Submarine Dynamic Modeling

Dr Peter Ridley Julien Fontan and Dr Peter Corke

School of Mechanical Engineering, CSIRO Centre Manufacturing Industrial Technology,
Queensland University of Technology, QCAT PO Box 883, Kenmore 4069,
GPO Box 2434, Brisbane 4001, Australia, Australia,
p.ridley@qut.edu.au peter.corke@csiro.au

Abstract
This paper discusses the development of a
dynamic model for a torpedo shaped sub-
marine. Expressions for hydrostatic, added
mass, hydrodynamic, control surface and pro-
peller forces and moments are derived from
first principles. Experimental data obtained
from flume tests of the submarine are inserted
into the model in order to provide computer
simulations of the open loop behavior of the
system.
Figure 1: Torpedo shaped AUV: fully assembled

Introduction
Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) are finding
use in a variety of oceanographic survey applications
(Foresti [2001] Dhanak [2001]). These vehicles present
a comparatively low cost technology for underwater
exploration with a freedom of motion superior to
tethered-towed submersibles.
An experimental AUV (Figures 1 and 2) has been
designed by Reid [2001] at Queensland University of
Technology and the computer control system was in-
stalled by staff at the CSIRO, CMIT Automation
Group. This AUV is torpedo shaped, approximately
1.5m long × 150mm diameter. Four, independently Figure 2: Torpedo shaped AUV: casing removed
actuated, orthogonal, stern planes are used to control
its attitude. Power to the DC motor, which drives the
585mm wide . These experimental procedures, de-
propellor, comes from a battery supply via a current
scribed in detail in the Appendix, have provided data
amplifier, used to control the shaft speed.
regarding relationships between angle of attack (α) and
The mathematical dynamic model, described in this
the coefficients of lift and drag (CL , CD ), moment co-
paper, provides a useful tool for the understanding and
efficient (CM ) and control surface effectiveness (CLδf ),
tuning of the control system which automatically con-
plotted in this paper.
trols the attitude and depth of the submarine. This
work tracks similar developments described by Nahon
[1993, 1998] Equations of motion
Numerical values for the hydrodynamic coefficients Figure 3 shows the body frame of reference in which the
which are contained within the mathematical model equations of motion are written. Origin Cb is located at
have been evaluated, where possible, from experimen- the centre of buoyancy and the centre of gravity lies at
tal data derived from the full size AUV or a half size the point rG =[xG ,yG ,zG ]T . The components of rG are
model, inserted into an open flowing channel (flume), small since the submarine is deliberately designed to
 Cb Xsub Evaluation of Forces and moments
Surge: u Five sets of forces/moments act on the hull:
Roll: p
(i)Hydrostatic forces
Ysub The orientation of the body frame relative to the world
Sway: v frame is described by Euler angles rotated in the order:
Pitch: q roll φ, pitch θ, yaw ψ.
Heave: w The static forces, weight (W) and buoyancy (B) act
Yaw: r through the centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy
respectively. When resolved onto the submarine body
Zsub frame, these become:

XHS = −(W − B) sin θ

YHS = (W − B) cos θ sin φ
Figure 3: Body coordinate system ZHS = (W − B) cos θ cos φ
(3)
KHS = −yG W cos θ cos φ − zG W cos θ sin φ
have the centre of gravity and the centre of bouyancy MHS = −zG W sin θ − xG W cos θ cos φ
NHS = −yG W cos θ sin φ − zG W sin θ
coincident. The following symbols are used for compo-
nents in the Xsub -, Ysub - and Zsub - directions:
forces = [X,Y ,Z]T moments = [K,M,N]T (ii)Added mass inertia forces
T
velocity V = [u,v,w] angular velocity ω= [p,q,r]T Added mass is a measure of the additional inertia cre-
Newton’s equations of motion, for a rigid body with ated by water which accelerates with the submarine.
six degrees of freedom, relative to coordinates attached The forces and moments created by added mass may
to the body at Cb , are ΣF = maG where be expressed :
• m=mass of the submarine and
• aG =acceleration of the centre of mass.
XA = Xu̇ u̇ + Xwq wq + Xqq q 2 + Xvr vr + Xrr r2
Substituting aG = ∂V ∂t + ω × V + ω̇ × rG + ω × ω × rG YA = Yv̇ v̇ + Yṙ ṙ + Yura ur + Ywp wp + Ypq pq
gives the following force equations in the Xsub -, Ysub -
and Zsub -directions: ZA = Zẇ ẇ + Zq̇ q̇ + Zuqa uq + Zvp vp + Zrp rp
KA = Kṗ ṗ
u̇ − vr + wq − xG (q 2 + r 2 ) + yG (pq − ṙ) + zG (pr + q̇)]
m[P MA = Mẇ ẇ + Mq̇ q̇ + Muwa uw + Mvp vp + Mrp rp + Muqa uq
= Xext NA = Nv̇ v̇ + Nṙ ṙ + Nuva uv + Nwp wp + Mpq pq + Nura ur
v̇ − wp + ur − yG (r 2 + p2 ) + zG (qr − ṗ) + xG (qp + ṙ)]
m[P (4)
= Yext where eg. Xu̇ = ∂X ∂ u̇ [kg] and K ṗ = ∂K
∂ ṗ [kg m2
] etc,
are added masses and added mass moments of intertia.
ẇ − uq + vp − zG (p2 + q 2 ) + xG (rp − q̇) + yG (rq + ṗ)]
m[P Axial Xu̇ and rolling Kṗ added masses were estimated
= Zext from an empirical relationships by Blevins[1984] and
(1) crossflow added masses (Yv̇ , Zẇ =Yv̇ , Mẇ , Nv̇ =-Mẇ ,
Yṙ =Nv̇ , Zq̇ =Mẇ , Mq̇ ,Nṙ =Mq̇ ,) ,were evaluated numer-
Euler’s equations of motion, for a rigid body with six ically using the technique by Newmann [1980].
degrees of freedom, relative to coordinates attached to The remaining cross-terms result from added mass
the body at Cb , are ΣMB = ḢG + rG × maG . The coupling and can be evaluated from the added mass
rate of change of angular momentum about the centre terms already derived.
of gravity, ḢG = [I]ω̇ + ω × [I]ω, where [I] is the [3 × 3]
diagonal inertia matrix [Ixx ,Iyy ,Izz ] evaluated about Xwq = Zẇ Xqq = Zq̇
Xvr = −Yv̇ Xrr = −Yṙ
principal axes located at the centre of gravity.
Substituting again for aG , neglecting small terms Yura = Xu̇ Ywp = −Zẇ
(eg x2G ), gives the following moment equations in the Ypq = −Zq̇
Xsub -, Ysub - and Zsub -directions:
ṗ + (Izz − Iyy )qr − m[yG (ẇ − uq + vp) − zG (v̇ − wp + ur)]
IxxP Zuqa = −Xu̇ Zvp = Yv̇
(5)
= Kext Zrp = Yṙ

q̇ + (Ixx − Izz )rp − m[zG (u̇ − vr + wq) − xG (ẇ − uq + vp)]

IyyP Muwa = −(Zẇ − Xu̇ ) Mvp = −Yṙ
Mrp = (Kṗ − Nṙ ) Muqa = −Zq̇
= Mext
Nuva = −(Xu̇ − Yv̇ ) Nwp = Zq̇
ṙ + (Iyy − Ixx )pq − m[xG (v̇ − wp + ur) − yG (u̇ − vr + wq)]
IzzP
Npq = −(Kṗ − Mq̇ ) Nura = Yṙ
= Next
(2)
 Cd vs alpha: V=0.5051 m/sec.
1.6 and Zsub - directions may be expressed:
1.5 Xd = Xu|u| u |u| + Xuv uv + Xuw uw+
Xv|v| v |v| + Xw|w| w |w|
(10)
1.4 Yd = Yuvd uv + Yv|v| v |v|
1.3
Zd = Zuwd uw + Zw|w| w |w|
where:
1.2

1.1 Xu|u| = − 21 (ρAf ) c

Xuw = Xuv = − 12 ρAf b

1


Xw|w|d = Xv|v| = − 12 ρAf
a + 2c (11)
0.9 −Yv|v| = Zw|w| = − 12 ρAf
b
Zuwd = −Yuvd = − 12 ρAf c
0.8

Lift L, acting at the centre of pressure, is gener-

0.7
−10 −5 0 5
deg.
10 15 20 25 ated perpendicular to the flow, as the submarine moves
through the water. Relocating this force to act at the
Figure 4: Hull Drag: CD versus α, V=0.5m/sec. centre of buoyancy causes a pitching moment M to
a=5.25 rad.−2 , b=-0.315 rad.−1 , c=0.732 be created. Both lift and moment are directly propor-
tional to the angle of attack and are plotted in Figures
(iii)Hydrodynamic forces and moments 5 and 6.
CL vs alpha: V=0.5051 m/sec.
Hull forces and moments 2.5
Drag is related to the fluid density ρ, submarine frontal
area Af and lies in the direction of the fluid velocity 2

V.
1.5
D = 12 ρCD Af V 2 (6)
1
CD is related to the angle of attack (α) through a
parabolic relationship, plotted in Figure 4. 0.5

CD = aα2 + bα + c. (7) 0

It is assumed that the sway (v) and heave velocity −0.5

(w) are small compared with the surge (u).Angle of

−1
attack can be expressed: in the XZ-plane as tan α '
α= w v
u [radians], or in the XY-plane as tan β ' β = u −1.5
[radians]. −10 −5 0 5
deg.
10 15 20 25

Drag force, when viewed in the XZ-plane, may be

resolved into the Xsub - and Zsub - directions. Figure 5: Hull Lift: CL versus α, V=0.5m/sec.
Slope: CLα =4.79 rad.−1
Dx = − 21 ρAf CD (u2 + w2 )cosα
2
' − 21 ρAf CD (u2 + w2 )(1 − α2 )
L = 12 ρCL Af V 2 CLα = ∂C L
(8) ∂α (12)
M = 12 ρCM Af V 2 CMα = ∂C M
Dz = − 21 ρAf CD (u2 + w2 )sinα ∂α

' − 21 ρAf CD (u2 + w2 )α Lift force and pitching moment, when viewed in the
XZ-plane are derived from equation 12:
Similarly, drag force, when viewed in the XY-plane, Zl = − 12 ρAf CLα (u2 + w2 )αcosα
may be resolved into the Xsub - and Ysub - directions. (13)
Ml = 12 ρAf CMα (u2 + w2 )α

Dx = − 12 ρAf CD (u2 + v 2 )cosβ Similarly in the XY-plane,

2
' − 21 ρAf CD (u2 + v 2 )(1 − β2 ) Yl = 21 ρAf CLβ (u2 + v 2 )βcosβ
(9) (14)
Nl = 21 ρAf CMβ (u2 + v 2 )β
1 2 2
Dy = 2 ρAf CD (u + v )sinβ
1 2
' 2 ρAf CD (u + v 2 )β Using the expression of the angle of attack, under
the assumption u  w or v we have:
Expanding equations 8 and 9 , through CD , α and β,
and neglecting terms beyond second order, reveals that Yuvl = −Zuwl = 21 ρAf CLα
(15)
the components of total drag force in the Xsub -,Ysub - Muwl = Nuvl = 21 ρAf CMα
 Cm vs alpha: V=0.5051 m/sec.
0.05 6

0.04 4

0.03 2

Lift (N)
0.02 0

0.01 −2

0 −4

−0.01 −6
−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
deg. δ (rad)
r

Figure 6: Hull Moment: Cm versus α, V=0.5m/sec. Figure 7: Fin Lift: Lift vs δr , V=0.81m/sec.
Slope: Cmα =0.0974 rad.−1 NB: |slope| = 2 |Yuuδr | V 2 =-25 N.rad.−1

(iv) Control surface forces and moments 5

Attitude of the vehicle is controlled by two horizontal
stern planes, and two vertical rudders. Assuming di- 4
ametrically opposite fins move together the empirical
formula for fin lift is given as: 3
Yawing moment (Nm)

Lf in = 12 ρCLδf Sf in δe ve2 2
(16)
Mf in = xf in Lf in
1
where CLδf is the rate of change of lift coefficient wrt
fin effective angle of attack and Sf in is the fin planform 0

area. δe is the effective fin angle in radians. For the

v+xf in r −1
rudder δe = δr + u and stern plane δe = δs −
w−xf in q
u . Effective fin velocity, ve = u and xf in is −2
the axial position of the fin post in body-referenced
coordinates. −3
−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
These coefficients enable us to obtain the hydrody- δ (rad)
r

namic coefficients from the equations for an individual

fin lift and moment: Figure 8: Fin Turning Moment: Moment vs δr ,
V=0.81m/sec. |slope| = 2 |Nuuδr | V 2 =16 Nm.rad.−1
Yr = 12 ρCLδf Sf in u2 δr + uv + xf in ur 
 

Zs = − 12 ρCLδf Sf in u2 δs− uw + xf in uq
U
Ms = − 21 ρCLδf Sf in xf in  u2 δs − uw + xf in uq [1980] uses the non dimensional advance ratio J = nd


Nr = − 12 ρCLδf Sf in xf in u2 δr + uv + xf in ur where U is the forward velocity, n the number of shaft

(17) revolution per unit time and d the propeller diameter.
Finally, we can separate the equation 17 into the He assumes that, if there is no cavitation, the thrust
following sets of fin lift coefficients: and torque can be non dimensionalized so as to depend
only on the advance ratio in the form:
Yuuδr = Yuvf = ρCLδf Sf in
Zuuδs = −Zuwf = −ρCLδf Sf in (18)
)
T
= KT (J)

ρn2 d4 Xprop = KT (J)ρn2 d4
Yurf = −Zuqf = ρCLδf Sf in xf in Q ⇒
ρn2 d5 = KQ (J) Kprop = KQ (J)ρn2 d5
and fin moment coefficients: (20)
Muuδs = −Muwf = −ρCLδf Sf in xf in Propeller efficiency is the ratio of the work done by
Nuuδr = Nuvf = −ρCLδf Sf in xf in (19) the propeller in developing the force U T divided by the
Muqf = Nurf = −ρCLδf Sf in x2f in work required to overcome the shaft torque 2πnQ
It follows that:
(v) Propeller forces and moments
The propeller provides forces Xprop and moments Kprop UT J KT
ηp = = (21)
around the X axis of the body-fixed frame. Newman 2πnQ 2π KQ
 2.5 causing the submarine to change depth. Figure 11
V = 0.82 m/s shows the yaw response of the submarine to various
2 V = 0.55 m/s
v = 0.37 m/s rudder inputs. Motor torque causes the submarine to
1.5 turn more tightly to port.

1 Nautilus trajectory in the Earth−fixed frame

20
δ in degrees
s
0.5
Nm

15

0 δ =−5
s
10
−0.5

5
−1 δ = −1
s

z
−1.5
δ =1
s

−2 −5
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
pulse width modulated (%)
−10 δs = 5

Figure 9: Fin Rolling Moment: Rolling Moment

−15
vs aileron angle, V=[0.37, 0.55, 0.82] m/sec. NB:
|Kuuδs | = |Kuuδr | = |slope|
4V 2 −20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
x

Summation of forces and moments Figure 10: Simulated trajectory at various stern plane
Combining like cross-terms from equations 4, 5 10,15, angles V=1.54 m/sec.
18 and 19 , we get the following hydrodynamic forces:
Yuv = Yuvl + Yuvf + Yuvd Trajectory in the Earth−fixed frame
Yur = Yura + Yurf 8
Zuw = Zuwl + Zuwf + Zuwd
Zuq = Zuqa + Zuqf 6
(22)
Muw = Muwa + Muwf + Muwl
δ =−1
Muq = Muqa + Muqf 4 δ =−3
r
r

Nuv = Nuva + Nuvf + Nuvl

Nur = Nura + Nurf 2
y

Summing the forces and moments on the submarine 0

P
Xext = XHS + Xu|u| u |u| + Xu̇ u̇ + Xuv uv + Xuw uw+ −2
Xv|v| v |v| + Xvr vr + Xw|w| w |w| + Xwq wq+
Xqq qq + Xrr rr + Xprop −4 δ =+3
r

P 2

δ =+1
Yext = YHS + Yuuδr u δrtop + δrbottom + Yur ur+ −6
r

Yuv uv + Yv|v| v |v| + Yv̇ v̇ + Ywp wp + Ypq pq + Yṙ ṙ

−4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
ZHS + Zuuδs u2 δsright + δslef t + Zuw uw+
P
Zext = x
Zuq uq + Zvp vp + Zw|w| w |w| + Zẇ ẇ + Zq̇ q̇ + Zrp rp
P
Kext = KHS + Kṗ ṗ + Kuuδr −δ

Figure 11: Simulated trajectory at various rudder an-

rtop + δrbottom +
Kuuδs −δsright + δslef t + Kprop gles V=1.54 m/sec., Kp =-0.543 Nm

MHS + Muuδs u2 δs + Muw uw + Muq uq+

P
Mext = Figure 12 predicts that the roll response is
Mvp vp + Mẇ ẇ + Mq̇ q̇ + Mrp rp marginally stable. Natural frequency of the oscilla-
tion is determined by the offset of the centre of gravity
NHS + Nuuδr u2 δr + Nur ur + Nuv uv+
P
Next =
Nv̇ v̇ + Nwp wp + Npq pq + Nṙ ṙ which lies slightly below the centre of buoyancy. In
(23) reality this oscillation would tend to be damped out
by viscous drag between the rolling submarine and the
water. This effect is not included in the model. The
Simulation of Open Loop Behavior offset in roll angle is due to the torque from the motor.
The response of the submarine under the action of var- Figure 13 shows the response of the unpowered sub-
ious actuator inputs has been plotted.Figure 10 shows marine as it surfaces under the action of its slightly
the open loop response to inputs from the stern planes, positive buoyancy. It surfaces at a pitch angle of 5
 Roll vs time for various rudder angles
20 cilities and laboratory measurements were by QUT
δr = 3 degrees
δ = 1 degree
undergraduate students Sam Reid and Simon Cham-
r
δ = −1 degree
r
bers. The staff of the CSIRO, Automation Group
δ = −3 degrees
15 r of Automation Group at CMST, designed and man-
ufactured the submarine computing and control elec-
tronics and software and also undertook field trials of
10
the submarine. CSIRO sponsored Julien Fontan, dur-
roll (degrees)

ing 2002,as a visiting scholar from Ecole Centrale de

Nantes (France).
5

References
0 Foresti G.L. [2001] Visual Inspection of Sea Bottom
Structures by an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
−5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Part B: cybernetics, Vol. 31, No. 5, October 2001.
time (s)
Dhanak M.R, An P. E., Holappa K. [2001] An AUV
Figure 12: Simulated roll vs time at various rudder Survey in the Littoral Zone: Small Scale Subsurface
angles. Variability Accompanying Synoptic Observations of
Surface Currents, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineer-
ing, Vol. 26, No. 4, October 2001.
degrees.
Reid S [2001], The design of an Autonomous Under-
x(t) water Vehicle, Undergraduate Thesis, Faculty of Built
15
Environment and Engineering , Queensland University
10 of Technology, 2001.
x (m)

5 Nahon M., [1998] A Simplified Dynamics Model

for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, IEE proceedings,
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
y(t)
30 35 40 45 50 1998.
time (s)
1
Nahon M, [1993], Determination of Vehicle Hydro-
dynamics Derivatives Using the USAF Datcom, IEEE
y (m)

0
proceedings, 1993.
Blevins R. D. [1984], Applied Fluid Dynamics Hand-
−1
0 5 10 15 20 25
−z(t)
30 35 40 45 50 book, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.
time (s)
4 Newman J.N. [1980], Marine Hydrodynamics (third
edition), MIT Press, 1980.
−z (m)

2
Chambers S. [2001] , Dynamics of an Autonomous
Underwater Vehicle, Undergraduate Thesis, Faculty of
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Built Environment and Engineering , Queensland Uni-
time (s)
versity of Technology, 2001.
Figure 13: Simulated trajectory as the unpowered sub- Morrison A., Yoerger D. [1993] , Determination of
marine surfaces. the Hydrodynamic Parameters of an Underwater Ve-
hicle During Small Scale, Nonuniform, 1-Dimensional
Translation, IEEE proceedings, 1993
Conclusions
A rigid body dynamic model discussed in this paper
has produced a set of results for the open loop be-
havior of the submarine under the action of rudder,
stern plane and motor inputs. The next phase of the
project is to implement closed loop automatic control
on depth, heading and roll angle of the submarine.This
will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of
Queensland University of Technology, Schools of Me-
chanical and Civil Engineering who manufactured the
submarine and provided the experimental test facili-
ties. Design of the submarine and experimental fa-
Appendix: Experimental Data
Experimental data from which the submarine’s hydro-
dynamic coefficients were derived came from tests car-
ried out in an open flowing channel (flume). Figure 14
shows a half size scale model, suspended in the channel
by a vertical shaft attached to a three axis dynamome-
ter, capable of measuring forces in the x- (drag) and
y- (lift) directions and a pitching moment about the
z-axis.

Figure 16:

opposite vertical fins were set at various angles (δf )

and the lift and yawing moment measurements were
recorded. Angle of attack α was held at zero degrees.

Fy Mz
CLδf = 1 2 , CMδf = 1 2 (25)
2 ρAf V 2 ρAf V L

Figure 14: Data for figure 9, again, was obtained by suspending

the full size submarine in the flume. All four fins were
offset equally to create a rolling moment, about the
x-axis. Angle of attack α was held at zero degrees.
Dynamometer
The bending moment on the shaft was measured and
recorded.
Water flow

Y
X
Channel

Figure 15:

The angle of attack α can be adjusted by rotating the

shaft and setting the angle using a protractor, shown
in Figure 15. Figures 4, 5 and 6 are the plots of drag,
lift and moment coefficients versus angle of attack ob-
tained using this experimental procedure.
Fx Fy Mz
CD = 1 2 , CL = 1 2 , CM = 1 2
2 ρAf V 2 ρAf V 2 ρAf V L
(24)
where: Fx and Fy are the measured forces in the x- and
y-directions,Mz is the moment measured about the z-
axis, Af is the frontal cross sectional area, V is the free
stream velocity, and L is the length of the submarine.
Data for figures 7 and 8 was obtained by suspending
the full size submarine in the flume. Diametrically
 Parameter Symbol Value Units
Mass m 18.826 kg
Mass moment Ixx 0.0727 kg.m2
Mass moment Iyy=Izz 1.77 kg.m2
Length L 1.391 m
Hull Radius R 0.076 m
Fin distance from Cb xf in 0.537 m
Location of Centre of Mass [Xg ,Yg ,Zg ] [-0.012, 0, 0.0048] m
Non-linear Maneuvering Coefficients for Forces and Moments
Parameter Value Units Description
Xuu -3.11e+0 kg/m Drag
Xu̇ +4.21e-1 kg Added Mass
Xuw +3.01e+1 kg/m Drag
Xuv +3.01e-2 kg/m Drag
Xvv -5.19e+1 kg/m Drag
Xvr +2.72e+1 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Xww -5.19e+1 kg/m Drag
Xwq -2.72e+1 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Xrr +1.83e+0 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Xprop +7.38e+0 (variable) N Propeller Thrust
Yuuδr +1.19e+1 kg/(m.rad) Fin Lift Force
Yuv -5.85e+1 kg/rad Added Mass Cross-term, Fin Lift and Drag
Yur +5.66e+0 kg/rad Added Mass Cross-term and Fin Lift
Yvv +3.01e+0 kg/m Drag
Yv̇ -2.72e+1 kg Added Mass
Ywp +2.72e+1 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Ypq -1.83e+0 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Yṙ -1.83e+0 kg Added Mass
Zuuδs -1.19e+1 kg/(m.rad) Fin Lift Force
Zuw -5.85e+1 kg/rad Added Mass Cross-term, Fin Lift and Drag
Zuq -5.66e+0 kg/rad Added Mass Cross-term and Fin Lift
Zvp -2.72e+1 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Zww +3.01e+1 kg/m Drag
Zẇ -2.72e+1 kg Added Mass
Zq̇ +1.83e+0 kg Added Mass
Zrp -1.83e+0 kg/rad Added Mass Cross Term
Non-linear Maneuvering Coefficients for Moments.
Parameter Value Units Description
Kṗ -4.10e-2 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass
Kprop -5.40e-1 (variable) N.m Propeller Torque
Kuuδr +4.48e+0 kg/rad Fin Rolling Moment
Kuuδs +4.48e+0 kg/rad Fin Rolling Moment
Muuδs -6.08e+0 kg/rad Fin Lift Moment
Muw +2.40e+1 kg Body and Fin and Munk Moment
Muq -4.93e+0 kg.m/rad Added Mass Cross term and Fin Lift
Mvp +1.83e+0 kg.m/rad Added Mass Cross
Mẇ +1.83e+0 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass
Mq̇ -4.34e+0 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass
Mrp +4.30e+0 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass Cross Term
Nuuδr -6.08e+0 kg/rad Fin Lift Moment
Nuv -2.40e+1 kg Body and Fin and Munk Moment
Nur -4.93e+0 kg.m/rad Added Mass Cross term and Fin Lift
Nv̇ -1.83e+0 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass
Nwp +1.83e+0 kg.m /rad Added Mass Cross Term
Npq -4.30e+0 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass Cross Term
Nṙ -4.34e+0 kg.m2 /rad2 Added Mass