU et al.,Analysis of hydrodynamic characteristics of unmanned underwater vehicle
moving close to the sea bottom, 2014
[14] Bohorquez et al., Three-dimensional numerical simulation of the wake flow of an after body
at subsonic speeds, 2011

[15] Landsburg et al. (1983) Design and verification for adequate ship maneuverability. SNAME
[16] Curtis T (2001) The design, construction, outfitting and preliminary testing of the CSCOUT autonomous underwater vehicle. University of Newfoundland, Canada
[17] Molland AF, Turnock SR (2007) Marine rudders and control surfaces: principles, data,
[18] Merry et al.,design and applications. butterworth-heinemann publishing control surface and
actuator design for a low drag,laminar flow auv
[19] Guide for vessel manoeuvrability march 2006 American bureau of shipping incorporated by
act of legislature of the state of New York 1862
[20] whicker et al., free-stream characteristics ,of a family of low-aspect ratio, all-movable
control surfaces for application to ship design.

24