Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Design and dynamic modeling of ROVs: estimating the damping and added
mass parameters
Ali Hammoud 1, 2, Jihad Sahili 1, Mervat Madi 1, 3, Elsa Maalouf 2, *
1
Department of Mechanical engineering, Lebanese University, Faculty of engineering, Beirut, Lebanon
2
Baha and Walid Bassatne Department of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Energy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon
3
School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Amity University Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Accurate estimations of the added mass and damping parameters are required to obtain the dynamic model of
Underwater vehicles Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) underwater. However, theoretical derivations of these parameters are only
Added mass available for standard shapes (e.g., sphere, cube) and empirical formulations for complex shapes are not accu­
Damping
rate. Moreover, experimental measurements are expensive and cannot be measured in the preliminary stages of
Hydrodynamic parameters
Fluid-structure interaction
the design. In this paper, we propose an efficient and simple numerical method to calculate the added mass and
Dynamic modeling damping parameters needed in the initial design of a ROV. The added mass parameters of a ROV built in-house
are calculated using COMSOL Multiphysics by simulating the free harmonic damped oscillations in the six de­
grees of freedom. The measured translational added mass terms are compared to the ones calculated using the
potential theory and agree with a relative difference below 8.1% in the sway and heave directions, and 17.3% in
the surge direction. A higher difference is obtained in the surge direction because the values obtained using the
potential energy neglect the viscous effects that dominate the added mass terms in that direction. The damping
parameters are obtained by a fitting function that relates the damping force (or moment) and its corresponding
linear (or angular) velocity calculated using ANSYS FLUENT. It is shown that the coupled terms in the damping
matrix are negligible at low velocities. The workflow is applicable to any complex shape ROV to efficiently
calculate the initial design parameters.

1. Introduction
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) are unoccupied underwater
robots connected to a vessel by a series of cables that provide the power
supply and transmit control signals between the ROV and the ground
station. ROVs are mainly used for inspecting and repairing underwater
structures, underwater archeology, oceanographic and environmental
field studies without the direct intervention of humans (Gomes et al.,
2005).
Dynamic models are essential to design the guidance, navigation and
control (GNC) systems of ROVs (Ahmad and Sutton, 2003) (Fossen,
1999). Dynamic models of ROVs are used to predict the thrust needed
for the ROV to reach a desired velocity and to control the stability of the
ROV in the presence of underwater disturbances. The dynamic model
requires two important dynamic parameters: The added mass and the
damping parameters. The added mass terms are related to the forces and
moments acting on the ROV during acceleration. The damping
parameters are related to the drag forces and moments acting on the
ROV during motion. These parameters are usually acquired using
experimental tests, for example, the Planar Motion Mechanism (PMM),
the Coning Motion Mechanism (CMM), and the Rotating Arm Mecha­
nism (RAM). The PMM test consists of moving the carriage holding the
ROV at a constant speed and applying a force to obtain sinusoidal
transverse or longitudinal motions. During the predefined oscillatory
motions, the added mass parameters are measured (Gertler, 1967). The
CMM consists of applying a continuous rolling motion to the longitu­
dinal axis of the ROV about the free stream velocity vector, and is used to
calculate the added mass/inertia (Johnson, 1987). The RAM employs a
rotating arm with adjustable velocity and radius to calculate the added
mass parameters by measuring the changes of the forces and moments
applied to the ROV (Jeong et al., 2016). The experimental tests yield
accurate values for the added mass and the damping parameters, how­
ever, they are costly and time consuming. The experimental tests per­
formed on scaled models of ROVs are less expensive, however, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: em40@aub.edu.lb (E. Maalouf).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109818
Received 9 March 2021; Received in revised form 4 September 2021; Accepted 6 September 2021
Available online 23 September 2021
0029-8018/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Fig. 1. Picture of the SILVER SHARK prototype.

expected error in the estimated parameter can reach 50% (Caccia et al.,
2000). Moreover, the experimental methods cannot be used in the pre­
liminary stages of design because the model is not manufactured yet.
The theoretical calculations of added mass and damping parameters are
only applicable to simple geometries (e.g., sphere, cube) as described in
Blevins (2003) and DNV-standards (DNV-RP-H103, 2009), and empir­
ical formulations are not practical when working with complex-shaped
ROVs. Therefore, numerical methods are used to determine the hydro­
dynamic parameters of ROVs and yield accurate estimations with rela­
tively low cost and short time. For example, Yang (2016) evaluates the
added mass parameters in the six degrees of freedom by applying the
potential and strip theories using WAMIT and MCC. He evaluates the
damping parameters in the three translational directions using ANSYS
CFX and STAR-CCM+. Numerical results show good agreement with the
experimental measurements. In (Eidsvik, 2015), the added mass pa­
rameters of different ROV models are estimated using WAMIT and the
damping parameters are found using SOLIDWORKS. Similar studies are
found in (Yang et al., 2015), (Chin and Lau, 2012) and (Cely et al.,
2019). However, WAMIT uses the potential theory, which assumes the
flow is irrotational, i.e., the flow has no viscosity, and this assumption is
not always valid (Subbulakshmi et al., 2015). Fig. 2. Sketch of the SILVER SHARK with the restoring moments generated due
In this paper, we describe a simplified and efficient method to to buoyancy and weight illustrated with blue arrows. (For interpretation of the
numerically calculate the added mass and the damping parameters of references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web
ROVs with arbitrary shape using COMSOL Multiphysics and ANSYS version of this article.)
Fluent. Moreover, we compare our results to the potential theory
ROV are accurately and efficiently estimated. The proposed procedure
method and show when the potential theory method yields inaccurate
could be used to efficiently estimate the parameters of the dynamic
results. We apply our methodology to the SILVER SHARK, which is a
model of remotely operated vehicles independently of their shapes. It is
ROV built in house (Hammoud and Jammoul, 2018) (Fig. 1). The SIL­
a simple and accurate model that is used in the initial stages of the design
VER SHARK is equipped with an altimeter, pressure and temperature
of ROVs to optimize their shape and size and could be used for control
sensors, a conductivity sensor, a camera, a gripper and is controlled and
purposes.
monitored from a ground station. First, the design criteria of the ROV is
described. Then the dynamic model of ROVs is derived. The added mass
2. Method
is calculated by simulating the free harmonic damped oscillations of
SILVER SHARK in the six degrees of freedom and measuring the period
First, the design criteria of the Silver Shark is described. The design
of oscillations using the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) on COMSOL
parameters are selected to achieve optimum performance of the ROV. A
Multiphysics. The calculated added mass parameters in the three
detailed analysis can be found in (Hammoud and Jammoul, 2018).
translational degrees of freedom are compared to the ones obtained
Then, the dynamic model of the ROV is derived and the proposed sim­
using the potential theory, where the Laplace equation of velocity po­
plifications/assumptions are explained.
tential is solved over a domain that contains the ROV. The relative dif­
ference between both methods is 8.1% for the sway and heave directions
2.1. Mechanical design
and 17.3% for the surge direction. The large difference in the surge di­
rection is explained by the dominant viscous effects which is neglected
The mechanical design of SILVER SHARK includes the following
in the potential theory. Then, the damping parameters in the six degrees
specifications (Hammoud and Jammoul, 2018):
of freedom are obtained by calculating the fitting function between the
velocity and the damping force or moment using ANSYS Fluent. We
show that all the significant parameters of the dynamic model of the

2
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Table 1 whereν = [u, v, w, p, q, r]T is the generalized velocity vector, τRB =

Properties of the SILVER SHARK.
[X, Y, Z, K, M, N]T is a generalized vector of the external forces and mo­
Property Value ments applied on the rigid body. The external forces and moments acting
Net Weight 130 kg on the ROV are the restoring force, the added mass and the damping
Total weight 165 kg force and moment, and the input control vector τ applied to the ROV to
Volume 0.165 m3 initiate motion.
Length 1.93 m
Width 1.16 m
2.2.2. Restoring matrix
Height 0.73 m
Two forward thrusters 240 N each
The two forces acting on the ROV at steady state are weight and
Two downward thrusters 120 N each buoyancy. When the ROV rotates in the roll or pitch directions, the di­
Range 500 m rection of the forces do not align which generates a restoring moment
Maximum depth 300 m responsible of the steady-state stability (Fig. 2). When the weight and
buoyancy are equal and the center of the ROV coincides with the center
1. The ROV is neutrally buoyant (the total density of ROV and the of gravity, the restoring moment is given by
density of the surrounding fluid are equal) allowing the ROV to ⎡ ⎤
remain at a fixed position for a specified amount of time. 0
⎢0 ⎥
2. The ROV has a streamlined body to reduce the drag coefficient, ⎢
⎢0
⎥
⎥
which yields robust and efficient operations under aquatic currents, g(η) = ⎢ ⎥
⎢ − zb B cos(θ)sin(Φ) ⎥ (4)
and reduce power consumption. ⎢
⎣ − zb B sin(θ)
⎥
⎦
3. The ROV is made from stainless steel material and the design can 0
withstand pressures at depths of 300 m (Hammoud and Jammoul,
2018). where η is the position vector, zb is the distance between the center of
4. The center of volume (the point of application of buoyancy force) of buoyancy and center of gravity (or center of BODY), B is the buoyancy
the ROV is above the center of gravity and both are located on the force, Φ and θ are the roll and pitch angles, respectively.
same vertical line to provide stability to the ROV. A variation in roll
or pitch angles is compensated by a restoring moment created by the 2.2.3. Added mass matrices
weight and the buoyancy forces (Fig. 2). When a body accelerates in a fluid that has a density comparable to
that of the body, opposite forces and moments are created. It is common
The design criteria and the properties of the SILVER SHARK are to say that these forces and moments are created by a virtual quantity of
described in (Hammoud and Jammoul, 2018) and are summarized in fluid attached to the body. This virtual quantity of fluid is assumed as a
Table 1. The new hybrid design of SILVER SHARK falls between the rigid body and its equation of motion has the same form as equation (1)
standard shape of ROVs (a box equipped with manipulator, lights, and is given by
camera, etc.) and the slender body of autonomous underwater vehicles
(AUVs) designed for long trajectories which improves the ROV MA ν̇ + CA (ν)ν = τA (5)
performance.
where τA is the force and moment vector of the added mass, MA is the
added mass inertia matrix and CA is the Coriolis matrix of the added
2.2. Dynamic model mass. Due to the port-starboard symmetry of the ROV, the added mass
inertia matrix is given by
2.2.1. Rigid body matrices
⎛ ⎞
The equation of motion of a rigid body, for which the center of A11 0 A13 0 A15 0
gravity is coincident with the center of body-fixed coordinate frame ⎜0
⎜
A22 0 A24 0 A26 ⎟
⎟
(BODY), is expressed in the body-fixed coordinate frame as (Fossen, ⎜A
MA = ⎜ 31
0 A33 0 A35 0 ⎟
(6)
⎜0 A42 0 A44 0 A46 ⎟
⎟
1999) ⎝ ⎠
A51 0 A53 0 A55 0
MRB ν̇ + CRB (ν)ν = τRB (1) 0 A62 0 A64 0 A66
Furthermore, Fossen (1999) states that the off-diagonal terms are
where MRB is the rigid-body inertia matrix given by
negligible compared to the on-diagonal terms at low velocities,
⎛ ⎞
m 0 0 0 0 0 therefore,
⎜0 m 0 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ X u˙ 0 0 0 0 0
⎜0 0 m 0 0 0 ⎟
MRB = ⎜
⎜0
⎟ (2) ⎜0 Y v˙ 0 0 0 0 ⎟
⎜ 0 0 Ix − Ixy − Ixz ⎟
⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜0 0 Z 0 0 0 ⎟
⎝0 0 0 − Iyx Iy − Iyz ⎠ MA = ⎜⎜0
ẇ ⎟ (7)
0 0 0 − Izx − Izy Iz ⎜ 0 0 K p˙ 0 0 ⎟ ⎟
⎝0 0 0 0 M q˙ 0 ⎠
0 0 0 0 0 N r˙
with m the mass, Ix , Iy , Iz , Ixy = Iyx , Ixz = Izx , Iyz = Izy the moments of
inertia of the rigid-body, and CRB the Coriolis matrix given by,
where Xu̇ ,Y v̇ ,Zẇ are the added mass in the x-, y- and z-axis directions due

⎛ ⎞
0 0 0 0 mw − mν
⎜0 0 0 − mw 0 mu ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜0 0 0 mν − mu 0 ⎟
CRB (ν) = ⎜
⎜0
⎟ (3)
⎜ mw − mν 0 − Iyz q − Ixz p + Iz r Iyz r + Ixy p − Iy q ⎟ ⎟
⎝ − mw 0 mu Iyz q + Ixz p − Iz r 0 − Ixz r − Ixy q + Ix p ⎠
mν − mu 0 − Iyz r − Ixy p + Iy q Ixz r + Ixy q − Ix p 0

3
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

to u̇, v̇, ẇ accelerations respectively, and Kṗ , Mq̇ , Nr˙ are the added inertias 3.1. Rigid body matrices
around the x-, y- and z-axis directions due to ṗ, q̇, ṙ rotational acceler­
ations, respectively. The inertia terms of the rigid-body inertia matrix MRB (equation (2))
The Coriolis added mass matrix is a function of the added mass and are calculated using SolidWorks as follows:
velocity terms and is given by ∫
( 2 )
⎛ ⎞ Ix = y + z2 ρA dV (14)
0 0 0 0 Z ẇ ω − Y v˙ν
⎜0 0 0 − Z ẇ ω 0 X u̇ u ⎟ ∫
⎜ ⎟ ( )
⎜0 ν ⎟
CA (ν) = ⎜
0 0 Y v˙ − X u˙ u 0 ⎟ (8) Iy = x2 + z2 ρA dV (15)
⎜0 Z ẇ ω − Y v˙ν 0 M q˙ r − N r˙q ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ − Z ẇ ω 0 X u˙ u − M q̇ r 0 K p˙ p ⎠
∫
Y v˙ν − X u˙ u 0 M q̇ q − K ṗ p 0 ( )
Iz = x2 + y2 ρA dV (16)

2.2.4. Damping matrices ∫

The two main hydrodynamic damping forces acting on underwater Ixy = Iyx = xyρA dV (17)
vehicles are the quadratic drag and lift forces and the linear skin friction.
The damping is highly coupled and nonlinear for underwater vehicles. ∫
However, the damping is assumed non-coupled for ROVs because of low Ixz = Izx = xzρA dV (18)
velocity values, therefore, a movement in the x-direction creates a
∫
damping in the x-direction only (Fossen, 1999). The damping forces and
moments vector, τdamp , and the damping diagonal matrix Ddamp are given Iyz = Izy = yzρA dV (19)
by
where ρA is material density, and the integral is calculated over the
τdamp = Ddamp (ν)ν, (9)
entire volume V of the ROV. The total mass of the ROV is obtained by
adding the mass of the different components of the ROV and is calcu­
Ddamp (ν) = Dl + Dq (ν), (10)
lated using SolidWorks. The elements of the Coriolis matrix (equation
(3)) are then calculated from the mass, inertia and velocity terms.
where Dl is the linear 6 × 6 damping diagonal matrix given by:
⎛ ⎞
Xu 0 0 0 0 0 3.2. Restoring matrix
⎜ 0 Yv 0 0 0 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0 0 Zw 0 0 0 ⎟
⎜
Dl = ⎜ ⎟ (11) The buoyancy force of ROVs are usually slightly larger than their
⎜0 0 0 Kp 0 0 ⎟
⎝0 0 0 0 Mq 0 ⎠
⎟ weights to ensure that in the case of power loss the ROV resurfaces.
0 0 0 0 0 Nr However, we assume that the buoyancy force is equal to the weight in
water for simplification, therefore, W ≈ B = m × g = 165 × 9.81 =
where Xu , Yv ,Zw are the resultant linear damping forces due to a velocity 1618 N. The distance between the center of buoyancy and center of
u, v, w, in the x, y, z-directions, respectively, Kp ,Mq , Nr are the resultant gravity is zb ≈ 2.9mm. The estimated B and zb are then used to compute
linear damping moments due to an angular velocity p, q, r around x-, y- the restoring matrix (equation (4)).
and z-axis respectively, and Dq (ν) is the 6 × 6 quadratic damping di­
agonal matrix given by 3.3. Added mass matrices
⎛ ⎞
X|u|u |u| 0 0 0 0 0
⎜0 ⎟ The fluid-structure interaction (FSI) on COMSOL Multiphysics is
Y|v|v |v| 0 0 0 0
⎜
⎜0
⎟
⎟ used to simulate the oscillatory behavior of the ROV and calculate the
0 Z|w|w |w| 0 0 0
Dq (ν) = ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ (12) added mass and inertia terms (equations (7) and (8)) (Lammas et al.,
⎜0 0 0 K|p|p |p| 0 0 ⎟
⎝0 0 0 0 M|q|q |q| 0 ⎠ 2010). The displacement, x, of the oscillating ROV is given by
0 0 0 0 0 N|r|r |r| meq ẍ + cẋ + kx = 0 (20)

where X|u|u ,Y|v|v ,Z|w|w are the resultant quadratic damping forces due to a where meq is the total mass of the ROV, c is the damping coefficient and k
velocity u, v, w, in the x-, y-, and z-axis directions, respectively, and
is the spring’s stiffness. If no external harmonic excitation is applied to
K|p|p |p|, M|q|q |q| and N|r|r |r| are the resultant quadratic damping moments
the ROV, the oscillation’s frequency corresponds to the natural fre­
due to an angular velocity p, q, r around the x-, y- and z-axis, respec­ quency, wn , of the ROV such that
tively. √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
The dynamic model of a ROV is, therefore, given by k
wn = (21)
MRB ν̇ + CRB (ν)ν + MA ν̇ + CA (ν)ν + Ddamp (ν)ν + g(η) = τ (13) meq

When the ROV oscillates in a fluid, the natural frequency of the ROV
3. Calculation is given by
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
The method used to calculate the parameters of the dynamic model is k
explained in this section. The mass and inertia terms of the rigid-body wn = (22)
m + ma
matrices are calculated using SolidWorks. The added mass terms are
found using the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) on COMSOL Multi­ where m is the true mass of the ROV and ma is the added mass to the
physics by simulating the damped oscillations of the SILVER SHARK, system. Thus, the added mass is
and the translational terms are compared with those obtained by the
potential theory. Then, the damping parameters are obtained using ma =
k
− m=
T2 × k
− m (23)
ANSYS Fluent by correlating the velocity with its corresponding wn 4π2
damping force or moment.
where T is the period of oscillation. Equation (21) can be re-written for

4
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Table 2
FSI model parameters.
Paramters Value

Water density (ρ) 1000 kg/m3

ROV density (ρROV ) 200 kg/m3
ROV mass in the FSI simulation (m) 32.83 kg
ROV inertia in roll direction (Ixx ) 0.97 kg.m2
ROV inertia in pitch direction (Iyy ) 6.83 kg.m2
ROV inertia in yaw direction (Izz ) 6.88 kg.m2
Stiffness of translational spring (K) 40,000 N/m
Stiffness of rotational spring (Kt ) 20000 N.m/rad
Initial excitation in translational direction 0.01 m
Initial excitation in rotational direction 0.1 rad

Fig. 3. Oscillation of a sphere with diameter 0.3 m.

the angular oscillation of a torsional spring-mass system as (Lammas

et al., 2010)
√̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
kt kt
wn = = (24)
Ieq I + Ia

Hence,

T 2 × kt
Ia = − Iii , i = x, y, z (25)
4π2

where Ia is the added inertia in a rotational DOF, Iii is the inertia of ROV
in direction i and kt is the stiffness of the torsional spring.
The time step for the FSI simulations is 1 ms and a segregated direct
solver is used. The mesh deformation is controlled using the Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) algorithm to couple the fluid flow (Eulerian
or spatial frame) with the solid mechanics (Lagrangian or material
frame). The interaction is fully coupled; the pressure and viscous forces
from the fluid are transmitted to the solid, and the displacement of the
ROV wall are used as boundary conditions for the fluid flow. In the FSI
model, the equations solved on COMSOL Multiphysics are the Navier-
Stokes equations (the flow solver is assumed laminar), the rigid body
equation of motion, and the equation coupling the solid displacement to
the fluid velocity given by
dusolid
Vwall = (26)
dt
where Vwall is the velocity of the wall and usolid is the displacement of the
solid at the interface between the solid and fluid domains.
The procedure is first tested on an oscillating sphere of diameter 0.3
m submerged in water. The stiffness of the spring is k = 5000 N/m and
the density of sphere ρsphere = 350 kg/m3. The period of the oscillation
calculated on COMSOL Multiphysics is T = 0.313 s (Fig. 3). Thus, using
equation (23) we obtain ma = 7.49 kg.
The theoretical added mass of a ball in a translational DOF is given
by (White and Xue, 2003)
2 ∇2 ( ∅ ) = 0
matheoretical = × ρwater πR3 = 7.069 kg (27)
3
The relative error between the calculated added mass (ma ) and the
added mass obtained using the theoretical method (matheoretical ) is 5.9%,
which verifies the accuracy of the proposed method.
For the simulation of translational and rotational oscillations, the
stiffness of the spring and the mass of the ROV are chosen in a way to
achieve accurate estimation of the period of oscillation and added mass.
For example, choosing a spring with high stiffness increases the error in
the estimation of ma because in equation (23), k is multiplied by T which
Fig. 4. Added mass variations as a function of the size of the domain in the
surge direction.
contains numerical error. Moreover, choosing a spring with a small
stiffness yields high-speed oscillations of the ROV which makes the
convergence difficult to achieve. Table 2 shows the parameters used in
the FSI model.
The translational added mass terms are calculated using the potential
theory to compare the values with the ones obtained from FSI. The
potential flow is an ideal flow with irrotational motion and zero vis­
cosity. When viscous stresses are negligible, the flow is assumed ideal
(White and Xue, 2003).
The added mass in the translational direction is written as (Panton,
2013)
[(
∫∫∫ ∂∅
)2 ( )2 ( )2 ]
ρ ∂x − Ux + ∂∂∅y − Uy + ∂∂∅z − Uz dxdydz
ma = 2
(28)
U
where U (Ux , Uy , Uz ) is the instantaneous velocity of the ROV, and ∅ is
the velocity potential that verifies the Laplace function (White and Xue,
2003)
(29)
The equation is solved over the entire model using the Laplace
equation solver in COMSOL Multiphysics (available in the classical PDEs
module) to obtain the velocity potential. Then, the triple integral in
equation (28) is calculated using the post-processor in the Laplace
equation solver to obtain ma . The instantaneous velocity U (assumed to
be 1 m/s) is substituted by an irrotational field applied at the inlet of the
computational domain (source boundary: ∂∂∅x = − U). The outlet of the
computational domain verifies ∂∂∅x = U. To achieve an irrotational flow

5
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Fig. 6. Value of the dimensionless wall distance y + to the ROV in the surge
direction. The value of y+ is close to 1 for a velocity of 1 m/s.
Fig. 5. Computational domain for the calculation of the damping force in the
surge direction where half of the original domain is used due to the symmetry of
the ROV.

(the zero normal velocity condition) at the surfaces of ROV, we define −

n.(− ∇ ∅) = 0 where n is the unit vector normal to the faces of the ROV.
The procedure is applied to the sphere and yields ma = 6.630 kg,
which corresponds to a relative error between ma and matheoretical of 6.21%.
Note that the value of ma does not change when the instantaneous ve­
locity changes (U ∕= 1), which verifies that the added mass and the value
of acceleration are independent.
The methodology is applied to SILVER SHARK to calculate the added
mass. First, we determine the size of the domain that ensures that the
calculated added mass converges. Fig. 4 shows the surge added mass as a
function of the size of the domain. Results converge when the size of the
domain is 13 × 13 × 23 m3.
The principal axis of ROV (x-, y-, z-axis) are placed in the direction of
flux to calculate the added mass term in the surge, sway and heave di­
rections, respectively. The velocity potential ∅ is calculated using the Fig. 7. Computational domain for the rolling simulation, which consists of two
GMRES (generalized minimum residual) iterative method with Incom­ concentric cylinders surrounding the ROV.
plete LU factorization.
is at a distance 21B downstream of the center (Skorpa, 2012). Because
3.4. Damping matrices the ROV is symmetric with respect to the XZ plane, the computational
domain in the surge and heave simulations are divided by 2. Fig. 5 shows
The linear and quadratic terms of the damping matrix, Xu and X|u|u the half-computational domain corresponding to the surge direction.
(in equations (11) and (12)), are obtained by measuring the drag force For the simulation in the surge and heave directions, the mid-plane
F(u)at different velocities u of the ROV and calculating the coefficients of face is considered to be a symmetry plane, which means that the flow
the quadratic fitting function between F(u) and u. For example, for the can only travel parallel to the symmetry plane (Fig. 5). The principal axis
surge direction of the ROV (x-, y-, z-axis) are placed in the direction of flow to calculate
the damping forces in the surge, sway and heave directions, respectively.
Fu (u) = Xu u + X|u|u u2 (30) The computational domain is now discretized into finite cells in
order to solve the algebraic Navier-Stokes equations in the domain. The
where Fu is the drag force in the surge direction. Similar equations are
resolving of viscous sublayer is the recommended approach to calculate
used for the other translational DOFs. Moreover, a quadratic equation
the drag and is suitable with the k-w SST model. This approach requires
relates the damping moment M to the angular velocity p in all rotational
that the dimensionless wall distance y+ = 1 (Fig. 6). The distance y from
DOF. For example, in the roll direction
the first cell to the wall is a function of y+ and is given by
Mp (p) = Kp p + K|p|p p2 (31) y+ μ
y= √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (32)
where Mp is the damping moment in the roll direction. ρ × 0.029 × Re− 0.2 × U 2∞
The damping force (moment) for each translational (or rotational)
velocity is obtained on ANSYS Fluent by solving the Navier-stokes where ρ is the density of fluid, μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid , U∞
equations. To model the turbulence, Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes is the free streamline velocity, Re is the Reynolds number Re = ρUμ∞ L
Equations (RANS) are solved using the k-w SST model, which provides where L is the length of the ROV.
more accurate prediction of flow separation compared to other RANS In each direction, the height of the first cell, y, is controlled using
models. The linear and quadratic terms are obtained by estimating a inflation options in Meshing application in order to get y+ = 1. For the
fitting function between the force (moment) and translational (rota­ surge direction, for U∞ = 0.5 m/s, μ = 1.002 × 10− 3 Ns/m2 , L = 2 m ,
tional) velocity. In the translational direction, the computational
ρ = 1000 kg/m3 , Re ≈ 1 × 106 and y ≈ 0.05 mm.
domain is a rectangle and the dimensions of the domain are calculated
The “SIMPLE” pressure-velocity coupling and second order dis­
such that there is no effect of the surrounding boundaries on the ROV.
cretization schemes are used for accurate simulation results. The grid
Hence, the inlet, top, bottom and sides of the domain are at a distance 7B
size is chosen so as to yield convergence in the calculated parameters.
from the center of ROV (where B is the width of the ROV) and the outlet

6
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Table 3 Table 5
Variation of rolling damping moment with respect to the domain size. Period and added mass terms for the translational DOFs calculated using the FSI
Diameter (m) Length (m) Rolling damping moment in N.m at 0.5 rad/s
simulation and the potential theory.
Period Added mass Added mass Relative difference
1.494 2.4 1.11
T (s) using FSI using potential between FSI
2.3 2.8 1.52
simulation (kg) theory (kg) simulation and
5.28 3.8 2.49
potential theory (%)
17.28 5.8 2.52
21.28 6.8 2.56 Surge 0.240 25.531 21.055 17.53
Sway 0.489 209.450 194.14 7.30
Heave 0.465 186.2517 171.15 8.10

Table 4
Physical properties of SILVER SHARK.
Property Value
m 165 kg
Ix 9.56 kg.m2
Iy 37.97 kg.m2
Iz 41.22 kg.m2
Iyz=Izy 2.89 kg m2
We increased the number of mesh elements by 36% (from 1597442 to
2176286 elements) using a smaller “face sizing” for the different faces of
the ROV. The relative variation of the damping force increased by 1.9%
in the surge direction and at a velocity of 1 m/s, (from 56 N to 57.06 N).
Therefore, the original mesh size is hence retained and the same mesh
size options are applied for the three directions.
To calculate the damping moments, the computational domain
consists of two concentric cylinders (Fig. 7). The small cylinder contains
the ROV and rotates at a defined velocity, while the larger cylinder is
steady. The two cylinders are interfaced using “multiple reference
frames” (MRF) available on ANSYS Fluent. The size of the domain (i.e.,
the large cylinder) is obtained by calculating the rolling damping
moment for different values of cylinder diameter (D) and length (L).
Table 3 shows the value of the rolling damping moment. In our simu­
lation, we choose D = 5.28 m and L = 3.8 m because results converge
above this point.
“COUPLED” pressure-velocity coupling is used and second order
discretization schemes are used for accurate simulation results. The
principal axis of the ROV (x-, y-, and z-axis) are considered as the axis of
revolution to find the damping moment in the roll, pitch and yaw di­
rections, respectively. The grid size is chosen so as to yield convergence
in the calculated parameters. We increased the number of mesh ele­
ments by 53% (from 2282159 to 3503176 elements) using a smaller
“face sizing” for the different faces of the ROV in the roll direction and at
a velocity of 0.9 rad/s. The relative variation of the damping force de­
creases by 5.6% (from 11.11 to 10.49 N m). Therefore, the original mesh
size is hence retained and the same mesh size options are applied for the
three orientations.

Fig. 8. Oscillations of SILVER SHARK in (a) surge (b) sway (c) heave (d) roll (e) pitch and (f) yaw directions.

7
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Table 6 Table 7
Period and added mass terms for rotational DOFs. Variations of drag forces in the three translational DOFs.
Period T(s) Added inertia (kg.m2 ) Drag force (N) Surge Sway Heave

Roll 0.116 5.846 Velocity (m/s)

Pitch 0.316 43.757 0.2 2.28 12.97 13.04

Yaw 0.279 32.554 0.4 9 51.45 51.8
0.6 20.3 115.62 114.5
0.8 36.08 213.86 203.74
1 56 313.7 317.34

Assuming that buoyancy is equal to weight, we obtain B = m × g =

165 × 9.81 = 1618 N, where m is the mass of ROV and g is the gravi­
tational acceleration. The distance between the center of buoyancy and
center of gravity is given by SolidWorks aszb = 0.029 m, thus,
⎛ ⎞
0
⎜0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜0 ⎟
g(η) = ⎜ ⎟
⎜ − 47 cos(θ)sin(Φ) ⎟ (33)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ − 47sin(θ) ⎠
0

where Φ and θ are the roll and pitch angles, respectively.

Fig. 9. Velocity potential of the ROV in (a) surge (b) sway and (c)
heave directions.
To calculate the added mass matrices, we use the FSI simulation as
described in section 3.3. Fig. 8 illustrates the oscillatory displacement of
SILVER SHARK in the six degrees of freedom while Tables 5 and 6 show
the calculated period of the oscillations. The calculated added mass
using the FSI simulation is then compared to the ones obtained using the
potential theory where viscous effects are neglected (Table 5). Fig. 9
shows the velocity potential ∅ of the SILVER SHARK. The potential
theory yields a high relative difference in the surge direction compared
to the sway or heave direction because the viscous effects are dominant
in the surge directions and cannot be neglected. This is due to the lower
cross-sectional area of the ROV in the surge direction compared to the
sway and heave directions. Results show that special care should be
taken when calculating the dynamic model of ROV, as the potential
theory might not yield accurate estimations for some geometries and
sizes of ROVs.
Lastly, the damping matrices are estimated using the equations
described in section 3.4. Table 7 lists the drag forces in three DOFs while
Fig. 10 shows the variation of the damping force as a function of the
velocity. Similarly, Fig. 11 and Table 8 show the calculated values of the
damping moment for the different velocities.
Quadratic fitting functions are applied between the drag force and
velocity, and between the damping moment and the rotational velocity
to calculate the quadratic and the linear damping terms. We report the
value of the coefficient of determination R2 to illustrate the accuracy
between the data and the fitting functions. The quadratic fitting func­
tions are given as
( )
Fu (u) = X|u|u u2 + Xu u = 55.55 × u2 + 0.54 × u R2 = 0.92 (34)

4. Results Fv (v) = Y|v|v v2 + Yv v = 328.4 × v2 − 3.56 × v (R2 = 0.93) (35)

( )
We apply the method described in section 3 to calculate the rigid Fw (w) = Z|w|w w2 + Zw w = 314.61 × w2 − 2.75 × w R2 = 0.92 (36)
body matrices, the restoring matrix and the added mass matrix.
Table 4 describes the total mass and inertia of the SILVER SHARK Mp (p) = K|p|p p2 + Kp p = 14.11 × p2 − 0.34 × p
(
R2 = 0.98
)
(37)
calculated on SolidWorks. The coupled inertias Ixz = Izx = 0.01 kg.m2
and Ixy = Iyx = 0.013 kg.m2 are neglected for the simplicity of calcula­ Mq (q) = M|q|q q2 + Mq q = 107.25 × q2 − 1.98 × q
(
R2 = 0.98
)
(38)
tions. MRB and CRB (ν) are thus calculated using SolidWorks.

8
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Fig. 10. Variation of drag forces as a function of velocity in (a) surge (b) sway and (c) heave directions.

( )
Mr (r) = N|r|r r2 + Nr r = 85.56 × r2 − 4.98 × r R2 = 0.97 (39) and on-diagonal terms. The relative difference between the off-diagonal
and on-diagonal terms in the surge direction varies between 1.9 and
Therefore, we obtain 4.8% which shows that the off-diagonal terms are negligible at low ve­
locity and that the motion is assumed non-coupled.

⎛ ⎞
55.55|u| + 0.54 0 0 0 0 0
⎜0 328.4|v| − 3.56 0 0 0 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜0 0 314.61|w| − 2.75 0 0 0 ⎟
Dq (ν) = ⎜
⎜0
⎟
⎟ (40)
⎜ 0 0 14.11|p| − 0.34 0 0 ⎟
⎝0 0 0 0 107.25|q| − 1.98 0 ⎠
0 0 0 0 0 85.56|r| − 4.98

The coefficient of determination R2 shows that the damping forces 5. Discussion

and moments are quadratic functions of velocity, which verifies that the
higher order damping terms can be neglected as discussed in Fossen
(1999).
Furthermore, we calculate the off-diagonal terms for the surge di­
rection, which is the principal direction of motion of the ROV. The Silver
Shark is port-starboard symmetric, therefore, the swaying force and
rolling or yawing moments are zero and Y|u|u , Yu , K|u|u , Ku , N|u|u and Nu
= 0. The remaining off-diagonal terms are calculated by applying the
method described in 3.4. Table 9 shows the damping heaving force and
pitching moment while Table 10 compares the values of the off-diagonal
The proposed method yields accurate and efficient evaluation of the
parameters of the dynamic model of SILVER SHARK. The added mass
and damping parameters for dynamic modeling are obtained using nu­
merical methods where the added mass parameters are calculated using
the FSI approach by modeling the free harmonic damped oscillations of
the SILVER SHARK on COMSOL Multiphysics. The three translational
added mass parameters are compared to the ones obtained using the
potential theory and yield a relative difference of 7.3% and 8.1% for the
sway and heave directions, respectively. A larger difference of 17.53% is

9
A. Hammoud et al. Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818

Fig. 11. Variations of damping moments with respect to velocities in (a) roll (b) pitch and (c) yaw directions.

Table 8 Table 10
Damping moment for different velocities in the three rotational DOFs. Comparison of the off- and on-diagonal terms of the damping force and moment
for a velocity in the surge direction.
Damping moment (N.m) Roll Pitch Yaw
Damping term Symbol Value Relative
Velocity (rad/s)
Difference
0.3 1.16 9.36 6.76
Quadratic term in the heaving force Z|u|u 6.1071 1.94% of Z|w|w
0.5 3.34 26.12 9.02
0.7 6.7 50.72 38.35 Linear term in the heaving force Zu − 0.13 4.72% of Zw
0.9 11.11 85.43 65.41 Quadratic term in the pitching M|u|u 3.0268 2.82% of M|q|q
moment
Linear term in the pitching moment Mu − 0.0468 2.36% of Mq

Table 9
Heaving damping force and pitching moment as a function of surge velocity. showed that neglecting viscous effects yields inaccurate results for the
Surge velocity Damping force in the heave Damping moment in the pitch damping parameters, and that the viscous effects increase the value of
(m/s) direction (N) direction (N.m) the calculated added mass.
0.2 0.32 0.1 The linear and quadratic damping parameters are evaluated by
0.4 1 0.52 estimating the quadratic fitting function between the damping force
0.6 2.2 1.04 (moment) and the translational (angular) velocity. The damping pa­
0.8 3.7 1.88
rameters provide valuable information about the thrust force and
1 6.1 3
moment. Although the damping in the surge direction is small in com­
parison to that in the heave direction, bigger thrusters are placed on the
measured in the surge direction because of viscous effects not accounted ROV in the surge direction because the descending motion is not
for in the potential theory method. The cross sectional area facing the essential for ROVs. In addition, the two bigger thrusters are responsible
flow in the surge direction is smaller than in the sway or heave directions for the yaw rotation which has a higher damping than the roll rotation
(0.2 m2 vs. 0.75 m2 and 0.81 m2, respectively), therefore, the viscous controlled by the two smaller thrusters placed on the ROV. Moreover,
effect of water has a larger influence over the pressure in the surge di­ results show that the damping forces and moments are quadratic func­
rection than in the sway or heave directions. Hence, the potential theory tions of the velocity, and that the off-diagonal terms can be neglected.
does not yield accurate estimations when viscous effects are not negli­ The dynamic model represents a reliable tool to estimate the loca­
gible which will affect the accuracy of the dynamic model. Similar tion, velocity or acceleration of the ROV at any instant and for different
observation are made by Subbulakshmi (Subbulakshmi et al., 2015) who input thrust forces or underwater disturbances. The dynamic model

10
A. Hammoud et al.
could be used as a reference for the inertial navigation system to elim­
inate unrealistic measurements and can lead to a robust control system
of the vehicle. Moreover, the proposed method is applicable to any
arbitrary geometry of ROVs.
6. Conclusions
We developed an accurate and efficient dynamic model of an ROV
built in-house. The added mass parameters are obtained by simulating
the free damped oscillations of the ROV in the translational and rota­
tional DOFs using the fluid-structure interaction (FSI) on COMSOL
Multiphysics. The translational added mass parameters are compared to
the ones obtained using the potential theory and the results indicate that
the viscous effect cannot be neglected in the surge direction and hence,
the potential theory should not be used to measure the added mass.
Therefore, the FSI model should be used when viscous effects are non-
negligible to obtain accurate dynamic modeling of the ROV. The
linear and quadratic damping parameters are obtained by fitting a
quadratic function that relates the damping forces to the linear velocities
for the translational DOFs, and the damping moments with the rota­
tional velocities for rotational DOFs. Results show that the coupled
terms of the damping matrices are negligible at low velocities. The
proposed procedure is fast and simple to implement, can be generalized
to any type of remotely operated vehicles and yields accurate estima­
tions of the dynamic model parameters.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ali Hammoud: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Jihad
Sahili: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision. Mer­
vat Madi: Writing – review & editing, Validation. Elsa Maalouf:
Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their anonymous
11
Ocean Engineering 239 (2021) 109818
feedback. Elsa Maalouf would like to thank the Research Computing
team of the IT department and the Middle Campus Service Desk at the
American University of Beirut for providing computational resources
and technical support.
References
Ahmad, S., Sutton, R., 2003. Dynamic modelling of a remotely operated vehicle. IFAC
Proc. 36 (4), 43–48.
Blevins, R., 2003. Applied Fluid Dynamics Handbook. Krieger, Malabar, FL.
Caccia, M., Indiveri, G., Veruggio, G., 2000. Modeling and identification of open-frame
variable configuration unmanned underwater vehicles. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 25 (2),
227–240.
Cely, J., Saltaren, R., Portilla, G., Yakrangi, O., Rodriguez-Barroso, A., 2019.
Experimental and computational methodology for the determination of
hydrodynamic coefficients based on free Decay test: application to conception and
control of underwater robots. Sensors 19 (17), 3631.
Chin, C., Lau, M., 2012. Modeling and testing of hydrodynamic damping model for a
complex-shaped remotely-operated vehicle for control. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 11 (2),
150–163.
Dnv-Rp-H103, 2009. Modelling and Analysis of Marine Operations. DET NORSKE
VERITAS, Oslo.
Eidsvik, O., 2015. Identification of Hydrodynamic Parameters for Remotely Operated
Vehicles. Norwegian university for science and technology, Trondheim.
Fossen, T., 1999. Guidance and Control of Ocean Vehicles. Wiley, Chichester [u.a].
Gertler, M., 1967. The DTMB Planar-Motion-Mechanism System. Naval Ship Research
and Development Center.
Gomes, R., Martins, A., Sousa, J., Fraga, S., Pereira, F., 2005. A new ROV design: issues
on low drag and mechanical symmetry. Europe Oceans, 2005.
Hammoud, A., Jammoul, A., 2018. ROV Design Optimization: Effect on Stability and
Drag Force. Lebanese university, faculty of engineering, Beirut.
Jeong, J., Han, J., Ok, J., Kim, H., Kim, D., Shin, Y., Lee, S., 2016. Prediction of
hydrodynamic coefficients for underwater vehicle using rotating arm test. J. Ocean
Eng. Technol. 30 (1), 25–31.
Johnson, D., 1987. A Coning Motion Apparatus for Hydrodynamic Model Testing in A
Non-planar Cross-Flow. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lammas, A., Sammut, K., He, F., 2010. 6-DoF navigation systems for autonomous
underwater vehicles. Mobile Robots Navigation.
Panton, R., 2013. Incompressible Flow. John Wiley & Sons.
Skorpa, S., 2012. Numerical simulation of flow around remotely operated vehicle (ROV.
In: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Marine
Technology.
Subbulakshmi, A., Jose, J., Sundaravadivelu, R., Selvam, R., 2015. Effect of viscous
damping on hydrodynamic response of spar with heave plate. Aquatic Procedia 4,
508–515.
White, F., Xue, H., 2003. Fluid Mechanics, fifth ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Yang, R., 2016. Modeling and Robust Control Approach for Autonomous Underwater
Vehicles. 2016: Automatic. Université de Bretagne occidentale - Brest; Zhongguo hai
yang da xue, Qingdao, Chine.
Yang, R., Clement, B., Mansour, A., Li, M., Wu, N., 2015. Modeling of a complex-shaped
underwater vehicle for robust control scheme. J. Intell. Rob. Syst. 80 (3–4),
491–506.