Hydrophysics

Hydrophysics

Assessment of Nose and Tail Geometry Effects on the Hydrodynamic Performance of an Underwater Vehicle (AUV)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
kamran arshtabar 1
Mohammad Hossein Karimi 1
Mojtaba Dehghan Manshadi 1
Rouzbeh Shafaghat 2
1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Iran
2 Department of Thermo-Fluid Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran
Abstract
The hull form design of underwater vehicles significantly influences their hydrodynamic performance. The three main sections—nose, midbody, and tail—play a crucial role in optimizing the hull of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) from a hydrodynamic perspective. In this study, the simultaneous effects of nose and tail geometry on hydrodynamic performance and surrounding flow characteristics of a fixed-length AUV hull were investigated. Mairing’s equations were employed to design the hull profile, and the control parameters were adjusted to generate variations in the hull form. Numerical simulations were performed using STAR-CCM+ based on the RANS equations. Optimization was conducted via a full factorial design of experiments in Design Expert at a flow velocity of 1.1 m/s. The optimal hull form was selected to minimize drag force while maintaining a volume variation within 2% of the initial model. Among 15 conducted experiments, five models with the highest desirability were identified, and model 12 was chosen as the optimal configuration, achieving a 1.12% reduction in drag compared to the initial design. Notably, model 7 exhibited the lowest drag, with a 3.2% reduction relative to the baseline. Flow analyses were performed over velocities ranging from 0.3 to 1.4 m/s, and the effects of Reynolds number, drag coefficients, and volume-dependent resistance were evaluated. Results indicate that variations in the curvature and slope of the nose and tail sections significantly affect the drag force of the submerged vehicle.
Keywords
Numerical analysis
Myring equations
Drag Force
AUV
Hull form

Subjects

[1] Jaffe JS, Franks PJS, Roberts PLD, Mirza D, Schurgers C, Kastner R, et al. A swarm of autonomous miniature underwater robot drifters for exploring submesoscale ocean dynamics. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14189. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14189.
[2] Anderson B, Crowell J. Workhorse AUV - a cost-sensible new autonomous underwater vehicle for surveys/soundings, search & rescue, and research. In: Proceedings of the MTS/IEEE Oceans 2005; 2005; Washington, DC, USA. MTS/IEEE; 2005. p. 1-6. doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2005.1639923.
[3] Fernandes VH, Neto AA. Pipeline inspection with AUV. In: Proceedings of the RIO Acoustics 2015; 2015 Jul 29-31; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. IEEE; 2015. p. 6-10. doi: 10.1109/RIOAcoustics.2015.7473598.
[4] Cashmore M, Fox M, Larkworthy T, Long D, Magazzeni D. AUV mission control via temporal planning. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); 2014 May 31–Jun 7; Hong Kong, China. IEEE; 2014. p. 6535-41. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2014.6907823.
[5] Williams DP. On optimal AUV track-spacing for underwater mine detection. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); 2010 May 3-7; Anchorage, AK, USA. IEEE; 2010. p. 4755-62. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509435.
[6] Williams CD, Curtis TL, Doucet JM, Issac MT, Azarsina F. Effects of hull length on the hydrodynamic loads on a slender underwater vehicle during manoeuvres. In: Proceedings of the OCEANS 2006; 2006 Sep 18-21; Boston, MA, USA. IEEE; 2006. doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2006.306884.
[7] Phillips A, Furlong M, Turnock SR. The use of computational fluid dynamics to assess the hull resistance of concept autonomous underwater vehicles. In: Proceedings of the OCEANS 2007 – Europe; 2007 Jun 18-21; Aberdeen, Scotland. IEEE; 2007. doi: 10.1109/OCEANSE.2007.4302349.
[8] Jagadeesh P, Murali K, Idichandy VG. Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic force coefficients over AUV hull form. Ocean Eng. 2009;36(1):113-8. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.11.008.
[9] Avila JPJ, Adamowski JC. Experimental evaluation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of a ROV through Morison’s equation. Ocean Eng. 2011;38(17-18):2162-70. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.09.032.
[10] de Sousa VN, de Macedo RL, Ferreira de Amorim Junior W, de Lima GB. Numerical analysis of turbulent fluid flow and drag coefficient for optimizing the AUV hull design. Open J Fluid Dyn. 2014;4(3):263-77. doi: 10.4236/ojfd.2014.43020.
[11] Xu SJ, Han DF, Ma QW. Hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on a remotely operated vehicle with an asymmetric shape moving in a vertical plane. Eur J Mech B Fluid. 2015;54:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.euromechflu.2015.05.007.
[12] Madan AD, Issac MT. Hydrodynamic analysis of AUV hulls using semi-empirical and CFD approach. Univ J Mech Eng. 2017;5(5):137-43. doi: 10.13189/ujme.2017.050501.
[13] Hong L, Fang R, Cai X, Wang X. Numerical investigation on hydrodynamic performance of a portable AUV. J Mar Sci Eng. 2021;9(8):812. doi: 10.3390/jmse9080812.
[14] Gao T, Wang Y, Pang Y, Cao J. Hull shape optimization for autonomous underwater vehicles using CFD. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech. 2016;10(1):599-607. doi: 10.1080/19942060.2016.1224735.
[15] Uppal H, Isaac MT, Shameem BM. Numerical investigation on the drag characteristics of AUV hulls. Int J Mech Prod Eng Res Dev. 2019;9(3):645-54. doi: 10.24247/ijmperdjun201971.
[16] Saghafi M, Lavimi R. Optimal design of nose and tail of an autonomous underwater vehicle hull to reduce drag force using numerical simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part M J Eng Marit Environ. 2020;234(1):76-88. doi: 10.1177/1475090219863191.
[17] Sener MZ, Aksu E. The effects of head form on resistance performance and flow characteristics for a streamlined AUV hull design. Ocean Eng. 2022;257:111630. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111630.
[18] Chen X, Yu L, Liu LY, Yang L, Xu SH, Wu J. Multi-objective shape optimization of autonomous underwater vehicle by coupling CFD simulation with genetic algorithm. Ocean Eng. 2023;286:115722. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115722.
[19] Myring DF. A theoretical study of body drag in subcritical axisymmetric flow. Aeronaut Q. 1976;27(3):186-94. doi: 10.1017/S000192590000768X.
[20] Hu HH. Chapter 10 - computational fluid dynamics. In: Kundu PK, Cohen IM, Dowling DR, editors. Fluid mechanics. 5th ed. Boston: Academic Press; 2012. p. 421-72. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-382100-3.10010-1.
[21] Eymard R, Gallouët T, Herbin R. Finite volume methods. In: Ciarlet PG, Lions JL, editors. Handbook of numerical analysis. Vol. 7. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2000. p. 731-1018. doi: 10.1016/S1570-8659(00)07007-8.
[22] Collar PG, McPhail SD. Autosub: an autonomous unmanned submersible for ocean data collection. Electron Commun Eng J. 1995;7(3):105-14. doi: 10.1049/ecej:19950305.
[23] Allen B, Stokey R, Austin T, Forrester N, Goldsborough R, Purcell M, et al. REMUS: a small, low cost AUV; system description, field trials and performance results. In: Proceedings of the Oceans '97 MTS/IEEE Conference; 1997 Oct 6-9; Halifax, NS, Canada. IEEE; 1997. p. 994-1000. doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.1997.624126.
[24] Pascoal A, Oliveira P, Silvestre C, Bjerrum A, Ishoy A, Pignon JP, et al. MARIUS: an autonomous underwater vehicle for coastal oceanography. IEEE Robot Autom Mag. 1997;4(4):46-58. doi: 10.1109/100.637805.
[25] Bondaryk J. Bluefin autonomous underwater vehicles: programs, systems, and acoustic issues. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(5 Pt 2):2615. doi: 10.1121/1.4784796.
[26] Marthiniussen R, Vestgard K, Klepaker RA, Storkersen N. HUGIN-AUV concept and operational experiences to date. In: Proceedings of the Oceans ’04 MTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean ’04; 2004 Nov 9-12; Kobe, Japan. IEEE; 2004. p. 846-50. doi: 10.1109/OCEANS.2004.1405571.
[27] White FM. Fluid mechanics. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[28] Schlichting H. Boundary-layer theory. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1979.
[29] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 5th ed. New York: Wiley; 2001.
[30] West GS, Apelt CJ. The effects of tunnel blockage and aspect ratio on the mean flow past a circular cylinder with Reynolds numbers between 10⁴ and 10⁵. J Fluid Mech. 1982;114:361-77. doi: 10.1017/S0022112082000202.
[31] Lyon MH. The drag of streamline bodies. Aircraft Eng Aero Technol. 1934;6(9):233-9. doi: 10.1108/eb029841.
[32] Bell WH. The influence of turbulence on drag. Ocean Eng. 1979;6(3):329-40. doi: 10.1016/0029-8018(79)90021-0.
Hydrophysics
Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 19
September 2025
Pages 171-186

  • Receive Date 17 October 2025
  • Revise Date 09 December 2025
  • Accept Date 22 December 2025