Proceedings of the 6th RSI
International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (IcRoM 2018)
October 23-25, 2018, Tehran, Iran
ROV Design Optimization: Effect on Stability and
Drag force
Jihad Sahili Ali El-Hadi Hamoud
Department of mechanical Engineering Department of mechanical Engineering
Lebanese University- Faculty of Lebanese University- Faculty of
Engineering-third branch Engineering-third branch
Beirut-Lebanon Beirut-Lebanon
jihad.sahili@ul.edu.lb Ali_hadi_hamoud@hotmail.com
jihad.sahili@gmail.com
Abstract—Design of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) is
essential in underwater research. The design relies on a set of
conditions and specifications related to the mission and
payload of the robot. This paper reports the methodology of
the design, which has been studied at the mechanical
engineering department-faculty of engineering of the Lebanese
University. The main issues addressed in this study are:
directional drag minimization, symmetry, optimized thruster
positioning, static and dynamic stability and layout of ROV
components. This paper focusses on the methodology of the
optimizing of ROV design performance.
Keywords— Remotely operated vehicles, mechanical design,
drag minimization, static and dynamic stability, optimized ROV
configuration
I. INTRODUCTION
ROVs (Remotely Operated Vehicles) were important
inventions of the twentieth century. Their applications and
tasks have increased day after day due to the development in
the submarine applications. The performance of a complete
ROV model reflects the harmony between the design steps
and the right interconnection between ROV’s components. In
this paper, we perform an optimization of the shape
according to the ROV’s mission with full assessment of the
performance of component’s material under the conditions of
use. The design has been done in an optimum method
according to the control system. We studied and discussed
how we can assure our model’s performance using simple
and available possibilities, and we verified the compliance of
the results with the desired ROV properties using common
softwares such as SolidWorks, ANSYS fluent, ANSYS static
structural. In this paper, we provide an easy way to design an
efficient ROV model.
The design has to meet the mission requirements. Our
model should work on maximum depth of 300 m and at a
moderate temperature. The flow is steady and there is no
effect of waves. Our model should assure inspection and
discovery missions, gathering data about the medium
properties (temperature, salinity…) and also sampling
objects. The requirements of the ROV design are subjected
to several significant conditions starting form design
constrains to get a preliminary design that should be
approved by simulations. Then making some modifications
according to the simulation results. Many criteria have been
studied such as disturbances which include moderate
currents, and thruster-to-environment interactions.
Depending on the mission profile, it may be necessary to
mount additional payload such as sensors or a robotic arm.
978-1-7281-0127-9/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
413
Ahmad Jammoul
Department of mechanical Engineering
Lebanese University- Faculty of
Engineering-third branch
Beirut-Lebanon
Atja_1993@hotmail.com
This payload is typically heavy and cumbersome; this poses
non-trivial constraints to ROV trimming. Some mission
profiles, such as the inspection of underwater structures,
often require great maneuverability in surge and sway. Other
mission profiles require optimized drag coefficients for
robust and efficient operation under adverse environmental
conditions.
These mission profiles require, on the one hand, a
significant force system and, on other hand, optimized
vehicle shapes and thruster positioning. We address both
issues in the design of the new ROV. Namely we have
studied a low drag shape to face moderate aquatic currents;
symmetry issues to facilitate control tasks and enhance
performance; vectored thruster configurations and static
regulation of dimensions to align the generated force system
in the direction of the center of drag; placement of
components to maximize the distance between the center of
buoyancy and the center of mass for improved stability. Our
design includes modular components to facilitate payload
placement and ROV configuration.
The paper is organized as follows: In section II we
discussed the static equilibrium.in section III we discussed
the hydrodynamic. In section IV we discussed the dynamic
stability and robustness. In section V, we introduced the
mechanical design. In section VI, we applied the simulation
work on the desired model and then we presumed by
conclusions and discussed future work.
II. STATIC EQUILIBRIUM
The first constrain in ROV design is to assure the static
stability. It is based on the neutral buoyancy and the restoring
moments. The neutral buoyancy is obtained by setting the
density of the ROV body to be equal to the medium water
density (around 1000 ).
Figure 1: ROV forces and torque configuration
 Restoring moment is an important factor in the static
equilibrium of the ROV. The reason behind the restoring
moment is the couple formed by the buoyant force acting on
the center of buoyancy and the weight acting on the center of
gravity, as shown in the figure 1. The center of buoyancy
(Cb) and the center of gravity (Cg) must be on the same
vertical line and as far as possible from each other to get the
higher couple when the ROV is subjected to a torque causing
it to rotate in roll and pitch directions, so it can restore its
equilibrium state. Cb must be above Cg to guarantee the ROV
static stability (remaining in its initial position after any roll
and pitch rotation).

III. HYDRODYNAMIC Figure 3: 3D ROV model 1

The second constrain is to reduce the drag coefficient. It
is proportional to the drag force. A small drag coefficient
means that the power needed to move the ROV is relatively
small, which is so appreciated in our case because of the
limited electric resources of the vessel. The shape has a great
effect on the drag force exerted on the body since one of the
main causes of the drag force is the turbulence. It occurs
when, at some point after the impact of water with the body
of ROV, there is a flow separation and the particles of water
tend to move with different directions and velocities. The
flow takes the form of eddies and vortices. This is mostly
observed at the rear of the body. To reduce the turbulence
around the ROV’s body, the design should be in a manner to
ensure a smooth flow, delay the flow separation and keep the
local flow attached as long as possible. This was our main
goal. We present in the figure below some shapes and the
drag coefficients related to the
shapeform. Figure 4: 3D ROV model 2

IV. DYNAMIC STABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS

Figure 2 Coefficient of drag according to shapes
Based on the mission requirements, the framework of the
ROV design has begun in 2017. Two designs have been
completely studied according to a specified mission [1]:
- Sea bed sampling;
- Exploration;
- Oceanographic and environmental field studies.
Figure 3 and figure 4 show the 3D models. The more
conventional model is the one labeled model 2 [4]. While
model 1 is a new innovative design selected after an
optimization with the constrains put forward in the following
sections.
The third constrain is the dynamic stability. When the
ROV is in surge motion due to the thrust force of the forward
thrusters, the drag force will react in the other direction, these
two forces should be in the same horizontal line to avoid
creating a couple causing ROV to rotate in roll and pitch
directions when it is in translation motion. This couple is not
desirable.
Finally, the last constraint is the robustness of the body, it
should withstand a hydrostatic pressure up to 30 bars (300
meters in depth ). For this reason, material and design should
meet the high-pressure condition.
Note that if the design fails to meet any of these four
constraints, we should change it and restart a new iteration
until all constraints are satisfied.
V. DESIGN PROCEDURE
From figure 2, we select the last shape based on the
minimum drag coefficient. We make sure that we have the
ability to fabricate this model.
Then, we start adding the different parts such that wings,
thrusters, gripper, bottom pipes (to contain the additional
weights in case of the calibration of the neutral bouncy is
needed), as shown in figure 5.

414
 highly accurate predictions on the amount of flow separation
under adverse pressure gradients near the boundary of
ROV’s body.
ANSYS Fluent is used to calculate the drag force at
different speeds, then the drag coefficient is calculated by the
following equation :

Where FD: drag force (N),

water density,
Figure 5: Adding parts to the ROV model 1
A: projection area (m2),
Since the distance between Cb and Cg was too small, v: velocity of ROV relative to water (m/s).
we add an extra volume (figure 6) to elevate Cb and thus
increase this distance. Simulation results for the drag force for the two models are
presented in the table below :

Drag force (N)

ROV 2018 ROV 2017
0.5 13.972 22.103
Velocity 1 50.705 87.958
(m/s) 1.5 123.126 198.014
2 219.037 352.261
Table 1 Drag force simulation results
Figure 6: The extra volume
Simulation results for the drag coefficient are presented
Now we have the final design of ROV model 1 (as shown in the graph 1. The results show that model 1 has a lower
in figure 4), we have to make sure it’s approved in terms of drag behavior compared to model 2.
design constrains mentioned above.
0.8
0.7

VI. SIMULATION 0.6

drag coefficient

0.5

The model is designed using SolidWorks. The position of 0.4

the center of mass Cg and the center of buoyancy Cb are 0.3

0.2
determined according to the conditions of thrust and stability. 0.1
0
ANSYS static structural provide us with the safety factor 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

based on the principle of equivalent stress. After many velocity (m/s)

iterations we introduce many reinforcements (such as rings, model 2 model 1

supports and rods) are introduced into the model (figure 7). Graph 1: Drag coefficient for the two models for
different velocities.
The figure 8 shows the simulation results of the flow
performance around the ROV at a velocity of 1m/sec. the
results shows a low effect of the turbulence.

Figure 7: Cross sectional view of ROV model 1 showing the

added reinforcements.

CFD (computational fluid dynamics) analysis was

accomplished using ANSYS fluent. the analysis domain was
large enough to contain all changes in flow around ROV
including the turbulence (the ROV is placed near the inlet to
ensure that the formation of turbulence behind ROV’s body
are contained in the analysis domain). Simulations were run
on a high-specification computer (12 processors Intel(R)
Xeon (R) CPU @ 2.5 GHz , 12 Gb RAM), the simulation Figure 8: Flow streamline around ROV by simulation
time for each run varies from 8 to 12 hours. We used the k-w ANSYS Fluent provides us with the position of line of
SST model is used in the simulation. The k-w SST model is action of drag force. The line of action of the thrust force
more suitable in the case of flow separation [3] which gives a should coincide with the one of drag force to avoid any

415
couple formed by these forces while moving. Therefore
surge (forward) thrusters are aligned with the drag force. The
same issue occurs for the heave (downward) thrusters, these
thrusters are placed in the location of the line of action of
drag force acting while heaving.
Tables below shows the overall specifications of ROV
models

Mass 73.5 kg
Volume 0.0735m3
Length 1.33m
Width 0.69 m
Figure 10: ROV overall dimensions.
Height 0.57 m
thrusters 60 kg each
Range 200 m
Depth Up to 100 m
Table 2 Specifications of ROV model 2

Mass 170 kg
Volume 0.17m3
Length 1.93m
Width 1.16 m
Height 0.73 m Figure 11: Forward and downward drag and thrust forces.
Forward thrusters (load) 24 kg each
Downward thrusters (load) 12 kg each VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Range 500 m In this paper we have described the specification and the
Depth Up to 300 m design concepts for a new ROV named model 1, and
Table 3 Specifications of ROV model 1. discussed the mechanical design, and configurations.
We demonstrate that this new model meets the
Figures 9 shows the positions of Cb and Cg provided by requirements of the described mission and satisfies its
SolidWorks for the ROV model 1. Figure 10 shows an constrains such that robustness, hydrodynamic performance,
overall dimensions in mm indicating the symmetric profile of and static and dynamic stability.
the design. Figure 11 shows the location of forward (while In addition, this model has many advantages to the
surging) and downward (while heaving) drag and thrust previous one: the drag coefficient is less than 18%, the empty
forces applied on the chosen model of the ROV. volume that can be profited to add more components and
hence alter its mission. The thrusters distribution improves
the maneuverability in comparison with that of model 2.
The mechanical part of model 1 is actually in the
manufacturing phase, we are preparing also the control
system. Iinitial tests for the new ROV are scheduled for Nov.
2018.
There are several directions for future work:
i. to develop an efficient design tools of robust
optimization based on Cad design and CFD
simulation software;

Figure 9: Cb and Cg positions. ii. to use these tools in conjunction with system
identification procedures to further refine the
performance of our vehicles design;
iii. to extend our design analysis to coupled motions.
Finally, we are interested in developing an integrated
toolset for design optimization

416

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported and funded by the Lebanese
University in the frame of the program support for research
and innovation.
REFERENCES
[1] R.M.F. Gomes ; A. Martins ; A. Sousa ; J.B. Sousa ; S.L. Fraga ; F.L.
Pereira, “A new ROV design: issues on low drag and mechanical
symmetry,” IEEE Conf. Europe Oceans 2005.
[2] CS. Chin, WP. Lin, JY. Lin, “Experimental Validation of Open-
Frame ROV model for Virtual Reality Simulation and Control,” in J
Mar Sci Technol (2018) 23: 267.
[3] Anwar-ul-Haque, Fareed Ahmad, Shunsuke Yamada and Sajid Raza
Chaudhry, “Assessment of Turbulence Models for Turbulent Flow
over Backward Facing Step,” Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering 2007 Vol II WCE 2007, July 2 - 4, 2007, London, U.K.
[4] Mohammad mando, “Optimization of ROVdesign by numerical
simulations using Matlab and SolidWorks”, lebanese university
,faculty of engineering, 14 September 2017 .
[5] Yousef shames Aldeen “Underwater surveyor ROV; New design
based on previous prototype” lebanese university, faculty of
engineering, 14 September 2017.
[6] GianlucaAntonelli, 2006 ,Underwater Robots: Motion and Force
Control of Vehicle-Manipulator Systems,Springer, 2nd Edition,
Berlin, 2006.

417