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

net/publication/3571463

Determination of the hydrodynamic parameters of an underwater vehicle

during small scale, nonuniform, 1-dimensional translation

Conference Paper · November 1993

DOI: 10.1109/OCEANS.1993.326105 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

33 150

2 authors:

Archie Todd Morrison III Dana Yoerger

Woods Hole Group Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
48 PUBLICATIONS   214 CITATIONS    242 PUBLICATIONS   7,402 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Nereus 11km Hybrid Vehicle View project

BASS Rake View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Archie Todd Morrison III on 12 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Determination of the Hydrodynamic Parameters of an Underwater
Vehicle During Small Scale, Nonuniform, 1-Dimensional Translation
Archie T. Morrison IIP
'Department of Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Abstract - The hover and tight maneuvering regime
of an underwater vehicle is difficult to character-
ize hydrodynamically. Characterization in a reliable
model is necessary for successful control of the vehi-
cle during task performance. A 1-dimensional system
identification procedure for this regime is described.
The experimental set up is simple and noncritical.
The analysis is performed by minimizing the error
between the trajectories of the vehicle and several
numerical models during a free decay. Minimiza-
tion is controlled by the Nelder-Meade simplex algo-
rithm. Agreement with the work of other researchers
is strong. The procedure is flexible and may be ex-
tended to couplcd models with 4 degrees of freedom.
I. GENERAL DISCUSSION
The forces exerted by a viscous fluid on a bluff body
moving relative to the fluid depend in a complicated way
on the history of the relative motion. In many simple
cases, however, the forces are well described by Mori-
son's Equation [3] (below) once the added mass and drag
coefficients have been determined experimentally. The
equation is commonly given in the form
where m is the dry mass, U is the velocity of the body
relative to the fluid, A is the projected area along the
direction of motion, and p is the density of the fluid. C&
and C; are the dimensionless coefficients of added mass
and drag which are to be determined.
The trajectory of a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
can reasonably be characterized as either uniform trans-
lation or hover. During uniform translation U = 0 and
only the coefficient of drag is of concern. There is, in
general, some dependence of this value on the Reynolds
number, Re = C I D / v , where U is the velocity, D is the
characteristic length, and v is the kinematic viscosity of
the fluid. However, a 0.2 - 0.5 m/s translation speed for
a vehicle wit ti a 1 or 2 in characteristic length in water
yields a Reynolds number on the order of IO6. In this
range C; is largely independent of changes in the value
of Re. In contrast. the ho\-er regime has proven much
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation
on Grant No. O C 6 8 8 2 0 2 2 7 and the Office of Naval Research under
Contract No. NO001 1-90-5-1912 \.VHOI Contribution No. 8446.
11-277
Dana R. Yoerger'
more difficult to characterize and control. This is pri-
marily due to the poor low speed dynamic response of
the thrusters. When the vehicle is commanded to hover
under closed loop control the thruster dynamics produce
a limit cycle [ l , 21. As will be shown, the resulting peri-
odic motion has a strong effect on the values of Ch and
CA.
If the hydrodynamic forces are modelled by (1) during
oscillatory motion, then Ci;, and CA can be shown to
have a nonlinear dependence on the Keulegan-Carpenter
number, ZiC = U,T/D, where U , is the maximum ve-
locity and T is the period of the oscillation. The co-
efficients also depend on the frequency parameter, p =
Re/KC = D 2 / v T , and the Reynolds number remains
important [5]. The Keulegan-Carpenter number may be
thought of as proportional to the ratio of the amplitude
of the excursion to the characteristic length. This de-
scription becomes exact in the case of harmonic oscilla-
tions. The frequency parameter is convenient because it
depends only on the frequency of oscillation for a given
body, while the Reynolds number depends on both the
frequency and the amplitude.
T h e Keulegan-Carpenter number for the limit cycle ob-
served with ROVs Jason and Hylas is 0.3. This value is
on or below the margin of the ZiC range investigated for
cylinders in [6]. Additionally, the frequency parameter
for the limit cycle is in the range IO4 < p < lo5 while
values between lo3 and lo4 were used in [6]. It cannot
be assumed that the form of (1) correctly describes the
forces on an ROV in an oscillatory regime. If it does,
coefficients for the vehicle could only be predicted by ex-
trapolating outside the range of the published data and
formulae for cylinders. Experimental determination of
the form and magnitude of the hydrodynamic forces act-
ing on ROV Hylas during closed loop hover is required.
During system identification the responses of the vehi-
cle and a mathematical model to the same input forcing
are compared. The coefficients of the model are adjusted
to achieve the closest match. The form of the model may
be modified if necessary and the comparison may be car-
ried out by a variety of means. It is essential, however,
that the input be known. The analysis of the thrusters
in [l, 21 showed that output was a function of propeller
angular ve1ocit.y. That measurement cannot be easily
or accurately niade, particularly a t slow speeds, in the
oil filled (pressure compensated) motors used by DSL.
Thercfore, an oscillation in depth similar to the limit cy-
cle must br generated by soin(! othrr means.
0-7803-I38S-2/9Y$3.OO Cl 1993 IEEE
 -
Figure 1. ROV HYLAS This is a view of the starboardside of the
vehicle. The dimensionsare approximately0.9 m x 1.63 m. Prea-
sure housings and thrusters are mounted on an aluminum frame
which is mmpcnded from the flotation block. The fore and aft p m
trusions from the top of the flotation material are the SHARPS
transceivers.
A solution was suggested in [4] where a free decay test
was used for the system identification of the Norwegian
Experimental Remotely Operated Vehicle. As with the
previously cited work on cylinders, the K C of the limit
cycle is on or below the margin of the reported range.
For our teat, the vehicle was suspended in water from
a spring. An oscillation was started and recorded while
it decayed. The spring provided a well defined input
' whose magnitude could be determined from the accurate
position measurements possible with the Sonic High Ac-
curacy Ranging and Positioning System (SHARPS). The
spring constant and initial perturbation produced motion
with an amplitude and period similar to the limit cycle.
The vehicle hydrodynamics were then determined from
the data record.
11. EXPERIMENTAL SET UP A N D PROCEDURE
ROV Hylas was designed and built to serve as a test
tank and dockside vehicle for the evaluation of control
algorithms. The overall dimensions are approximately
0.9 m x 0.9 m x 1.63 m. The dry mass is m = 500 kg
with some variation depending on the current instrument
suite. A drawing of the vehicle is shown in Fig. 1. The
usual operating environment of ROV Hylas is a cylindri-
cal tank with a depth of 3.5 m and a diameter of 4.5 m.
Three SHARPS transceivers near the surface form the
acoustic position net. Fore and aft transceivers on the
vehicle are ranged by each net transceiver on alternate
cycles allowing the measurement of position and heading
within the net coordinate system. Over the short ranges
in the tank the variance of the range measurement is ap-
proximately 4 x cm'.
Two common door springs were purchased at a lo-
cal hardware store for the experiment. The force-
displacement response of the springs was measured using
a meter stick and a load cell for parallel, single, and s e
11-278
Figure 2. SPRINGCALIBRATION FOR SYSTEMIDENTIFICATION -
Data points for two spring. in parallel, a single spring, and two
springs in neriea are denoted by 0 . The three d i d linen are least
squares fits to the data with the calculated spring constants shown
on the plot.
rim arrangements of the springs. The springs were found
t o be linear to the quantization limit of the load cell
throughout the range of extension. The results of the
spring calibration are shown in Fig. 2.
ROV Hylas was then suspended in the tank from
an overhead crane using each of the three spring con-
figurations in turn. For each configuration the ve-
hicle was given sufficient negative buoyancy to bias
the spring(s) into the middle of the measured force-
displacement range. Three runs were made with each of
the spring configurations. The initial perturbation was
generated by briefly firing the vertical thrusters. The de-
caying oscillations that resulted were recorded and logged
by the system. Although the apparatus did not restrict
horizontal or rotational motions, no horizontal transla-
tions, nor rotations about the vertical or horizontal axes,
were observed during the free decay. Same tension was
maintained on the springs throughout each run and the
springs were inspected and found free of overstretching
at the conclusion of the experiment. The combination of
varying initial conditions and three different spring con-
stants yielded a range of Keulegan-Carpenter numbers
that included the value calculated for the limit cycle.
111. SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION BY NUMERICAL
MINIMIZATION
System identification by numerical minimization is con-
ceptually straightforward. A model of the vehicle is given
initial conditions matching a data set. The model is
then numerically integrated and the scalar error norm
between the vehicle and model trajectories is calculated.
The model coefficients are then iteratively modified to
minimize that error.
Four models of the vehicle are considered. The first de-
scribes the vehicle as a simple mass. A good match with
a decaying oscillation is not expected, but the known re-
 T i m Is] T i m [s]

0.1 0.1

E
0.05
T
- 0.05
.E
L

0 .E 0

W -0.05
-6 f -0.05
-0.1 -0.1
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 50 60
TIM [s] T i m Is]

Figure 3. NUMERICAL MINIMIZATION EMPLOYING THE INERTIA Figure 5. NUMERICAL

MINIMIZATIONEMPLOYING THE INERTIA
MODEL- The vehicle trajectory is marked by the solid tine. The DRAGMODEL- The vehicle trajectory is marked
WITH QUADRATIC
model trajectory with minimum error is shown by the dashed trace. by the sotid line. The model trajectory with minimum error is
shown by the dashed trace.
0.2
me- m d dd offset . I

T i m [c] -0.2'
10 20 30 40 50 60
T i m [s]
0.1
0.1
0.05
E
.E
I

0 -
E
0.05

f -0.05 Bf O
-0.05
-0.1
10 20 30 40 50 60
T i m Is] -0.1
10 20 30 40 50 60
T i m [s]
Figure 4. NUMERICAL MINIMIZATION EMPLOYING THE INERTIA
WITH LINEARDRAGMODEL- The vehicle trajectory is marked by
Figure 6. NUMERICAL MINIMIZATION EMPLOYING THE INERTIA
the solid line. The model trajectory with minimum error is shown W I T H QUADRATIC AND LINEARDRAG MODEL - The vehicle tra-
by the dashed trace.
jectory is marked by the solid line. The model trajectory with
minimum error is shown by the dashed trace.
sult for such a model provides a baseline for evaluation
of the other models and a check on the stability of the
integration. The more realistic models are inertia with To determine the raw depth data for the fore and
linear drag, inertia with quadratic drag, and inertia with aft transponders was averaged and then bidirectionally
both quadratic and linear drag. passed through a 5'h order Butterworth lowpass filter.
The second pass with the data set reversed eliminates
mejjZ + k~ - b = o phase distortion and makes the filter effectively 10"' or-
m e j jZ + ~ 1 d . i+ k~ - b = o der. Points a t the start and termination of the data set
m,jj Z + c , d i l i l + k~ - b = o (2) were pared off to remove edge effects due to the finite
m e j j 2 + c , d i l i l + C l d i + k.2 - b = 0 length of the filter and data set. The smoothed data
have high accuracy and a very low noise content. A first
z is the vehicle position and IC is the known spring con-
order central difference approximation t o the derivative
stant. b is a bias term intended t o eliminate position drift applied to the filtered position data yields a smooth and
during the integration due to the small measurement er- accurate vehicle velocity curve.
rors in the values of the initial and rest positions of the
vehicle. m , f j , C q d , and Cqd are the dimensional model Application of this technique t o one of the data sets is
parameters to be determined by the numerical minimiza- shown for the four models in Figures 3 t o 6. Each figure
tion. Because its value cannot be known in advance, b contains separate position and velocity plots. The solid
is also one of the parameters for the minimization. The curves mark the vehicle trajectory. The model path with
scalar error norm is calculated as minimum error is shown by the dashed trace. Textual
entries on the plots show the values of the minimizing
r model parameters, m,ff, C q d , and Cld, in SI units. Also
(3) included is the position measurement offset error which
is calculated from the minimizing bias parameter for the
model as offset = b / k . An offset significantly larger than
The error norm minimization process was controlled us- a millimeter for a model including drag would be indica-
ing the Nelder-Meade simplex algorithm. tive of an input error or a numerical breakdown in the

11-279
 calculation. The offset for the inertia model is a function
of the initial conditions and the first extrema. It can
easily exceed several centimeters and should not cause
concern as long as the oscillation of the model is steady.
The scalar error norms for both the position and velocity
are shown with the scalar norm of the vehicle position
and velocity about zero for comparison. The run code
indicates that this was the third of three runs with two
springs arranged in parallel. This information is summa-
rized in Table 1.
Choosing the most accurate model requires the consid-
eration of several factors. I t would be incorrect to base
the judgement on a comparison of the minimized error
norms. While the error norm is a good measure of accu-
racy within one model, its ability to discriminate between
models is sharply limited by their structural differences.
Instead, judgement is based on a visual comparison of the
amplitude and frequency of each model with the vehicle
trajectory and on a consideration of the relative strength
of each term in the model force balances. Of the three,
amplitude considerations are the most important. The
frequency and force balance comparisons fill a corrobo-
rative role in the argument.
The force balance for each model is summarized in the
the last four columns of Table I. Obviously the domi-
nant forcing is provided by the mass and spring, neither
of which is being considered for exclusion from the mod-
els. Focusing on the drag coefficients, it may be observed
that while both coefficients are reduced in the quadratic
and linear drag model compared to their values in the
quadratic drag and the linear drag models, the reduction
of Cid is much larger. The factor is 5.5 which is com-
‘pared t o 2.1 for Cqd. When both types of drag are used
t o account for the decay, quadratic drag retains more of
its solo influence than does linear drag. In the quadratic
and linear drag model, the decay is largely explained by
quadratic drag with linear drag providing only a correc-
tion.
Consider now the amplitude of oscillation. Pre-
dictably, the simple inertia model (Fig. 3) is apoor match
t o the vehicle behavior. However, it does indicate that
the integration is stable. The addition of linear drag
(Fig. 4) is a significant improvement. Note, however,
that linear drag damps out the motion too fast. After
45 t o 50 seconds the model has essentially stopped while
the vehicle continues t o oscillate. The quadratic drag
model (Fig. 5 ) provides a much better match t o the ve-
hicle amplitude. While there is a small difference, it is
constant and does not diverge over time. Based on con-
sideration of the amplitude this model provides the best
fit. That conclusion is further supported by the linear
and quadratic drag model (Fig. 6). The figure shows ex-
cessive damping similar to the linear drag model, though
the damping is less severe. The explanation is fairly sim-
ple. Observe that as the amplitude of the velocity swings
becomes smaller, linear drag must dominate quadratic
drag. If a longer data record had been made of the oscil-
lations, which were observed t o continue after recording
stopped, the value of Cld would have t o decrease so that
the model did not stop prematurely. To maintain the
II-280
1Mxx)
Figure 7. ERROR NORM SURFACEFOR THE INERTIAWITH
QUADRATIC DRAGMODEL
match with the early portion of the record, Cpd would
need to increase. As previously observed, both coeffi-
cients are smaller in the quadratic and linear drag model
than in the quadratic or linear drag models. Therefore,
the trend of the quadratic and linear drag model as the
duration of the decay lengthens is towards the simpler
quadratic drag model.
Finally, consider the frequency of oscillation. The in-
ertia model makes a better showing here and once again
provides a validity check on the integration. The value
of m,jf for the undamped system must be exceeded by
the value of m,jf for a damped system with the same
observed frequency of oscillation. The effective mass val-
ues of the drag models are consistent with this observa-
tion. Mass values increase monotonically with increas-
ing model periods. Both of the models that include lin-
ear drag have periods of oscillation that are observably
longer than the period of the vehicle. As with amplitude,
the divergence is less pronounced for the quadratic and
linear drag model. The explanation is the same and con-
vergence t o the inertia and quadratic drag model, which
makes a good fit t o the vehicle frequency, is once again
indicated.
Having chosen the model, it is important t o verify that
the simplex algorithm has located a global rather than
a local minimum of the error norm surface. This can be
done graphically by choosing ranges of m,jf and cqd, cal-
culating the error norm at each grid point, and plotting
the resulting surface in a 3 dimensional mesh plot. The
result is shown in Fig. 7. The surface shows only the sin-
gle, necessarily global, minimum. The steeper gradient
along the effective mass axis near the minimum reflects
the relatively greater importance of effective mass com-
pared t o quadratic drag in determining vehicle behavior
in this regime. A small change in the effective mass al-
ters the behavior much more than a small change in the
quadratic drag.
The hydrodynamic description of ROV Hylas by the
inertia and quadratic drag model is summarized for each
of the nine runs in Table 11. The dimensionless quan-
 inertia 1.80 .99 -38.18 1434 22.66 20.08

inertia with
linear drag .13 .08 .97 1533 639 22.66 21.46 16.11

inertia with
quadratic drag .15 .08 1.70 1506 5431 22.66 21.08 3.45

inertia with
quadratic and .ll .06 1.45 1521 2613 117 22.66 21.29 1.66 2.95
linear drag

Table I
SUMMARY OF MINIMIZATION
COEFFICIENT5 FOR RUN 2BP3
tities and the characteristic forcing were determined us- . . . . .
ing the standard deviations of the acceleration, velocity, i : : : : :
and position of each trajectory, a dry mass of 500 k g , a .... L...%..I .. ..;... . .;.. .. . ......:.. ........ ...; ........... ;..
.i..
characteristic length of 0.9 m, and a projected area of . . . ..
* . U : : .. . .. ..
:

0.9 m x 1.63 m.
-2 &O'.. ..... ..:.....;. . . . . :.........................................
. . . . . .
;..
' ! \ ! . 1.. ..
To determine if the results obtained by numerical min- J . . . .
4.0- ..................................
.. .. i ............ :........... i..
imization are accurate, a comparison is made here to . . ... .
...
.
...
measurements of the in-line forces on a rough cylinder 5
~
. .
.
3.0- ............................................
. . . :........... ;..
fixed in the harmonically oscillating flow of a U tube a t
low Keulegan-Carpenter numbers [6]. In [6] it was shown
that for 0.4 < KC < 2, Ch = 2 for smooth cylinders a t
ps of 1035, 1380, and 11240 and for a rough cylinder at
a b of 1800. The dependence of C;. on roughness and
p in the same range of ZrC values is much more pro-
nounced. For a smooth cylinder at low p , Cg decreases
as KC is increased from 0.4. Below a critical value of
KC which depends on 0,the flow is attached, laminar,
and stable. Above the critical value, C; first rises in
a hysteresis region and then continues to decrease with
increasing K C . The flow in this range is separated and
becomes increasingly turbulent with rising K C . Above
IiC x 2, separation and vortex formation become more
important and C& increases with KC.
Increasing /3 in the lower KC range, 0.4 < KC < 2,
reduces the critical value of K C above which flow is sep-
arated and turbulence increases with KC. Roughness
also promotes detatched, turbulent flow at lower values
of KC. Roughness has the additional effect of increasing
C& compared to a smooth cylinder a t the same K C and
p. The increase is larger for smaller values of KC.
The irregular shape and high /-I values of the vehicle
place it above the critical value of K C during the limit
cycle. Flow is separated but, with KC < 2, not necessar-
ily fully turbulent. The nonlaminar flow regime supports
the contention of the numerical minimization procedure
that the drag on the vehicle during limit cycle oscillations
does not have a linear component.
Based on this admittedly heuristic analysis, the vehicle
characterization should show reasonable agreement with
the results for the rough cylinder. Fig. 8 shows the Hylas
data with the d a t a in [6]. The strength of the agreement

11-28 1
 Table I1
COEFFICIENT SUMMARY OF ALL RUNSFQR THE INERTIA AND DRAGMODEL
QUADRATIC

freedom systems with coupling is straightforward. The REFERENCES

graphic output permits good discrimination between al- [I] Cooke, J . G., “Incorporating thruster dynamics
ternate models and provides an intuitive level of feedback in the control of an underwater vehicle,” Engi-
about the accuracy of any particular model. The agree- neer’s/Master’s Thesis, MIT/WHOI Joint Program
ment of the results with the work of other investigators in Oceanographic Engineering, 1989.
is a strong validation of the technique.
In summary, the hydrodynamics of ROV Hylas are well [2] Cooke, J . G., Yoerger, D. R.,Slotine, J.-J. E., “The
modelled by (1). influence of thruster dynamics on underwater vehicle
behavior and their incorporation into control system
design,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol.
F = (1 + Ch)mv + -21 ~ A c ; u ~ u ~ 15, No. 3, July 1990.
[3] MoriSon, J . R.,O’Brien, M. P.,Johnson, J. W.,
Suitable values for the dimensionless coefficients during Schaaf, S. A., “The force exerted by surface waves
the hover limit cycle are on piles,’’ Pefroleum Thnsacfions (1950), Vol. 189,
pp. 149-157.
C& = 2
C, = 8. (4) [4] Sagatun, S. I., Fossen, T. I., “The Norwegian ex-
perimental remotely operated vehicle hydrodynamic
Alternatively the vehicle can be modelled in dimensional properties,” Division of Engineering Cybernetics,
terms as Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Nor-
+
F = m,jji Cqdzlil. (5) way.
Suitable values for the dimensional coefficients for the [5] Sarpkaya, T., Isaacson, M., Mechanics of Wave
vertical direction in fresh water are Forces On Offshore Structures, Van Nostrand Rein-
hold Company, New York, NY, 1981.
m,jj = 1500 kg
Cqd = 5870 kg/m. (6) [6] Sarpkaya, T . , “Force on a circular cylinder in viscous
oscillatory flow at low Keulegan-Carpenter num-
Finally, it is apparent that, in the absence of em- bers,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics (1986), Vol. 165,
pirical measurements, the appropriately scaled hydrody- pp. 61-71.
namic characterization of a rough cylinder, which can be
found in the literature, is a reasonable first approxima-
tion for the hydrodynamic characterization of an ROV
with structural similarity to ROV Hylas hovering under
closed loop control.

11-282

View publication stats