Nonlinear Dyn
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-019-05346-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model for
slender vehicles under low-speed condition
Zongcheng Ma · Junhua Hu · Jinfu Feng ·
An Liu · Guoming Chen
Received: 14 April 2018 / Accepted: 4 November 2019
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Abstract A trans-media aerial underwater vehicle
(TMAUV) could break through the single-medium lim-
itation with the abilities to fly in the air, navigate under-
water, and cross the air–water surface repeatedly. This
paper researches on the air–water trans-media trajec-
tory, including the water entry and exit trajectories, for
slender TMAUVs. A longitudinal dynamic model is
developed for the air–water trans-media process under
low-speed condition. In this condition, the vehicle is
assumed to be fully wetted and the water surface is
assumed to be kept flat. A novel estimation for the
fluid force is proposed for the immersed part of the
vehicle, with angular velocity and angle of attack taken
into consideration. Added mass and its derivatives are
calculated by the cross-sectional method based on the
slender body theory. To verify the feasibility and effec-
tiveness of the model, water entry experiments of a
slender projectile with a length of 2000 mm are per-
formed with ground and underwater high-speed cam-
eras. Simulations and experimental results show similar
trends, as indicated by the comparisons. Furthermore,
the proposed model is compared with computational
fluid dynamics method simulating water entry and exit
processes. Simulation results present good agreement
Z. Ma (B)
School of Aviation Operations and Services, Aviation
University of Air Force, Changchun, Jilin 130022, China
e-mail: mzcgcy@126.com
J. Hu · J. Feng · A. Liu · G. Chen
Aeronautics Engineering College, Air Force Engineering
University, Xi’an 710038, China
with experimental results. On the basis of the results,
the proposed model could be used to predict the water
entry and exit trajectories with different initial condi-
tions.
Keywords TMAUV · Water entry · Water exit ·
Slender body theory · Cross-sectional method
1 Introduction
Trans-media aerial underwater vehicles (TMAUVs),
which could fly in the air, navigate underwater, and
cross the air-water surface repeatedly, are essentially
different from autonomous underwater and unmanned
aerial vehicles. These unique capabilities result in a dis-
ruptive technology for both civil and military applica-
tions, including air/water search and rescue, inspection,
repairs, and survey missions, as demonstrated in Yang
[1], Alzu’Bi [2], and Kaja [3]. The air–water trans-
media process is influenced by many physical param-
eters, including projectile geometries, material prop-
erties, and fluid properties [4,5]. This paper concen-
trates on the low-speed trans-media trajectory which
widely exists in the ballistic of traditional aerial torpe-
does [6], submarine-launched missiles, and the newly
borne TMAUVs [7,8]. Ship-based and rocket-assisted
torpedoes enter into water and begin to search, and
submarine-launched missiles exit water and accelerate
rapidly. The trans-media trajectory has minimal influ-
ence on the searching of the torpedoes and the take-
123

off of the missiles. Thus, it attracted minimal atten-
tion. Considerable attentions focused on the water
entry impact accompanied with special phenomena
[9–11]. Researches on the trans-media trajectory are
limited and should be further studied, especially for
the newly borne TMAUVs [12,13], which experiences
complicated morphing between aerial configuration
and underwater configuration.
Theoretical analysis, experiment research, and com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation are the
main research means for water entry and exit prob-
lems. From the perspective of the added mass, Karman
[14] developed a 2D wedge body mathematical solu-
tion for the problem of seaplane float landing. Faltin-
sen and Miloh et al. [15,16] expanded the added mass
method to the problem of the water entry impact of
structures. Wu [17] analyzed the hydrodynamic force
of a vehicle during vertical water entry process based
on the velocity potential theory. In 2017, Ni and Wu
[18] researched on the vertical water exit process of
a buoyant spheroid by combining boundary element
method (BEM) with slender body theory (SBT). In
these studies, hydrodynamic force was simplified as
a function of the added mass attached to the body. Wei
et al. [19] proposed a MSC.Dytran scheme to study
the water entry ballistic trajectory of an aerial torpedo.
Yang et al. [20] researched on the water entry impact
of their newly borne aerial aquatic robots experimen-
tally, and a CFD approach was proposed early in 2013.
Guo et al. [21] studied the behaviors of flat-, ogive-,
and hemispherical-nosed 50-mm-long projectiles dur-
ing high-speed water entry processes. The analytical
cavity model was developed. Zhao et al. [22] performed
oblique water entry experiments to investigate the evo-
lution of cavity and velocity with 100-mm-long pro-
jectiles. Siddall [23] presented a novel jet-propelled
AquaMAV, which could perform jump-gliding leaps,
and the water exit trajectory was studied experimen-
tally. In those literatures, CFD approach is convenient
for observing concomitant phenomena [24], but it has
the disadvantages of high calculation burden and poor
ability in multi-trajectory analysis [25]. Constrained
experiments are often performed with a short projec-
tile ignoring detailed motion characteristics [26,27].
In this paper, the air–water trans-media trajectory
is studied. During the trans-media process, the vehi-
cle suffers from complex fluid force resulting in strong
123
Z. Ma et al.
nonlinearity. The density of water is 800 times the den-
sity of air, and the dynamic viscosity coefficient of
water is 60 times the aerodynamic viscosity coefficient.
From the view of the two-phase flow research, the influ-
ence of the air fluid is considerably smaller than that
of the water fluid. Thus, the influence of the air fluid
is neglected [28,29]. To simplify the nonlinearity fur-
ther, the free surface is approximated by a flat surface,
and the water fluid is divided into the viscous fluid
inside the boundary layer and the ideal fluid outside
the layer. Inspired by the above literatures and to focus
on a slender body, the ideal fluid force is calculated
based on the potential flow theory and the SBT, which
is then simplified as a function of the added mass with
the cross-sectional method [30]. Based on these sim-
plifications, a trans-media dynamic model is proposed.
Experimental results and CFD comparisons illustrate
the accuracy of the proposed model in trans-media tra-
jectory prediction. The main contributions of this paper
include:
1. Unlike studies in [17,18,21,22] where water entry
experiments were performed using short projec-
tiles, a projectile with a length of 2000 mm is used
in this paper. Detailed motion states are recorded
by the high-speed ground and underwater cameras
during the water entry process. The recorded data
could then be used to verify the proposed model.
2. Unlike previous works in [19,20,31] using CFD,
this paper develops a dynamic model based on
momentum theorem and moment of momentum
theorem. The proposed model could greatly reduce
the amount of operation and improve efficiency.
Hence, it is especially convenient for the air–water
trans-media trajectory analysis.
3. The water entry and exit processes are combined
as the air-water trans-media process. The proposed
model could be further extended to underwater
dynamics. So it is especially suitable for trajectory
analysis of the slender TMAUV, which performs
water entry, underwater navigation, and water exit.
This paper is organized as follows: The dynamic
model is developed in Sect. 2. Section 3 describes the
experimental process, and experimental and CFD com-
parisons are presented. Water entry and exit simulations
are presented in Sect. 4. Conclusions and future works
are given in Sect. 5.
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

Oe Xe Oe Xe X

F
v
Ze O B Lin B
Ze O
o1 Fi 1
F vo1
o1
Zb G 1
G
v Z
vo1 Xb Fi
Lin

Fig. 1 State of the vehicle during the air–water trans-media process

Fig. 2 Approximation of
the submerged length

2 Development of the dynamic model mass and its derivatives are calculated based on L in .
This approximation has small errors in the head and
{Oe ; X e , Z e } is defined as an inertial frame. {O; X, Z } tail of the vehicle for the mirror asymmetry, but the
is defined as a body-fixed frame with the origin O in the asymmetric part is only a small part of the submerged
center of gravity (CG) of a slender vehicle, as shown length. Hence, the approximation errors are ignored.
in Fig. 1. O1 denotes the instantaneous center of buoy- The ideal fluid force F̄e and moment T̄ e are derived
ancy (CB). During the trans-media process, the vehicle from interaction force as [32]:
is subjected to the gravity, buoyancy, and fluid force. 
F̄e = − dBdt
e
The fluid force includes the ideal fluid force and the (1)
viscous fluid force. The cross-sectional method is used T̄ e = − dI
dt
e

to calculate the added mass, and its derivatives are con- where Be and I e denote the added momentum and
sidered in the calculation of the ideal fluid force. The moment of momentum in the inertial frame, respec-
viscous fluid force is calculated with the immersed part tively.
of the vehicle, which is marked with red contour in (1) can be further expanded in the body-fixed frame
Fig. 1. The instantaneous CB O1 is taken as a refer- as:
ence point for the calculation of the viscous fluid force 
F̄ = − ∂B∂t − Ω × B
with angular velocity and angle of attack (AOA) taken ∂I
(2)
into consideration. The calculation method of the fluid T̄ = − ∂t − U × B − Ω × I
force is presented below. where B and I denote the added momentum and
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the volume of the marked red moment of momentum in the body-fixed frame, respec-
part equals that of the yellow part. L in is then used to tively. U = (u, v, ω)T and Ω = ( p, q, r )T are the vec-
denote the instantaneous submerged length. The added tor of the vehicle’s velocities in the body-fixed frame.

123
 Z. Ma et al.

λ6×6 is a matrix of the added mass, and [B, I]T = neglected. We define vo as the velocity at CG, and vo1
λ6×6 [U, Ω]T . is the velocity at the instantaneous CB in the inertial
It has λ13 = λ31 = 0 because the rigid vehicle is frame. Thus, vo1 = vo + q × roo1 where roo1 denotes
axisymmetric. The longitudinal ideal fluid force could the distance from the instantaneous CB to the CG. The
be
⎧ expanded as:
⎨Fi x = −λ11 u̇ − λ̇11 u − q (λ33 ω + λ35 q)
Fi z = −λ33 ω̇ − λ35 q̇ − λ̇33 ω − λ̇35 q + λ11 qu (3)
⎩
Mi y = −λ53 ω̇ − λ55 q̇ − λ̇53 ω − λ̇55 q − λ11 uω + u (λ33 ω + λ35 q)

The added mass is calculated based on the cross- frictional drag is caused by the immersed part of the
sectional method as: vehicle, and its direction is opposite to the velocity
⎧ direction of the instantaneous CB. It is expressed as:
⎪
⎪
2
 241 D 3 (2− 4RD2(x) )
⎪
⎪ λ = πρ dx
⎪
⎪ 11 0 L in 1
⎨  R 2 (x) Fμ = − Cd (α1 )ρ0 vo21 S(r ) (6)
λ33 = πρ0 L in dx 2
⎪  R 2 (x)x (4) 
⎪ λ
⎪ 35 = −πρ dx where S(r ) = L in 2π R(x)dx is the surface area of the
⎪
⎪ 0 L in
⎩ λ = πρ  R 2 (x)x 2 dx
⎪ immersed part, Cd (α1 ) = Cα=0 (1 + τ α12 ) denotes the
55 0 L in
coefficient of the frictional drag, τ denotes the empiri-
where D is the maximum diameter, R is the radius of cal factor, and Cα=0 is a constant. AOA at O1 could be
the vehicle’s cross section, ρ0 is the density of the fresh expressed as:
water.
The added mass changes with time during the trans- α1 = arctan(vω /vu ) (7)
media process. Taking the derivatives of (4) with where vu denotes the velocity at O1 in X-axis and vω
respect to time, the derivatives of the added mass could in Z-axis of the body-fixed frame.
be obtained as: Then, the frictional drag could be expressed in the
⎧ 2
⎪ dλ11 = 24 1
πρ0 D 3 (2 − 4R )dL in body-fixed frame as:
⎪
⎨ D2 ⎧
dλ33 = πρ0 R 2 dL in (5) ⎨ Fμx = Fμ cos(α1 )
⎪
⎩ dλ35 = −πρ02L in2R dL in
2
⎪ Fμz = −Fμ sin(α1 ) (8)
dλ55 = πρ0 L in R dL in ⎩
Mμy = Fμz roo1
The radius of the vehicle is designed as:
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0 x < 0or x > 2
⎪
⎪
⎨ (0.2222x + 0.05) 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.225
R (x) = 0.1

 0.225 < x ≤ 2 − tan 15◦
0.1 (9)
⎪
⎪   2 
⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.1 + r 2 − x +t
0.1
tan 15◦ − 2 − rt 2 − tan0.1
15◦ < x ≤ 2

⎧
⎨ u water entry process where the quantities x, R are expressed in meter and
dL in
where dt = −u water exit process . rt = 0.7464 m taken from [38].
⎩
0 others The gravity remains constant during the trans-
dL in /dt = 0 is for the situations that the vehicle is media process, and the buoyancy is proportional to the
fully submerged or fully out of water. immersed volume of the vehicle as:
The viscous fluid force includes the frictional drag, π R 2 (x)
the pressure drag, and the wave drag. The pressure drag B = ρ0 g dx (10)
and wave drag are much smaller than the frictional L in
drag for a slender body at low speed [33,34]. Hence,  π R 2 (x)
ρ0 g L in xdx
the pressure drag and wave drag are neglected [35,36]. roo1 = (11)
B
Reynolds number and AOA considerably influence the
coefficient of the frictional drag. Under low-speed con- where B denotes the instantaneous buoyancy.
dition, the influence of Reynolds number could be

123
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

Vertical view

30 m

Water tank

Gas gun
(Launch angle)
Launching
platform Normal
camera Lateral view
23 m
Underwater
camera 10 m
Water tank

80 m

Fig. 3 Schematic illustration of the system

Momentum theorem and momentum moment theo-

rem are employed to develop the longitudinal air–water
trans-media model as:
⎧
⎨ Fi x + Fμx + (B − G) sin θ = m(du/dt + ωq)
F + Fμz − (B − G) cos θ = m(dω/dt − uq)
⎩ iz
Mi y + Mμy − Broo1 cos θ = J ·dq/dt
(12)

With initial velocities u, ω, initial angular velocity q,

and initial AOA α, the trans-media trajectory can be
solved based on Eqs. (3)–(12) by the Runge–Kutta
method [37].

3 Experimental verification Fig. 4 Assembled projectile

3.1 Experiment site
Experiments are performed in Northwestern Polytech-
nical University. The dimensions of the water tank are
30 m (width) × 80 m (length) × 10 m (water depth).
A bridge crane is installed above the water tank and
used to take the projectile out of water. The projec-
tile is obliquely launched in the direction of the launch
tube, as shown in Fig. 3. The launch angle and launch
pressure could be adjusted.
3.2 Prototype of the projectile
The prototype made of steel and aluminum alloy is
designed with a cylindrical body, a linear truncated tail,

123
 Z. Ma et al.

2000

920
196
60 60

100 O 30°
X

225 10 Aluminum
Waterproof head
2 Screw joints

)
Waterproof

ius
Aluminum Screw joints Steel pipe washer
washer

rad
tail

rc
(A
.4
30°

6
74
UNIT：mm

Fig. 5 Sketch of the projectile dimensions

and an ogive-nosed head [38]. The apex angle is set

Oe Xe
to be 30◦ , which could reduce the water entry impact
compared with apex angles of 60◦ and 90◦ . The assem-
bled model is shown in Fig. 4. The assembled projectile
weighs 65.1 kg and has a volume of 0.052 m3 . The aver-
age density is 1252 kg/m3 , and its CG is 920 mm from Ze
the head vertex, as shown in Fig. 5.

3.3 Launch equipment

The launch system consists of an air compressor, a gas

gun, a launch tube, and a launch frame. The air com-
pressor could compress air for the gas gun. It can pro-
vide a maximum pressure of 1.8 MPa. The volume of
the gas gun is 10 m3 and could store up to 0.8 MPa
pressure. The length of the launch tube is 2500 mm,
with a diameter of 205 mm. The launch system is fixed
on the slide rail, which could be pulled forward and
backward. The angle between the launch tube and the
horizon could be adjusted, and the trigger is synchro-
nized with the cameras.
Fig. 6 Images of the aerial trajectory
1 underwater camera, a data cable, an underwater LED
headlamp, and a display console. Resolution of the
SXGS-1 is 1632 × 1200 dpi, and it films at 1000 fps.
SXGS-1 and an LED headlamp are installed on the
sidewall of the water tank. Editing, storage, and data
management are performed on Phantom Camera Con-
trol (PCC) software.

3.4 Measurement system 3.5 Experimental results

Ground high-speed imaging camera Phantom-v2511,
which is fixed on the bank of the water tank, is used
to record aerial trajectories. Resolution of the camera
is 1280 × 800 dpi, and aerial trajectories are filmed
at 1000 fps. The filmed images of the Phantom-v2511
are used to analyze the initial conditions when the pro-
jectile’s vertex hits the air–water surface. An under-
water high-speed imaging system is used to record
water entry trajectories. The system includes a SXGS-
Position and attitude of the projectile could be extracted
from the filmed frames by the ratio scale method.
Sampled videos with 50 frames of an aerial trajec-
tory are shown in Fig. 6. Positions of the projectile’s
head and tail are extracted relative to the launch tube,
in that (xhead , z head ) denotes the head’s position and
(xtail , z tail ) denotes the tail’s position.
Step 1 The CG position and pitch angle are calcu-
lated.

123
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

Fig. 7 Reason for the

angular velocity while
launching O
G

1.08 Table 1 Initial conditions of the two scenarios at the moment

(X cg , Z cg ) = (X head , Z head )
2 hitting the water surface
0.92 θ vo α
+ (X tail , Z tail ) (13) Initial condition q
2

Z head − Z tail Scenario 1 − 52.09 − 0.13 29.91 −4.15
θ = − ar c tan (14) − 59.93 − 0.44 − 18.13
X head − X tail Scenario 2 29.17

Step 2 The initial launching conditions are calculated θ denotes the pitch angle in degree and q is the angular velocity
by the linear regression method, and the projectile is in rad/s. α in degree and vo in m/s are AOA and velocity at CG
assumed to be free falling ignoring aerodynamic forces.
X cg = X 0 + vx0 t (15)
1
Z cg = Z 0 + vz0 t + gt 2 (16)
2
θ = θ0 + qt (17)
Step 3 The initial conditions when the projectile’s
vertex hits the air–water surface are calculated: the
horizontal velocity vx_in = vx0 , the vertical velocity
vz_in = vz0 + gt0 , and the angular velocity q in the Fig. 8 Location of the contour
inertial frame.
The diameters of the launch tube and the projec-
tile are 205 mm and 200 mm, respectively. During the Contour of the vehicle
launch process, the clearance and the gravity induce a Visual field of the
2m
underwater camera
rotation in the pitch axis when the CG position of the
projectile exceeds the launch tube and the tail is still
Zc (m)

in the launch tube, as shown in Fig. 7. The effect is

more apparent when the launch tube is close to level as Lin
shown in the experimental results. The clearance and
the high pressure from the gas gun may induce a rota- Oc
tion in the yaw axis. This effect is not obvious because X c (m)
the water entry trajectory is almost in the vertical plane.
It may be due to the fact that the high pressure is uni-
formly distributed on the tail of the projectile and it
has not additional lateral force rotating the vehicle in
the yaw axis. The three-dimensional effect should be
further researched quantitatively. Fig. 9 Extraction of the motion parameters
In the water entry experiments, the launch angle is
− 45◦ and the launch pressure is 0.7 MPa for scenario
1 while − 30◦ , 0.7 MPa for scenario 2. The two initial directly. The real length of the projectile is 2000 mm.
conditions at the moment when the projectile hits the Thus, CG position and L in could be assured by the ratio
water surface are listed in Table 1. scale method, as shown in Fig. 9. For convenience, CG
As illustrated in Fig. 8, the contour of the projec- positions are obtained in the frame Oc ; X c , Z c . They
tile could be located and sketched from the underwa- are transformed into the internal coordinate in the com-
ter images. Then, the pitch angle could be extracted parison.

123

t=0.020 s t=0.025 s t=0.030 s
t=0.035 s t=0.040 s
t=0.050 s t=0.055 s t=0.060 s
t=0.065 s t=0.070 s
t=0.080 s t=0.085 s t=0.090 s
t=0.095 s t=0.100 s
(a)
Fig. 10 Images for water entry process a for scenario 1 and b for scenario 2
Underwater images are sampled every five frames,
and a total of 18 frames are extracted from 0 to
0.105 s for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Time inter-
val between each sampled frame in Fig. 10 is 0.005 s
because SXGS-1 films at 1000 fps. Thus, the timestamp
is assured. The first three sampled frames are aban-
doned because the submerged length is very small. The
remaining 15 frames are combined to present the whole
water entry trajectories for scenarios 1 and 2. Experi-
mental results show that the pitch angle in scenario 1
decreases slowly, whereas that in scenario 2 decreases
quickly in the same period. A considerable difference
appears with similar initial velocity and pitch angle at
the moment hitting the water surface which illustrates
that the initial AOA and angular velocity have a remark-
able influence on the water entry trajectory. This prob-
lem is further researched in Sect. 4. The pitch angle,
submerged length, and CG position versus time are
extracted and illustrated in Tables 3 and 4 in appendix.
3.6 Comparison between the experiment and
simulation
Simulation comparisons corresponding to scenarios 1
and 2 are presented in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. In
scenario 1, the pitch angle decreases from − 52.21◦ to
− 64.38◦ in 0.105 s, whereas the pitch angle decreases
from − 60.1◦ to − 95.3◦ in the same interval in sce-
nario 2, which means that the projectile turned down
quickly with a bigger absolute value of the initial AOA
and angular velocity. The projectile gets to be fully
submerged more quickly in scenario 1 because AOA is
123
Z. Ma et al.
t=0.045 s t=0.020 s
t=0.025 s t=0.030 s
t=0.035 s t=0.040 s t=0.045 s
t=0.075 s t=0.050 s t=0.055 s t=0.060 s
t=0.065 s t=0.070 s t=0.075 s
t=0.105 s t=0.080 s t=0.085 s t=0.090 s
t=0.095 s t=0.100 s t=0.105 s
(b)
much smaller in scenario 1 than in scenario 2. Thus, the
deceleration in scenario 2 is bigger. Results of the the-
oretical model agree well with the experimental results
in terms of the CG position, submerged length, and
pitch angle with maximum relative errors of 14.15%,
11.81% and 1.87% for scenario 1 and 8.93%, 11.95%
and 5.82% for scenario 2, respectively. Thus, the pro-
posed model is experimentally verified.
3.7 Comparison between CFD and simulation
To further validate the proposed model, CFD is used
to simulate water entry and exit processes for a slender
vehicle, as illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
Shape parameters of the slender vehicle listed in Table 2
are up 2.665 times of equation (9). The simulations
are conducted with ANSYS CFX 14.0 on a Dawning
A840r-G system, with four OPTERON6176 (2.3 GHz),
12-core processors, and 128 GB internal storage. The
second-order upwind difference scheme is adopted for
the discretization scheme. The computational domain
is a circular with a radius of 20 times of the vehicle’s
length. Prismatic grids are adopted, which is formed
by stretching the unstructured plane along the nor-
mal direction. The flow fields around the vehicle and
along the velocity direction are severely turbulent, so
the grid in these areas is densified to reduce errors
and improve the convergence speed. The sizes of the
grid are a maximum face area 5 m2 , a minimum face
area 0.08 m2 for water exit simulation and a maximum
face area 1.38 m2 , a minimum face area 0.05 m2 for
water entry simulation. Dynamic mesh is employed to
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

-50 1
Pitch angle in theoretical model Trajectory in theoretical model
Pitch angle in experiment Trajectory in experiment

0.5

-55
Pitch angle (°)

Z (m)
-0.5
-60

-1

-65 -1.5
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (s) X (m)

(a) (b)
2.5
Length in theoretical model
Length in experiment

2
Submerged length (m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12
Time (s)
(c)

Fig. 11 Comparisons of scenario 1 (a for the pitch angle, b for the CG, c for the submerged length)

describe the time-varying characteristics. SST k − ω
turbulence model is chosen for both the air and water
phases. Volume of fluid (VOF) two-phase flow numer-
ical model is employed for the free surface. The root
mean square (RMS) value is selected for the residual
type with an accuracy of 10−5 . The wall condition is set
for the vehicle’s body and the pressure inlet condition
for the boundary of the computational domain. Initial
conditions are set to be − 45◦ for the pitch angle and
20 m/s for the velocity in the water entry process and
45◦ and 10 m/s in the water exit process. AOAs are set
to be 0.
The processes are also simulated with the proposed
model. The pitch angles are then compared with the
CFD results which present good agreement, as illus-
trated in Figs. 15 and 16.
Furthermore, the proposed model is used to simu-
late the benchmark in [39,40]. In the literatures, water
exit process of a buoyant slender ellipsoid is simulated
based on boundary element method (BEM). Nondi-
mensionalization was adopted to generalize the prob-
lem. The process is repeatedly simulated with the pro-
posed model. Nondimensional results are illustrated in
Figs. 17 and 18. The results from these two methods
agree well. In the proposed model, the calculation ter-
minates at dimensional CG position Z̄ c = 1 when the
body departs from the flat surface. BEM simulation
continues because of the rise of the free surface. This

123
 Z. Ma et al.

-50 1
Pitch angle in theoretical model Trajectory in theoretical model
Pitch angle in experiment Trajectory in experiment

-60 0.5
Pitch angle (°)

-70 0

Z (m)
-80 -0.5

-90 -1

-100 -1.5
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (s) X (m)
(a) (b)
2.5
Length in theoretical model
Length in experiment

2
Submerged length (m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12
Time (s)
(c)

Fig. 12 Comparisons of scenario 2 (a for the pitch angle, b for the CG, c for the submerged length)

t=0.04 s t=0.08 s t=0.12 s t=0.16 s t=0.20 s

t=0.24 s t=0.28 s t=0.32 s t=0.36 s t=0.40 s

Fig. 13 CFD simulation for water entry process

123
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

t=0.1 s t=0.2 s t=0.3 s t=0.4 s t=0.5 s

t=0.6 s t=0.7 s t=0.8 s t=0.9 s t=1.0 s

Fig. 14 CFD simulation for water exit process

50
Table 2 Main parameters of the slender vehicle in CFD Proposed model
CFD
Parameters Length Maximum diameter Average density
45

Values 5.33 m 0.533 m 1000 kg/m 3

40

Pitch angle (°)

-20 35
Proposed model
CFD

-25 30

-30 25
Pitch angle (°)

-35 20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s)
-40
Fig. 16 Water exit process
-45

4.1 Water entry trajectory analysis

-50
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time (s) First, we set the initial conditions as v = 30 m/s,q =
Fig. 15 Water entry process
0rad/s,θ = − 45◦ and α = − 10◦ , −5◦ , 0◦ , 5◦ , 10◦
to research on the influence of the initial AOA.
Next, v = 30m/s,α = 0◦ , θ = −45◦ , q =
is the principal reason why these two curves have a −20◦ /s, −10◦ /s, 0◦ /s, 10◦ /s, 20◦ /s are set to investigate
bigger difference at the final stage of the water exit the influence of the initial angular velocity.
process. Simulation results for the different initial AOAs are
shown in Figs. 19, 20, 21. The figures illustrate that
the initial AOA has a great influence on the follow-
ing underwater trajectory. Positive AOAs lead to the
vehicle turning up, whereas negative AOAs lead to the
4 Simulation analysis vehicle turning down. The amplitude of the pitching
rate is proportional to the absolute value of the ini-
The experimental results illustrate that the initial AOA tial AOA, and α = 0◦ could guarantee the approxi-
and angular velocity have great influence on the follow- mate straight underwater trajectory. The absolute value
ing trajectory. In this section, the influence is further of the velocity decreases more quickly with a bigger
concluded. absolute value of the initial AOA, as shown in Fig. 21,

123
 Z. Ma et al.

3 25
proposed model =-10°
BEM =-5°
2.5 =0°
=5°
15 =10°
Dimensionless velocity

AOA (°)
1.5 5

1
-5
0.5

0 -15
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Dimensionless CG position Time (s)

Fig. 17 Velocity as a function of CG position Fig. 20 AOA

3.5 30
proposed model =-10°
BEM =-5°
3
=0°
Dimensionless acceleration

2.5 Absolute velocity (m/s) =5°

=10°
2 25

1.5

0.5 20
0

-0.5

-1 15
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Dimensionless CG position Time (s)

Fig. 18 Acceleration as a function of CG position Fig. 21 Absolute velocity

-20
=-10° because a bigger AOA corresponds to a bigger drag
=-5°
=0°
coefficient. Results of different initial angular veloci-
-30 =5° ties are shown in Figs. 22, 23, 24. The figures illustrate
=10°
that the influence of the initial angular velocity on the
Pitch angle (°)

-40 changing of AOA, pitch angle, and absolute velocity is

much smaller than the influence of the initial AOA.
-50

4.2 Water exit trajectory analysis

-60

In this section, we investigate the water exit process

-70 from the vertex contacting the water surface to the exit
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
of the tail. Simulations are terminated when the body
Time (s)
fully exits water. Thus, terminal times are different. We
Fig. 19 Pitch angle set the initial conditions as v = 30 m/s,α = 0◦ , θ =
45◦ and q = −20◦ /s, − 10◦ /s, 0◦ /s, 10◦ /s, 20◦ /s to
study the influence of the initial AOA. Then, v =

123
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

-40 30
q=-20°/s q=-20°/s
q=-10°/s q=-10°/s
q=0°/s q=0°/s
-42 q=10°/s 29 q=10°/s

Absolute velocity (m/s)

q=20°/s q=20°/s
Pitch angle (°)

-44 28

-46 27

-48 26

-50 25
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 22 Pitch angle Fig. 25 Absolute velocity

3 50
q=-20°/s q=-20°/s
q=-10°/s q=-10°/s
q=0°/s q=0°/s
q=10°/s 48 q=10°/s
2 q=20°/s Pitch angle (°) q=20°/s

46
AOA (°)

1
44

0 42

40
-1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (s)
Time (s)

Fig. 23 AOA Fig. 26 Pitch angle

30
q=-20°/s 30m/s,q = 0rad/s, θ = 45◦ and α = −5◦ , −3◦ , 0◦ , 3◦ ,
q=-10°/s
q=0°/s
5◦ are set to investigate the influence of the initial angu-
28 q=10°/s lar velocity.
Absolute velocity (m/s)

q=20°/s
In the water exit process, a similar conclusion could
26 be made that the initial AOA has a greater influence than
the initial angular velocity, as illustrated in Figs. 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30. The influence of the initial AOA
24
and angular velocity is bigger in the water exit process
than in the water entry process. This is due to the fact
22 that the fluid damping effect of the vehicle is greater
in the water entry process than in the water exit pro-
20 cess. The initial angular velocity has little influence on
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (s) the terminal time, whereas a bigger initial AOA cor-
responds to a longer terminal time. As presented in
Fig. 24 Absolute velocity Figs. 25 and 28, velocities have an increasing trend
at the end of the water exit process. The acceleration
phenomenon is mainly caused by the derivatives of the

123
 Z. Ma et al.

4 80
q=-20°/s =-5°
q=-10°/s =-3°
3 q=0°/s =0°
q=10°/s 70 =3°
q=20°/s =5°
2

Pitch angle (°)

60
1
AOA (°)

0 50

-1
40
-2

-3 30
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Time (s)
Time (s)
Fig. 29 Pitch angle
Fig. 27 AOA

30
50
=-5°
=-5°
=-3°
=-3°
40 =0°
=0°
28 =3°
=3°
Absolute velocity (m/s)

=5°
=5° 30
AOA (°)

26 20

10
24

0
22
-10

20 -20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 28 Absolute velocity Fig. 30 AOA

added mass. The acceleration phenomenon was also should be developed. The influence of cavity, which
observed in Wu’s and Chen’s water exit pin shooting contributes the present low-speed model to the high-
experiments [41] [42]. speed condition, should also be further researched.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all tech-

nicians of Northwestern Polytechnical University for their help
5 Conclusion in the experimental setup. Project supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51779263).
In this paper, a longitudinal air–water trans-media
Compliance with ethical standards
dynamic model is proposed and verified. Simulations
illustrate that the initial AOA has a great influence on Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no con-
the water entry and exit trajectories, while the initial flict of interest.
angular velocity does not influence the following tra-
jectory intensively. Zero initial AOA water entry/exit
is preferable for the newly borne TMAUV because Appendix
the following trajectory does not change dramatically.
In future work, a three-dimensional dynamic model See Tables 3, 4.

123
A longitudinal air–water trans-media dynamic model

Table 3 Detailed information corresponding to scenario 1

Time (s) 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060

x-axis (mm) 1657.2 1513.7 1381.2 1256.4 1128.0 1003.2 874.8 746.5 682.9
z-axis (mm) 1531.4 1382.5 1245.3 1093.6 960.5 842.7 701.4 560.8 496.0
Theta (◦ ) −52.31 −52.48 − 52.95 −53.13 − 53.65 − 53.98 − 54.76 − 55.28 − 55.99
L in (mm) 616.4 801.7 964.0 1143.1 1353.3 1528.9 1731.2 1903.8 2000.0
Time (s) 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105
x-axis (mm) 635.0 560.3 519.5 401.7 359.1 201.0 42.9 − 14.1 − 85.27
z-axis (mm) 285.7 243.7 220.3 115.6 86.0 − 108.3 −143.4 − 191.6 −237.7
Theta (◦ ) −56.73 − 57.58 −58.36 −59.04 − 60.61 − 61.69 − 62.66 − 63.54 − 64.38
L in (mm) 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0

Table 4 Detailed information corresponding to scenario 2

Time (s) 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060

x-axis (mm) 1600.0 1493.9 1396.9 1272.2 1180.5 1075.3 983.9 891.6 801.6
z-axis (mm) 1531.1 1431.9 1341.4 1242.9 1125.1 1020.3 913.8 799.5 689.4
Theta (◦ ) − 60.1 − 60.9 − 62.1 − 62.6 − 63.8 − 65.1 − 67.2 − 68.6 − 70.5
Lin (mm) 415.7 549.0 663.2 769.2 906.4 1001.2 1159.9 1300.7 1397.7
Time (s) 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 0.105
x-axis (mm) 732.1 651.4 588.9 522.3 458.6 394.1 347.7 299.5 247.3
z-axis (mm) 601.0 522.3 444.5 353.4 256.7 137.6 15.6 −111.0 − 209.8
Theta (◦ ) −72.1 − 76.2 − 80.1 − 83.2 −85.6 − 88.9 − 91.1 − 92.5 − 95.3
L in (mm) 1535.7 1570.6 1623.9 1670.4 1829.8 1955.1 2000.0 2000.0 2000.0

References on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering: Vancouver.

1. Yang, X., Wang, T., Liang, J., Yao, G., Liu, M.: Survey on
the novel hybrid aquatic-aerial amphibious aircraft: aquatic
unmanned aerial vehicle. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 74, 131–151
(2015)
2. Alzu’Bi, H., Akinsanya, O., Kaja, N., Mansour, I.,
Rawashdeh, O.: Evaluation of an aerial quadcopter power-
plant for underwater operation. In: 2015 International Sym-
posium on Mechatronics and ITS Applications, Sharjah,
UAE (2015)
3. Kaja, N., Akinsany, O.: Evaluation of a quad-rotor power-
plant for dual-mode (air and underwater) operation intro-
duction. In: 2014 IEEE—Sem Fall Conference, Michigan,
USA (2014)
4. Truscott, T.T., Epps, B.P., Belden, J.: Water entry of projec-
tiles. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 355–378 (2014)
5. Epely-Chauvin, G., De Cesare, G., Schwindt, S.: Numer-
ical modeling of plunge pool score evolution in non-
cohesive sediments. Engineering Applications of Compu-
tational Fluid Mechanics, pp. 477–487 (2014)
6. Araujo, J. B., Machado R. D., Medeiros Jr., C. J.: High hold-
ing power torpedo pile—results for the first long term appli-
cation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference
British Columbia, Canada (2004)
7. Siddall, R., Kovac, M.: Launching the AquaMAV: bioin-
spired design for aerial-aquatic robotic platforms. Bioinspir.
Biomim. 9, 031001 (2014)
8. Yang, X., Liang, J., Wang, T.: Submersible unmanned aerial
vehicle concept design study. In: AIAA Aviation Technol-
ogy, Integration, and Operations Conference. August 12–14,
Los Angeles, CA (2013)
9. Barjasteh, M., Zeraatgar, H., Javaherian, M.J.: An Experi-
mental study on water entry of asymmetric wedges. Appl.
Ocean Res. 58, 292–304 (2016)
10. Sun, S.Y., Wu, G.X.: Oblique water entry of a wedge into
waves with gravity effect. J. Fluids Struct. 52, 49–64 (2015)
11. Moore, M.R., Howison, S.D., Ockendon, J.R., Oliver, J.M.:
A note on oblique water entry. J. Eng. Math. 81, 67–74
(2013)
12. Liang, J., Yang, X., Wang, T., Yao, G., Zhao, W.: Design and
experiment of a bionic gannet for plunge-diving. J. Bionic
Eng. 10, 282–291 (2013)
13. Siddall, R., Kovac, M.: Fast aquatic escape with a jet thruster.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 22(1), 217–225 (2017)
14. Karman, V.: The impact of seaplane floats during landing.
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (1929)

123

15. Faltinsen, O.M.: Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Struc-
tures, p. 286. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(1990)
16. Miloh, T., Shukron, Y.: Ricochet off water of spherical pro-
jectiles. J. Ship Res. 35(2), 91–100 (1991)
17. Wu, G.X.: Hydrodynamic force on a rigid body during
impact with liquid. J. Fluid Struct. 12, 549–559 (1998)
18. Ni, B.Y., Wu, G.X.: Numerical simulation for water exit of
an initially fully-submerged buoyant spheroid in an axisym-
metric flow. Fluid Dyn. Res. 49, 045511 (2017)
19. Wei, Z., Shi, X., Wang, Y., Xin, Y.: The oblique water entry
impact of a torpedo and its ballistic trajectory simulation.
High Perform. Comput. Appl. 5938(2), 450–455 (2010)
20. Yang, X., Liang, J., Wang, T.: Computational simulation
of a submersible unmanned aerial vehicle impacting with
water. In: Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Biomimetics, Shenzhen, China (2013)
21. Guo, Z., Zhang, W., Xiao, X., Wei, G., Ren, P.: An investiga-
tion into horizontal water entry behaviors of projectiles with
different nose shapes. Int. J. Impact Eng. 49, 43–60 (2012)
22. Zhao, C.G., Wang, C., Wei, Y.J.: Experimental study on
oblique water entry of projectiles. Mod. Phys. Lett. B 30(28),
1–21 (2016)
23. Siddall, R., Kovac, M.: A water jet thruster for an aquatic
micro air vehicle. In: IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Washington State Con-
vention Center. Seattle, Washington (2015)
24. Tassin, A., Piro, D., Korobkin, A., Maki, K., Cooker, M.:
Two-dimensional water entry and exit of a body whose shape
varies in time. J. Fluids Struct. 40, 317–336 (2013)
25. Truscott, T., Epps, B., Techet, A.: Unsteady forces on
spheres during free-surface water entry. J. Fluid Mech.
704(2), 173–210 (2012)
26. Panciroli, R., Shams, A., Porfiri, M.: Experiments on the
water entry of curved wedges: high speed imaging and par-
ticle image velocimetry. Ocean Eng. 94, 213–222 (2015)
27. Bodily, K.G., Carlson, S.J., Truscott, T.T.: The water entry
of slender axisymmetric bodies. Phys. Fluids 26(7), 45–78
(2014)
28. Wu, G.X., Eatock, T.R.: The coupled finite element and
boundary element analysis of nonlinear interactions between
waves and bodies. Ocean Eng. 30, 387–400 (2003)
29. Sun, P.N., Zhang, A.M., Marrone, S.: An accurate and effi-
cient SPH modeling of the water entry of circular cylinders.
Appl. Ocean Res. 72, 60–75 (2018)
123
Z. Ma et al.
30. Logvinovich, G.V.: Hydrodynamics of free-boundary flows.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. 127-147(2012). (In
Chinese translated from Russian by H.H. Shi)
31. Seddon, C.M., Moatamedi, M.: Review of water entry with
applications to aerospace structures. Int. J. Impact Eng. 32,
1045–1067 (2006)
32. Wu. W. Y.: Fluid mechanics, p.158-159, Peking University
Press, Beijing, China (1995)
33. Fossen, T.I.: Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles.
Wiley, New York (1994)
34. Huang, J.Q., Zhang, Y.W.: Torpedo Hydromechanics.
Northwestern Ploytechnical University Press, Xi’an (1989)
35. Newman, J.N.: Marine Hydrodynamics. MIT Press, Cam-
bridge (1977)
36. Prestero, T.: Verification of a six-degree of freedom simula-
tion model for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle.
University of California (1994)
37. Butcher, J.C.: The Numerical Analysis of Ordinary Differ-
ential Equations, Runge–Kutta and General Linear Methods.
Wiley, Chichester (1987)
38. Baldwin, John L.: An experimental investigation of water
rntry, Naval Ordance Laboratory (1972)
39. Ni, B.Y., Zhang, A.M., Wu, G.X.: Simulation of complete
water exit of a fully-submerged body. J. Fluids Struct. 58,
79–98 (2015)
40. Ni, B.Y., Wu, G.X.: Numerical simulation of water exit of
an initially fully submerged buoyant spheroid in an axisym-
metric flow. Fluid Dyn. Res. 49, 045511 (2017)
41. Shi, H.H., Wu, Y., Zhou, H.L.: Development of water exit
test facility of high speed body and flow visualization of
the flow field. J. Zhejiang Sci-Tech Univ. 28(4), 534–539
(2011). (in Chinese)
42. Chen, B., Peng, L.B., Shi, H.H., Jia, H.X.: Experimental
and numerical study on hydrodynamic characteristics in
water-exit of slender body. J. Exp. Fluid Mech. 29(2), 26–32
(2015). (in Chinese)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil-
iations.