Ref.

:
FERNANDES, A.C., ARAUJO,J.B., ALMEIDA,J.C.A., DINIZ,R. and MATOS,V.;
Torpedo Anchor Installation Hydrodynamics;
Trans. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), Journal
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering;
Vol. 128, Issue 4, pp. 286-293, Nov 2006;

of

TORPEDO ANCHOR INSTALLATION HYDRODYNAMICS

Antonio Carlos Fernandes / COPPE - UFRJ

Jairo Bastos de Araujo / Petrobras

Jos Carlos Lima de Almeida / Petrobras

Rogrio Diniz Machado / Petrobras

Vinicius Matos / Petrobras

ABSTRACT
The installation procedure of a torpedo anchor is the
release of the torpedo from a high enough position from the sea
bottom to allow the device to reach the terminal velocity. A
sufficient kinetic energy at the bottom is essential for the
penetration. Besides this, the anchor has to reach the bottom in
an up right position to maximize the final holding power in all
directions.
The present work addresses two hydrodynamic aspects for
the installation design and analysis. The first is the drag
evaluation and the second is the directional stability. If the drag
is to be kept small, then the terminal velocity should be high.
The work shows that parameters like the mass and the shape are
essential for this. On the other hand, the shape and mass
distribution have a strong influence on the directional stability.
One important parameter is the rear line length connected to the
anchor. This line is necessary for further connection with the
final mooring line and influences both the terminal velocity and
the directional stability.
The work addresses all these aspects under the light of a
innovative model test setup to be performed in a deep ocean
basin. This kind of model testing has been conceived
specifically to attend the torpedo anchor evaluation.

The torpedo anchor is a novel kind of device to moor

floating offshore structures. It has been proved in practice that
this kind of anchoring may be used for both drilling and
production offshore activities. For drilling, it is easily
recoverable while for large production platforms it has enough
holding power. Among the several issues to be addressed for
this kind of device its installation procedure is one of them.
Figure 1 has been extracted from (Fernandes et al, 2005). It
shows the torpedo anchor on board of a supply boat being
prepared for installation. As it is placed in a vertical position
(see Figure 2) it is launched and its own weight drives it to the
seabed. This is one of the reasons that the torpedo anchor is
substantially less costly than conventional anchors.
This paper deals with the torpedo anchor installation
process with respect to its hydrodynamics.
U

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the exploitation of hydrocarbons leans towards
ever deeper waters. The petroleum industry needs to develop
robust and specialized anchoring system for drilling and
production units (FPSOs, FSOs, Semi-Submersibles, Spars,
Sub-Surface Buoys, etc.).
Generally, the platform anchoring problem deals with the
interaction with the bottom soil conditions. The shear strength
of the soil, the weight of the soil, the depth that the anchor can
be embedded, etc., are some factors treated. However all these
properties are affected by the way the anchor is installed.

Figure 1. Example of a torpedo anchor; this version of the

torpedo is a pile with fin nose with large fins.

Copyright 2005 by ASME

2. TORPEDO ANCHOR INSTALLATION

PROCEDURE
Figure 2 shows a starting point for the installation. The
installation height is the distance from the sea bottom to assure
enough kinetic energy when arriving at bottom.
Note that the above and below the triplate, in Figure 2,
mooring lines are present and are launched together with the
torpedo. The reason is that part of the mooring line stays
partially out of the soil and it will be finally connected to a
platform that is to be held in place.
From Figure 2 it is clear that the presence of the lines
cannot be ignored in the analysis.

TL tension due to the line.

FD drag force.
(m ) g apparent weight in water.
where

m torpedo mass.
water density.
torpedo displaced volume
g acceleration of gravity.

Figure 3. Torpedo free-body diagram during installation

launching.
For simplicity, consider for the moment that there is no
rear line present. Hence Eq. (1) holds.
TL = 0
(1)
After the acceleration become null, it is easy to get an
expression for the terminal velocity as in Eq. (2).
Figure 2. Starting arrangements for the torpedo anchor
installation.
3. HYDRODYNAMIC ASPECTS

VT =

3.1.1 Drag Torpedo without mooring line

The balance between the drag and gravity sets the terminal
velocity eventually reached if the installation height is large
enough. There is an acceleration period where the added mass
also plays a role. In principle, during the acceleration the drag
coefficient may be non-constant.
Figure 3 shows a free-body diagram for the torpedo during
the fall. The following forces are present:

(2)

where

C D torpedo drag coefficient C D

There are two main hydrodynamic aspects that characterize

the installation. The first refers to the drag problem and the
second the directional stability problem. They will be addressed
separately below.
3.1. DRAG

( m ) g
1
C D AF
2

AF torpedo frontal area.

FD

1
VT2 AF
2

The expression (2) is well known in the literature as in

White (1994).
Now, considering Newtons Second Law during the
acceleration period, one gets the differential Eq. (3).
(m + ma )

where

dV
= V 2
dt

(m ) g

(3)
(4)

Copyright 2005 by ASME


and

1
AF C D
2

(5)

ma added mass in the longitudinal direction of the torpedo.

Finally, with the closed-form solution (6), it is possible to

get a formula (11) for the displacement (s) and, by derivation,
another formula (12) for the acceleration (a). These hold
throughout the second acceleration period.

V instantaneous torpedo velocity.

To integrate Eq (3) it is assumed that both the C D and the
ma are constant. In fact, measurements from the tests suggest
that there are two accelerations periods.
The first acceleration period is very fast, just immediate to
the impulsive acceleration start. In this period, it is also likely
that a fast C D variation is occurring. Probably the flow is more
complicated than the Stokes type of solution for low Reynolds
number (Yih, 1977), since the latter is valid for constant
velocities at each time. The first acceleration region is indeed
intriguing and its particularities will be left for future work. It
looks like a time boundary layer behavior.
However, there is a second acceleration period where the
added mass seems to be well defined and constant, with the
same occurring with the C D . It seems sensible to believe that
the separation effects will occur soon enough to allow a
constant C D . While the added mass is much less influenced by
viscous effects and it is also reasonable to be considered
constant.
This observation has led the work to go on with these later
hypotheses and, as shown below, the results are rewarding, due
to excellent matching with the measurements.
Hence, under the hypothesis of a constant ma and a
constant C D (present in , Expression (5)), Eq. (3) may be
rearranged and integrated, yielding a simple closed form
solution shown in Eq. (6)
(6)
V = A tgh( B + Ct )
where
A

(7)

B arctgh(

V0
)
A

(m + ma )

(8)
(9)

In Eq. (6) V0 is the initial velocity which is important to

adjust the mentioned first acceleration period.
The hyperbolic characteristic of the velocity (6) has been
well observed during the tests. In principle, only when
(t ) in Eq. (6) the terminal velocity is reached
reproducing Eq. (2). In practice however, it is enough to
consider 99% of the final value to estimate it within good
precision. Hence, the end of the second acceleration period may
be written as in Eq. (10).

T0,99

0.99 vT
arctgh
B
A

=
C

A
ln cosh( B + Ct )
C
AC
a=
2
cosh ( B + Ct )
s=

(10)

(11)
(12)

where A, B and C have been defined before.

The above equations are used to get the parameters from
the vertical launching tests and are called here the Extrapolation
Mathematical Model (EMM). As discussed below, the
extrapolation is necessary because the Ocean Basin has a finite
depth (15 m) and the launching has to be interrupted. Results
are shown in Figure 9 with the application of the EMM
formulas (11), (6) and (12).
3.1.2 Extrapolation to Full Scale
After the determination of the drag coefficient (and added
mass), the next task is to extrapolate the results to full scale.
This job is traditional in the ship resistance problem. For a ship
moving at constant velocity, the so-called Froude Hypothesis
(Lewis, 1989) considers that the total drag force is essentially a
combination of the viscous pressure drag (also called form drag
and due to boundary layer separation and curved surfaces),
friction drag (due to skin friction effects), wave drag (also
called wave resistance due to wave generation by the hull) and
appendices drag (due to protuberant surfaces like rudders,
struts, etc).
When the terminal velocity is reached, the torpedo
resistance problem is simpler than the ship at least in what
concerns the inexistence of the wave drag and appendices drag.
Hence, considering that the friction drag may include the effect
of the large fins of the original design (see Figure 1), similarly
to the one due to Froude, an extrapolation is proposed here by
Eq. (13).
C D = C F ( R) + C N
(13)
That is, the total drag is composed by a combination of the
friction drag ( C F ) dependent on the Reynolds number ( R )
and a pressure drag ( C N ) due to separation but not dependent
on the Reynolds number.
The Reynolds number is defined as

R=

VT L

(14)

where the kinematic viscosity is given by

with

(15)

viscosity.
L torpedo length.

The length of the torpedo under analysis in full scale (15

m) is much larger than the diameter (1 m), hence, like a ship or
submarine, the friction drag is likely to be more significant than

Copyright 2005 by ASME

the viscous pressure drag which justifies the present approach.

The friction drag essentially is the result of the integration of
the fluid shear stresses along the torpedo surface and may be
estimated by a flat plate test. A well known one is called the
ITTC 57 regression and is given by Eq. (16) (Lewis, 1989).

CF =

0,075
(log10 R 2) 2

(16)

Besides TL , the following

importance:
DL the vertical rear line drag force.

(18)

C D , prototype = C F , prototype ( R, prototype ) + C N , prototype (19)

For that matter, it is important to stress that for the testing
the scale factor should be small enough to have the model
Reynolds number be more than 10 6 . This is a requirement for
the validity for the formula (16). For these reason the scale used
in the Ocean Basin testing was 1:15.
Some results are presented in Table 5 in conjunction with
the rear line influence as discussed next.
3.1.3 Drag Torpedo with rear line
The presence of the rear line and its role on drag and
stability seems to be a novel problem in ocean engineering.
With a significant rear line length ( TL 0 ), this is not trivial
and it requires of course special testing and considerations. For
initial simplicity, the work will address only the case with rear
line assumed to be always vertical, with no influence of the
lateral mooring (see Figure 2) or the existence of transverse
current effects. The more complex case with these two effects
included is left for future work.
For a non slack mooring line, when both the torpedo and
its vertical rear line are released together, the correlation
between the torpedo and the rear line is through TL (the
tension due to the mooring line). The free-body diagram for the
rear line may then be constructed as shown in Figure 4.

DL
B

are

of

( M L L ) g the rear line apparent weight in water.

where

M L the rear line mass ( M L = L l )

L the rear line displaced volume ( e L = L l )
l the rear line length.

With the total drag coefficient estimated from the testing,

the extrapolation will then use Expressions (17), (18) and (19).
(17)
C N ,mod el = C D ,mod el C F ,mod el ( R,mod el )

C N , prototype = C N , mo del

variables

These definitions will be also used in the stability analysis

later on (see Eq.(40).
The only variable that is difficult to estimate is the vertical
rear line longitudinal drag force. Its value was not found in the
literature when the studied was performed. For that reason, a
special model test arrangement was proposed as discussed
below (see Figure 8).
The drag force coefficients may be based on frontal area
(in the case of bluff bodies), plan area (for wings) or wet
surface (for ships and slender bodies). For the longitudinal
motion of a mooring line (as is the case of the vertical rear line
during the torpedo launching) this work proposes the use of the
area composed by the product of the external perimeter (Per)
times the rear line length. At least for very long lines, this
seems sensible, since the longitudinal drag may be assumed
uniformly distributed along the line. On the other hand, the
torpedo drag coefficient is based on the torpedo frontal area
( AF ), hence with Eq. (20),

DL =

1
C DL / F AFVT2
2

(20)

the new coefficient is given by

C DL / Per =

AF
C DL / F
Per l

(21)

As discussed below (see the description of the model

testing), after measuring the drag line for various length, it
became clear that the relationship between C DL / Per and l is
approximately linear (see Table 4). Hence with expansion (22)
in mind,

C DL / Per =
B

C DL / Per
l
l

H .O.T

(22)

the work proposes the value given by (23).

(ML-VL)g
B

C DL / Per
0,044
l

(23)

The obvious conclusion is that the longitudinal line drag is

proportional to the square of the drag line as in (25), which has
been obtained via (24).

1
VT2 Perl =
2
C DL / Per 1
l VT2 Perl
l
2

DL = C DL / Per
TL
B

Figure 4. Vertical rear line free-body diagram.

(24)

Copyright 2005 by ASME

DL = (

C DL / Per 1
Per )VT2 l 2
2
l

CN =

(25)

3.2. DIRECTIONAL STABILITY TORPEDO, FINS

AND REAR LINE

Fn

Fn

Mm

FD

O
'

ln

FD

CH
ln

Figure 5. Hydrodynamic forces and moment and the definition

of the Hydrodynamic Center (CH); point O is an arbitrary pole
and A is the center of the transverse force ( FN ).
In Figure 5 the hydrodynamic interaction with the fluid
force may be synthesized by the efforts
FD drag force.

FN normal (transverse force) that happens for a given

angle of attack ( ).
M m Munk moment.
It is well known that the destabilizing Munk moment has to
be counter balanced by a moment created by the weight and the
normal force or by the use of fins. Like a rocket just after
launching, the torpedo anchor trajectory is vertical. But unlike
the rocket, the torpedo anchor has an extra stabilizing effect due
to the vertical rear line tension ( TL ) (see Figures 3 and 4). This
will be considered as shown next.
Consider the coefficients in (26), (27) and (28).

(26)

1
U 2 Ar
2
FD
CD =
1
U 2 Ar
2
M xm
CM =
1
U 2 Ar L
2

This result seems if seen together with (23), is worthwhile

at least for the present case.
An example for use of the present methodology is also
shown in Table 5.

The directional stability of a slender body assessment is a

well known subject and there are several approaches to deal
with it. The work here started with a one that is summarized by
Triantafillou and Hover (2004). The new aspect here, it is the
presence of the vertical rear line whose drag must be
considered for stability. For this work the main intention is to
estimate the position of the Hydrodynamic Center (CH) with
respect to the Center of Gravity (CG). In the torpedo case, if the
CG is below of the CH, the torpedo is directionally stable; on
the contrary it is unstable. Of course, other kinds of instabilities
are possible but they were not observed during the tests and
they only will be addressed in future works.

FN

(27)

(28)

With that, the following estimates may be made with Eqs.

(29), (30) and (31) (Triantafillou and Hover, 2004).

CN =

Ab
Ap
sin 2 cos +
C dn sin 2
Ar
2 Ar

C D = C dO cos 2
Ab ( L x m )

sin 2 cos
CM =
2
Ar L
A p x m xC 2
C dn
sin

Ar L

(29)
(30)

(31)
Note that to add flexibility, the Munk moment is calculated
with respect to a pole at a distance xm from the nose. The area

Ar is a reference area that must be uniquely defined for the

analysis (in the present case, Ar = AF , where AF is the
torpedo frontal area). Also, now is the angle of attack
between the torpedo axis and the incident velocity; A p is the
torpedo planform area and Ab is the base area. The later is
necessary to consider the fin end effect. In the present case
Ab = AF due to the shape of the fins for the case under
analysis (F1C2) (see Figure 1 and Table 1 - shape F1).
Note also that Expression (31) has a first term proportional
to the to the torpedo volume displacement ( ). This is a result
of the cross flow principle combined with the potential theory
expression for the Munk moment. With the transversel added
mass ( Azz ) and a negligible longitudinal added mass ( Axx ),
the Munk moment may be written as in (32).

1
M m = ( Azz Axx )U 2 sin 2
2

(32)

which for small angle of attack () leads to (33).

M m ( Azz Axx )U 2

(33)

Finally note that the remaining variables are

C dn transverse normal drag for the cross flow principle.

Copyright 2005 by ASME

C d 0 axial drag obtained form the tests in the ocean basin

(in this case equal to 0.5 as in Table 5).
xC the position of the center of the torpedo planform from
the nose.
With that, the position of hydrodynamic center (CH) from
the nose may be written as Eq. (34).

xCH = x m +

CM
L
CN

position of the hydrodynamic center CH is given by (35).

C N

A fin
Ar

(35)

Here, C L is the lift coefficient based on the fin planform

area ( A fin ). With small aspect ratio ( ) fins the Jones
formula (36) may be used (Lewis (1999)).

CL =

sin

(36)

In Eq. (35) a new coefficient defined in (37) has been

introduced.

C N C N + C L cos

A fin
Ar

(40)

In Figure 10 the successive effects of the fins and the

vertical rear line are presented with the use of (34), (36) and
(38) respectively. It is clear that the effects of the fins and the
rear lines are significant.
4. INNOVATIVE MODEL TEST IN A DEEPWATER
(15 METERS) OCEAN BASIN

With fins placed at a position x f from the nose, the new

=
xCH

( L e L ) Lline g
1
U 2 A f
2

(34)

3.2.1 Torpedo fins influence on directional

stability

C N xCH + C L cos x f

C AD / F =

(37)

Another innovation developed for this work, is the way the

torpedo anchors were tested in a 15m ocean basin to assess both
the drag and the directional stability. The arrangement of this
test is shown in Figure 6.
The test procedure was as follows: a slack cable was
connected to the torpedo back. After the launching, the cable
becomes taut and it held the torpedo before the bottom was
reached. For safety, a spring was attached to the cable to absorb
the energy and stop the fall. The safety spring is shown Figure
7.
The trajectory during the fall is registered by two cameras,
which are the basis of the video tracking system that was used.
Several tests have been performed considering all the
shapes in Table 1 and CG positions in Table 2, together with
several mooring line length values as in Table 4. However, it is
out of the scope here to discuss them all. Nevertheless, in
Figure 9 a typical result is shown. This gives the trajectory (s)
and the velocity (v) obtained with this process. The truncated
curves refer to the testing while the non-truncated ones indicate
the application of the EMM extrapolation scheme (see above).
The case shown in Figure 9 is for the torpedo model F1C2 (see
Tables 1 and 2).

Note that depending on the value of x f , the fins may be

non effective as a stabilizers since their inherent Munk effect
may prevail.
3.2.2 Rear line influence on directional stability
Besides the effect of the fin, the stabilizing effect of the
rear line has been observed in the tests (see below). That is, the
line tension TL has a stabilizing effect due to the modification

of FN given by TL sin . Hence, proceeding analogously,

another modification of CH is given by (38).

+ CTL sin
C N xCH
(38)
C N + CTL sin
where (see session 3.1.3), CTL the coefficient for the tension
=
xCH

Figure 6. Arrangement in the ocean basin for the vertical

launching of the 1:15 torpedo anchor model; a safety spring
together with a cable have been introduced; the camera was
used for a video tracking system to obtain the trajectory; the
launching was made above the ocean basin extra 10m pit.

force is given by Eq. (39).

CTL = C DL / F C AD / F
where
(40).

(39)

C DL / F is introduced by (20) and C AD / F is given by

Copyright 2005 by ASME

Figure 7. Safety spring used during the test in the ocean

basin.
Table 1. The tested torpedo anchor shapes: F1 original
design, F2 fin placed closer to end; F3 with an axi-symmetric
ring.
Shape

Picture

Figure 8. Test set up for the rear line; two pulleys were used to
support the lines before and during the torpedo anchor release;
two positions for the cameras were used.
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

F1

5.1 DRAG
5.1.1 Drag Torpedo without mooring line
A typical result for the launching tests is shown in Figure
9. The terminal velocity is not reached. Hence, the use of the
EMM (Extrapolation Mathematical Model) is necessary to
obtain values with confidence.
The close matching of the EMM results with the
experimental results is an indication that the constant added
mass and constant C D hypothesis are correct. Indeed as
commented before the first acceleration period outside the
EMM domain is very small, configuring a time boundary layer
situation.

F2

F3

F3
(detail)

Table 2. The tested torpedo anchor shapes CG positions;

model scale data from the nose.
case
C1
C2
C3
C4

CG position
from nose
(m)
0,48
0,47
0,35
0,34

The testing with the rear lines the setup is shown in Figure
8. Two pulleys are used to support the lines before and during
the torpedo anchor release. The friction from the pulleys must
be measured. Again, two positions for the cameras are used.
As said before, the tests considered varying rear line
lengths according to Table 4.
The complete setup of the testing and all the tests
themselves are detailed by Fernandes and Matos (2003).

Figure 9. Extrapolation mathematical model (EMM) applied

with the data from the tests in the ocean basin; at the time about
1.2s the safety spring starts to act, the extrapolation follows
then analytically using the EMM formulae (11), (6) and (12);
F1C2 torpedo anchor case.
The EMM parameters obtained from
corresponding to Figure 9 are shown in Table 3.

the

tests

Copyright 2005 by ASME

5.2 DIRECTIONAL STABILITY TORPEDO, FINS

AND REAR LINE

Note from Table 3 that the predicted model scale C D is

equal to 0.5 and the terminal velocity is 15.75 m/s.
Table 3. Data for F1C2, model scale.
m
(ton)
0.0290
V
(ton)
0.0040

CD
AF
ma /( )

(m^2)

V0

m/s

0.5000
0.0040
0.2000
-0.9000
0.2513

A
B
C
T (.99).

0.0010
15.9053
-0.0566
0.5195
5.20

VT (.99)

m/s

15.75

The directional stability analysis for the F1C2 case is

summarized in Figure 10. The successive effect of the fins and
the rear line are presented with the use of (34), (36) and (38). It
is clear that the effects of the fins and the rear lines are
significant. Note that for the case under study F1C2 are in
Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5. Extrapolation to full scale considering a TL =750kN
corresponding to a 105mm mooring line with full scale length
equal to 83 m; (Af) is cited when the non-dimensional number
uses the torpedo frontal area; (S wet) is cited when the torpedo
wetted surface is used.

5.1.2 Drag Torpedo with mooring line

The results that gave basis for the value expressed in (23)
are summarized in Table 4. These were obtained with the
model testing set up shown in Figure 8.
Table 4. Selected tests for the rear line influence on the drag for
a reference shape torpedo anchor.
CONFIDESCRIPTION
CD
GURATION
rear line length
1
without rear line
1.45
2
4.5 m / no pulleys
2.65
3
4.5 with pulleys
3.05
4
6.7 m / with pulleys
5.00
5
13.3 m / with pulleys 7.00
5.1.3 Extrapolation to Full Scale

Table 6. Other data for torpedo tested in the ocean basin

with data from Table 1 for the stability analysis; the aspect ratio
is = 0.0838.

The result of the extrapolation to full scale is given in

Table 5. In this case for the extrapolation to full scale a 105 mm
diameter rear line with length equal to 83 m was considered
that has lead to a TL =750kN or

CTL , Af

TL

1
U 2 AF
2

= 3,67

The the order of magnitude of full scale terminal velocity

shown in Table 5 (21,11 m/s) is adequate (Machado, 2006).
Note that the extrapolation scheme suggests a full scale C D
equal to 0.33.

Copyright 2005 by ASME

the subject. This effort may use the results already colleted
during the cited test cases.
It also must be pointed out on the other hand that the
influence of a non vertical rear line and the existence of
transverse current effects must be considered and they will be
studied in the future.
One important result here that also seems to be important is
the estimate of the longitudinal drag of a mooring line.
A final word should stress that all the results must be
confirmed by well planned full scale measurements
comparisons. These are already under way (Machado, 2006).

From Figure 10 it is clear that the influence of the fin is

helpful but not enough for the stabilization. On the contrary, a
vertical rear line (with the full scale length equal to 83 m)
would be enough for the stabilization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Petrobras for the initiative of the torpedo
anchor development and the support for model testing and
analysis. The first author also acknowledges the CNPq, The
Brazilian Research Council for the research productivity
scholarship.

Figure 10. Position of the Hydrodynamic Center (CH) and

the Center of Gravity (CG) for the torpedo anchors F1C2
tested in the Ocean Basin; X CH is the case without fins

is
neither vertical rear line; X CH
is the case with fins; X Ch
the case with fins and vertical rear line.
6

CONCLUSIONS
The torpedo anchor and its installation have already
become a reality, offshore Brazil. A combination of simplicity
and economics is pointing to the use elsewhere. However, there
is still room for technical development as shown by the tests
and mathematical modeling presented here.
It seems that the innovative model testing has never been
applied before in the manner proposed here. This was possible
due to the beginning of the operation of the 15 m deepwater
ocean basin.
For the torpedo anchor installation, two hydrodynamically
important problems are analyzed here: the drag and the
directional stability problems. The drag has required a
combination of an EMM (Extrapolating Mathematical Model)
with the referred innovative model testing and subsequently an
extrapolation method. The stability analysis shows the obvious
importance of the fins and a not so obvious importance of the
rear lines.
The directional stability assessment profited from an
innovative video tracking approach that seems to have a several
applications in the future. The directional stability modeling
used here is very simple and more time should be dedicated to

REFERENCES
Fernandes,A.C. e Matos,V., Ensaios da Estaca-Torpedo,
LabOceano, COPPE/UFRJ, Report PROJRF-002_03,
Rio de Janeiro, 2003 (in Portuguese).
Fernandes,A.C. e Matos,V., Ensaios da Estaca-Torpedo,
LabOceano, COPPE/UFRJ, Report PROJRF-002_03,
Rio de Janeiro, 2003 (in Portuguese).
Fernandes,A.C., Ensaios de Lanamento da Base-Torpedo,
LabOceano,
COPPE/UFRJ,
Scientific
Report
REC009A_04, Rio de Janeiro, 2004 (in Portuguese).
Fernandes,A.C., Santos,M.F., Arajo,J.B., Almeida,J.C.L.,
Machado,R.D. and Matos,V., Hydrodynamic Aspects
of the Torpedo Anchor Installation, OMAE200567201, Proceedings of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, June, 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki, Greece.
Lewis,E.V., Principle of Naval Architecture, Second
Revision, SNAME, Vol.2, 1989.
Machado, A.D. (Private communication), 2006.
Triantafyllou, M.S and Hover, F.S., 2004 Maneuvering and
Control of Marine Vehicles Department of Ocean
Engineering M.I.T, Cambridge, Massachusetts U.S.A.
Yih,C-S. Fluid Mechanics, Wets River Press, Ann Arbor, MI,
USA.
White, F.M., 1999, Fluid Mechanics, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill,
USA.

Copyright 2005 by ASME