1.

Introduction
The underwater exploration has become very popular lately along with its wide applications in
the industry. One of the most popular type of underwater vehicles is the ones that are
autonomous. These underwater vehicles are cheaper as compared to the manned vehicles. These
underwater vehicles make ocean exploration easier and are steadily making their way into the
applications of such explorations. To meet the harsh underwater conditions, researches and
experimentations have been done in order to develop a vessel that can provide optimal
performance during extraction and exploration projects. The autonomous underwater vehicles
have been developed using the data from management of coasts and oceanography. The data was
collected on the long-term basis from these sources (Husaini et al., 2011).

The underwater vehicles used for the exploration and extraction require significant amount of
energy. The reduction in the energy consumption of these vehicles is a very important aspect and
it is considered in almost all the experimentations and researches (Husaini et al., 2009). The
underwater vehicles used for commercial and industrial applications face the problem of limited
energy storage capacity. For the operations of these vehicles to extend for the longer time periods
there are certain techniques that can be implied. The main energy sources the underwater
vehicles use are mostly batteries and fuel cells. One of the methods that can be used to enhance
the performance of an underwater vehicle is to optimize its geometry. This can be done using a
body shape that is lesser resistant to the incoming flows moving over the body of the vehicle
during motion (Yamaguchi, 2002). This is one of the key features that is required to be done and
one of the easier and cheaper alternatives. There have been numerical and computational studies
that address this problem (Song et al., 2011).

1.1. Reynolds Number

Whenever the fluid mechanics is involved, Reynolds number (Re) is required for understanding
and describing the state of the flow. Re determines whether the fluid is in turbulent or laminar
flowing conditions. It does not consist of any dimensions as it is the flowing fluid ratio of
resistance due to inertia and resistance due to viscosity. Mathematically it can be represented as:

ρuL uL
ℜ= =
µ v
ρ = density of the fluid having units ( ) kg
m
3

u = fluid speed w.r.t. the object having units ( ms )

L = linear dimension having units ( m )

µ = fluid viscosity having units ( mskg )

v = fluid kinematic viscosity having units ( )
m2
s

Figure 1 Flow Classifications w.r.t. Various Re Moving Over Cylindrical Body (Mills, 1992).

1.2. Drag Forces

Drag is a parallel component of a fluid that passes over a body and generates a force on it as a
result. The dependency of the drag force is largely dependent upon the roughness of the body’s
surface on which the fluid passes over as well as the shape of the body. As far as Re is concerned
the variation in drag force can be observed significantly with cylindrical shapes. The drag force
can be represent using three regions that are as follow (Elger, 2014):

1. A linear reduction in drag is caused whenever there is an increase in Re<103.

2. For 103 < Re < 105 drag remains almost constant for the region.
 3. 105 < Re < 5x105 for the variation of boundary layer for this region, the drag has a
reduction of 80%.

Drag force can be represented mathematically:

( )
2
ρV0
F D =C D A
2

Drag coefficient can be represented mathematically:

FD
C D=

( )
2
ρV 0
A Ref
2

1.3. Lift Forces

Lift is a perpendicular component of a fluid that passes over a body and generates a force on it as
a result. Lift occurs in most of the cases due to the difference in pressure. When circular flow as
well as uniform flow are present the lift is bound to produce on the body. The circular flow of a
cylindrical body cannot be seen as long as it does not produce rotational motion. A flow that is
symmetrical in nature is produced on the tip of the leading edge. This flow later on accumulates
on the trailing edge of the cylinder. The flow forms a vortex region slightly behind the body and
it is known as shedding region. When it is characterised, no lift is considered acting on the body
but in actual a very small lift is observed while considering the shedding at the region of vortex
(Elger, 2014).

Lift force can be represented mathematically:

( )
2
ρV0
F L =C L A
2

Lift coefficient can be represented mathematically:

FD
C L=

( )
2
ρV 0
A
2
2. Method
1. The geometry of the underwater vehicle model was generated with the help of a CAD
software named SolidWorks.
2. ANSYS software was used to apply the mesh on the model. The gird refinement study
was also done using the same analysis software. Multiple grids were generated for the
velocity of 5 m/s.
3. With the help of the converged grid the iterations for velocity 5 m/s were verified.
4. The CFX/FLUENT was run for the velocities of 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 50 m/s. This was done
with the converged grid.
5. Discussions for the results of axial velocity profiles at leading edge, mid vehicle body as
well as trailing part of the vehicle were done and reported in section 3.
6. The characterization of the flow was done using the contours of velocity at 5 m/s, 10 m/s
and 50 m/s. The contours were also discussed.
7. The characterization of the flow was done using the contours of velocity vectors at 5 m/s,
10 m/s and 50 m/s. The contours were also discussed.
8. The characterization of the flow was done using the contours of pressure at 5 m/s, 10 m/s
and 50 m/s. The contours were also discussed.
9. For all three velocities i.e. 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 50 m/s the coefficients of lift and drag were
calculated.
10. The validation of the results was done using literature and reported in section 4.
2.1. CAD Design

Figure 2 Technical Drawing of the Designed Model of an Underwater Vehicle.

Figure 2 above shows the technical drawing of the model with the labelled dimensions. The
isometric view of the CAD design has also been shown in the upper right corner. The design was
generated using the appropriate dimensions as instructed.

2.2. Meshing

Figure 3 Meshing of the Underwater Vehicle Model in ANSYS

Figure 3 shows the meshing of the design in the analysis software. The details of the mesh are
given as under:

No. of Nodes: 332901

No. of Elements: 1795742
The inflation layer was applied on the curves of the design to achieve better quality of results. As
it was included in the mesh the flow hitting the curved areas had higher accurate results. The
inflation of the layer was 5.

2.3. Grid Refinement

Grid refinement is used in order to find the best mesh setting for a design and where it provides
more accurate and optimal results. To implement grid refinement a multiple no. of elements from
the meshes were compared with respect to velocity and pressure. The element numbers were
increased until a linear pattern was observed. Table 1 shows the grid refinement by comparing
the velocity and pressure with the no. of elements.

Table 1 Grid Refinement Values with respect to Pressure and Velocity

Sr # Meshing Size Pressure Velocity

1 39758 111.563 5.15755
2 73796 86.94 5.16
3 86054 102.644 5.18104
4 105830 107.5 5.15655
5 112712 110.234 5.16788
6 128862 93.9804 5.1824
7 170867 112.854 5.17807
8 270473 97.8396 5.18872
9 332901 110.701 5.18832
10 427044 110.655 5.1886

Grid Refinement Graph w.r.t. Pressure

120

100

80
Pressure (Pa)

60

40

20

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Meshing Size

Figure 4 Graph of Grid Refinement with respect to Values of Pressure

In figure 4 the graph of element nos. regarding pressure of the flow is plotted. The graph shows
the encircled point where grid refinement was ineffective and increasing the number of elements
did not affect its quality further. The point was at 332901 no. of elements.

Grid Refinement Graph w.r.t. Velocity

5.2

5.19

5.18
Velocity (m/s)

5.17

5.16

5.15

5.14
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Meshing size

Figure 5 Graph of Grid Refinement with respect to Values of Velocity

In figure 5 the graph of element nos. regarding velocity of the flow is plotted. The graph shows
the encircled point where grid refinement was ineffective and increasing the number of elements
did not affect its quality further. The point was at 270473 no. of elements.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Speed at U = 5 m/s

Figure 6 Residual Graph of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 5 m/s

The graph given in figure 6 shows that the solution of the model was converged. This
convergence showed that the results were highly accurate.

3.1.1. Velocity Contour

Figure 7 Velocity Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 5 m/s

The velocity contour showed the maximum and minimum values of the flow velocity passing
over the body of the underwater vehicle. The highest velocity was at 6.261 m/s. From the
contour given in figure 7 it can be observed that the highest velocity was on the curved sides of
vehicle. The lowest value of velocity was at the trailing side of the model. The velocity was
higher at the edges of the front side due to the low pressure. It happened because the flow’s
pressure was disturbed and separation was occurred at higher velocity.
3.1.2. Velocity Vector Contour

Figure 8 Velocity Vector Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 5 m/s

The velocity vector contour has been shown in figure 8. This contour helped in determining the
direction of the flow by indicating the direction of the velocity. The arrows with directional
pointers in this plot showed where the fluid was moving and at which point the velocity was
higher as well.

3.1.3. Pressure Contour

Figure 9 Pressure Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 5 m/s

The pressure contour showed the maximum and minimum values of the flow pressure passing
over the body of the underwater vehicle. The highest-pressure value was at 13.49 MPa. From the
contour given in figure 9 it can be observed that the highest pressure was on the face of the front
side of the vehicle forming stagnation point, while the lowest pressure was on both the edges of
the model. The pressure was higher at the front side of the face due to the low velocity. It
happened because the flow met resistance and separation occurred at the edges so the maximum
pressure was inserted in the middle of the face.
3.2. Speed at U = 10 m/s

Figure 10 Residual Graph of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 10 m/s

The graph given in figure 10 shows that the solution of the model was converged. This
convergence showed that the results were highly accurate.

3.2.1. Velocity Contour

Figure 11 Velocity Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 10 m/s

The velocity contour showed the maximum and minimum values of the flow velocity passing
over the body of the underwater vehicle. The highest velocity was at 12.72 m/s. From the
contour given in figure 11 it can be observed that the highest velocity was on the curved sides of
vehicle. The lowest value of velocity was at the trailing side of the model. The velocity was
higher at the edges of the front side due to the low pressure. It happened because the flow’s
pressure was disturbed and separation was occurred at higher velocity.

3.2.2. Velocity Vector Contour

Figure 12 Velocity Vector Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 10 m/s

The velocity vector contour has been shown in figure 12. This contour helped in determining the
direction of the flow by indicating the direction of the velocity. The arrows with directional
pointers in this plot showed where the fluid was moving and at which point the velocity was
higher as well.

3.2.3. Pressure Contour

Figure 13 Pressure Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 10 m/s

The pressure contour showed the maximum and minimum values of the flow pressure passing
over the body of the underwater vehicle. The highest-pressure value was at 52.711 MPa. From
the contour given in figure 13 it can be observed that the highest pressure was on the face of the
front side of the vehicle forming stagnation point, while the lowest pressure was on both the
edges of the model. The pressure was higher at the front side of the face due to the low velocity.
It happened because the flow met resistance and separation occurred at the edges so the
maximum pressure was inserted in the middle of the face.

3.3. Speed at U = 50 m/s

Figure 14 Residual Graph of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 10 m/s

The graph given in figure 10 shows that the solution of the model was converged. This
convergence showed that the results were highly accurate.

3.3.1. Velocity Contour

Figure 15 Velocity Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 50 m/s

The velocity contour showed the maximum and minimum values of the flow velocity passing
over the body of the underwater vehicle. The highest velocity was at 64.81 m/s. From the
contour given in figure 15 it can be observed that the highest velocity was on the curved sides of
vehicle. The lowest value of velocity was at the trailing side of the model. The velocity was
higher at the edges of the front side due to the low pressure. It happened because the flow’s
pressure was disturbed and separation was occurred at higher velocity.

3.3.2. Velocity Vector Contour

Figure 16 Velocity Vector Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 50 m/s

The velocity vector contour has been shown in figure 16. This contour helped in determining the
direction of the flow by indicating the direction of the velocity. The arrows with directional
pointers in this plot showed where the fluid was moving and at which point the velocity was
higher as well.

3.3.3. Pressure Contour

Figure 17 Pressure Contour of an Underwater Vehicle with the Flow Velocity of 50 m/s

The pressure contour showed the maximum and minimum values of the flow pressure passing
over the body of the underwater vehicle. The highest-pressure value was at 1283.01 MPa. From
the contour given in figure 17 it can be observed that the highest pressure was on the face of the
front side of the vehicle forming stagnation point, while the lowest pressure was on both the
edges of the model. The pressure was higher at the front side of the face due to the low velocity.
It happened because the flow met resistance and separation occurred at the edges so the
maximum pressure was inserted in the middle of the face.

3.4. Axial Velocity Profiles

3.4.1. Leading Edge
In figure 18 below the graph of axial velocity at leading edge has been plotted. The pattern of the
velocities hitting at this point is almost same i.e. getting lower at the middle. However for 50 m/s
the velocity gets more lower due to higher speed of flow.

Axial Velocity Graph Leading Edge

6.00E+01

5.00E+01

4.00E+01
Velocities

3.00E+01

2.00E+01

1.00E+01

0.00E+00
4.60E-03 3.58E-03 2.56E-03 1.53E-03 5.11E-04 -5.11E-04 -1.53E-03 -2.56E-03 -3.58E-03 -4.60E-03
Y (m)

Velocity [5 m/s ] Velocity [ 10m/s ] Velocity [ 50 m/s ]

Figure 18 Axial Velocity Graph Comparison of Leading Face for all Three Speeds

3.4.2. Leading Edge

In figure 19 below the graph of axial velocity at leading edge has been plotted. The pattern of the
velocities hitting at this point is almost same i.e. getting lower at the middle. However, for 50
m/s the velocity gets more lower due to higher speed of flow. The velocities at mid part gets to 0
at on point and then rise again.
 Axial Velocity Graph Mid Edge
60

50

40
Velocities

30

20

10

0
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Y (m)

Velocity [5 m/s ] Velocity [ 10m/s ] Velocity [ 50 m/s ]

Figure 19 Axial Velocity Graph Comparison of Leading Face for all Three Speeds

3.4.3. Trailing Edge

In figure 20 below the graph of axial velocity at trailing edge has been plotted. The pattern of the
velocities hitting at this point is almost same i.e. getting lower at the middle. However, for 50
m/s the velocity gets more lower due to higher speed of flow.

Axial Velocity Graph Trailing Edge

6.00E+01

5.00E+01

4.00E+01
Velocities

3.00E+01

2.00E+01

1.00E+01

0.00E+00
4.60E-03 3.58E-03 2.56E-03 1.53E-03 5.11E-04 -5.11E-04 -1.53E-03 -2.56E-03 -3.58E-03 -4.60E-03
Y (m)

Velocity [5 m/s ] Velocity [ 10m/s ] Velocity [ 50 m/s ]

Figure 20 Axial Velocity Graph Comparison of Leading Face for all Three Speeds

3.5. Comparison of Drag Coefficient at 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 50 m/s

The graph of comparison for coefficients of Drag at U = 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 50 m/s has been
plotted in figure 18. The graph showed that the values of drag coefficient for 5 m/s and 10 m/s
were residing very close to each other and slowly reduce as the iterations continued. However,
the values of 50 m/s velocity were a lot higher than the lesser 2 velocities. This showed that how
increasing the flow velocity can increase the drag on a body.

Comparison of Drag Coefficent at All 3 Velocities

1.600000000000000E-05

1.300000000000000E-05
Drag Coefficient

1.000000000000000E-05

7.000000000000000E-06

4.000000000000000E-06

1.000000000000000E-06

-2.000000000000000E-06 2 102 202 302 402 502 602 702 802 902 002 102 202 302 402 502 602 702 802 902
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of Iterations

Drag at 5 m/s Drag at 10 m/s Drag at 50 m/s

Figure 21 Comparison Graph of Drag Coefficients of all 3 Speeds

3.6. Comparison of Drag Coefficient at 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 50 m/s

The graph of comparison for coefficients of lift at U = 5 m/s, 10 m/s and 50 m/s has been plotted
in figure 19. The graph showed that the values of lift coefficient for 5 m/s and 10 m/s were
residing very close to each other and slowly reduce as the iterations continued. However, the
values of 50 m/s velocity were a lot higher than the lesser 2 velocities. This showed that how
increasing the flow velocity can increase the lift on a body.
 Comparison of Drag Coefficent at All 3 Velocities
4.300000000000000E-08
3.600000000000000E-08
LIFT COEFICIENT

2.900000000000000E-08
2.200000000000000E-08
1.500000000000000E-08
8.000000000000000E-09
1.000000000000000E-09
-6.000000000000000E-09
2 142 282 422 562 702 842 982 1122126214021542168218221962
NO. OF ITERATIONS

Lift at 5 m/s Lift at 10 m/s Lift at 50 m/s

Figure 22 Comparison Graph of Drag Coefficients of all 3 Speeds

4. Validation of Results
In order to validate the contours of velocity and pressure a comparison had to be done in order to
validate the contours. Saghafi and Lavim used ANSYS FLUENT to run CFD analysis on
multiple geometries of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) with flow speed of 2 m/s.
They also plotted contours for both velocity and pressure and these are given in figure 20 and 21
respectively (Saghafi and Lavimi, 2020).

The contours showed the similar behavior of the flow as the plotted contours did in section 3.
The velocity was highest on the edges while the pressure was highest at the middle of the front
face forming a stagnation point. The resemblance in results was due to almost similar design of
the vehicles (Saghafi and Lavimi, 2020).
Figure 23 Velocity Contours of Various Geometries (Saghafi and Lavimi, 2020).

Figure 24 Pressure Contours of Various Geometries (Saghafi and Lavimi, 2020).

5. Conclusion
The analyses were conducted on an underwater vehicle geometry that was designed according to
the given instructions. All the steps were followed to fulfil the methodology completely. The grid
refinement was applied on the model by increasing the number of elements with respect to
pressure and velocity and an optimal grid was found out. The settings of this mesh were used to
carry out the complete simulations. The results from the contours showed that how the fluid
passed over the body of the vehicle. The stagnation point was formed by maximum pressure at
the front side of the vehicle’s face while the velocity was highest at the edges. The velocity and
pressure contours also showed the separation of flow at the trailing part of the vehicle. Lastly, the
contours were verified from the literature and the behavior of the flow was same for the analyses
done in this report and literature.
References
ELGER, D., WILLIAMS, B., CROWE, C. AND ROBERTSON, J. 2014. Engineering Fluid
Mechanics. Hoboken: Wiley, 10, 406-426.
HUSAINI, M., SAMAD, Z. & ARSHAD, M. R. 2009. CFD simulation of cooperative AUV
motion. Indian Journal of Material Sciences, 38, 346–351.
HUSAINI, M., SAMAD, Z. & ARSHAD, M. R. 2011. Autonomous underwater vehicle
propeller simulation using computational fluid dynamic. Computational Fluid Dynamics
Technologies and Applications, 293-314.
MILLS, A. F. 1992. Heat Transfer, Boca Raton, Florida, United States, CRC Press.
SAGHAFI, M. & LAVIMI, R. 2020. Optimal design of nose and tail of an autonomous
underwater vehicle hull to reduce drag force using numerical simulation. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the
Maritime Environment, 234, 76-88.
SONG, F. X., ZHANG, L. H., WU, Z. L. & WANG, L. P. On resistance calculation for
autonomous underwater vehicles. Advanced Materials Research, 2011. Trans Tech
Publications Ltd, 1745-1748.
YAMAGUCHI, S., KAWANAMI, T. AND KOTERAYAMA, W. A study on shape
optimization for an underwater vehicle based on numerical simulation. The Fifth ISOPE
Pacific/Asia Offshore Mechanics Symposium, 2002. International Society of Offshore
and Polar Engineers.