This article is a selected paper from the10th JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, Fukuoka, Japan in October 24-27,

2017
JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

Hydrodynamic Shape Optimization of a Hybrid Underwater Glider*

Lei LEI**, Xiaoyun FU**, Baoren LI**

Hybrid underwater glider (HUG) combines the advantages of traditional autonomous underwater glider (AUG) and
autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), with long range and excellent maneuverability. The hydrodynamic shape of the
underwater glider is an important influencing factor on gliding efficiency and maneuverability. In this paper, the
hydrodynamic performances of several typical underwater glider body shapes are compared by using Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) method, the result shows the Spray glider body has the best hydrodynamic performance, and
which is selected the reference body model. The influence of the wing parameters on gliding efficiency and static stability
are studied by designing the orthogonal experiments, the sensitivity analysis of the wing parameters is studied by using
One-At-a-time (OTA) method. In addition, based on the Whicker formula, the wing parameters are designed in detail: the
axial position is located in the buoyancy center (CB), the chord length is 100mm, the aspect ratio is 10 and the sweep
angle is 40º.
Keywords: Hybrid Underwater Glider, Hydrodynamic, Shape Optimization, Gliding Efficiency, Static Stability
The shape of hybrid underwater glider is mainly
1. Introduction conducted by the body and wing. Because the drag of
Henry Stommel 1) first proposed the Slocum underwater the glider is mainly related to the wet surface area which
glider in 1989, which profile vertically and horizontally by mainly is decided the body shape, the optimization of the
controlling buoyancy system and a set of fixed wings. In the body shape is very important for reducing the energy
past 30 years, underwater gliders have developed rapidly, consumption. The wings directly interacts with water, the
and a variety of underwater gliders have been used in marine parameters of the wing have a great influence on stability
surveys, such as Seaglider 2), Slocum 3), Spray 4), and and gliding efficiency. Some researchers studied part of the
5). work on glider shape design. Arima, M et al 11) studied the
Seaexplorer The maximum sailing distance of AUGs can
reach 7000km, and the velocity of AUGs is lower up to motion characteristics of an experimental underwater glider
0.5kn, thus can present a significant challenges when 'ALEX' as a test-bed of the underwater glider with
6). independently controllable main wings. Wu Jianguo et al 12)
operating in areas of strong water currents In contrast, the
maximum sailing distance of propeller driven AUVs can studied the hydrodynamic characteristics of the main parts of
only reach hundreds of kilometers, and AUVs typically a hybrid-driven underwater glider PETREL by using CFD
7). method. Liu Fang 13) studied the influence of the wing
move at average velocities greater than 2kn
HUG combines the advantages of traditional AUG with configuration elements on the stability and gliding efficiency
the behaviors of propeller driven AUV, which can offer a of the glider, and found the influence rule of the wing
better endurance and a better maneuverability to finish elements on the wing hydrodynamics.
multiple observation tasks. Some studies on HUG have been This paper is divided into four sections. Section 2 studies
carried out. Todd Allen et al 8) developed an AUV powered the body shape optimization by comparing the
glider, the two independent control of the propeller are hydrodynamic performances of the four typical glider shapes.
installed in the glider stern, through the propeller to achieve Section 3 studied the influence of wing parameters on the
straight and steering movement, relying on buoyancy gliding efficiency and static stability, and designed the wing
changes and wing to achieve gliding. Claus, B et al 9) parameters in detail. Section 4 provides the conclusion.
presented the concept of Slocum AUV by implementing a
propeller on the stern of the Slocum glider. Teledyne Webb 2. Body Hydrodynamics Optimization
Research 10) presented a commercial hybrid AUG, installed a 2.1 Reference Body Model
blade can quickly fold of the high-velocity propeller in the In the process of the glider shape optimizing, the body
Slocum stern. is the first to consider, and which determines the main
hydrodynamic performance of the glider, affecting the
*
Manuscript received January 8, 2018
** mobility, stability, water noise and other performances.
Huazhong University of Science & Technology
(Luoyu Road 1037, Wuhan, China) According to the design principles of HUG, the volume of
E-mail: leileihust@hust.edu.cn

- 63 -
 JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

the body is limited to 100L. The body design principle is to  vc

Re  (1)
minimize the drag. 
The four typical gliders body is selected as the where, ρ is the density of fluid, the value of water is 1.025×
reference models to compare the hydrodynamic performance,
including Seaglider 2), Slocum 3), Spray 4) and Seaexplorer 5). 103 kg/m3, v is the velocity of fluid, c is the characteristic
The four typical gliders volume is expanded to 100L for the length of the object, μ is the dynamic viscosity, the value of
next step comparison. Table 1 and Fig.1 show the geometry water is 0.9×10-3 pa.s.
parameters of the four glider bodies.
Table 1 Shape parameters of the four typical glider Usually ， when Re≤5×105, the outflow is a laminar
(l: glider length, S: body surface, Ms: glider max cross area) boundary layer, when Re ≥2×106, the outflow is turbulent
Glider l[m] S[m2] Ms[m2] boundary layer. The Re of the glider outflow at different
Seaglider 2.10 1.50 0.095 velocities is shown in Table 2.
Slocum 2.40 1.73 0.048 Table 2 Glider outflow Re at different velocities
Spray 2.53 1.74 0.048 (V: glider velocity)
Seaexplorer 2.60 1.75 0.052 V(kn) 0.5 1 1.5 2
Re 6.28×105 1.26×106 1.88×106 2.51×106
From Table 2 can be judged, the glider outflow field is
turbulent state. Simulation settings are as follows:
(1) The RNG k-ε model and the standard wall function are
used. The SIMPLEC algorithm is used to solve the algorithm.
The center difference scheme is adopted for turbulence, and
the second order upwind difference scheme is selected for
Fig.1 The body shape of the four typical gliders the remaining items. The default setting is used for the sub
2.2 Mesh relaxation factor.
Tank towing test is the most efficiency way of (2) The inlet is set as the velocity inlet. The outlet is set as
hydrodynamic coefficient obtained. With the technological the pressure outlet, it is considered that the flow has been
advancement, tank towing test is being replaced by CFD fully developed at this position. The glider hull is set as no
method for hydrodynamic performance analysis. The CFD slip wall, u=v=w=0. The outflow field boundary is far
software Fluent is used to calculate hydrodynamic enough away from the glider, so it can be set as the slip wall,
coefficient. Fig.2 shows the outflow field around the glider, the wall roughness and the shear force are set as 0.
the outflow region is a cylinder, which surrounds the glider 2.4 Simulation Results
with a length of 5.5l and has a diameter of 3l. The rotation The vehicle drag usually is divided into three parts: wave
axis coincides with the axis of symmetry of the glider and drag, form drag and friction drag. The wave drag is caused
obeys the right-handed system. The distance between the by water surface waves, which can be ignored for the glider.
inlet and the bow of glider is 1.5l, the distance between the The form drag is caused by the shape change of the glider,
outlet and the tail of glider is 3l. Based on ICEM software, and the friction drag is caused by the tangential frictional
meshing uses a structure mesh to ensure the accuracy and force of the boundary layer, which is mainly related to the
efficiency, of which the total number of meshes is 2.4 wet surface area and the shell roughness.
million. Fig.3 shows the CFD simulation results of the four typical
glider shapes at direct velocity of 0.5-2kn. At the same
velocity, it indicated that the form drag of Seaglider is the
largest, and the form drag of Spray and Seaexplorer are the
smallest which only 43% of Seaglider at 1kn. The difference
(a) (b) between the friction drag of the four typical gliders is small.
Fig.2 (a) glider outflow field, (b) glider surface mesh At the same velocity, the total drag of the glider is in the
2.3 Computational Theory order of Spray, Seaglider, Seaexplorer and Slocum.
The flow state is usually judged from Re (Reynolds
number), and the Re formula is shown as:

- 64 -
 JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

Fig.5 shows the definition of body frame and inertial

frame. The inertial frame E-E1E2E3 is taken an earth frame
and accelerations may be neglected, the E1 axis lies in the
horizontal plane and the E3 axis lies in the gravity, the E2
axis obey the right hand rule. Assuming the glider to be
ellipsoidal, the body frame O-XYZ reference point at the
center of buoyancy (CB), the X axis lies along the long axis
of the glider, the Y axis lies in the plane of the right wing,
and the Z axis obey the right hand rule.

Fig.3 Drag simulation results of the four typical gliders

Fig.5 Definition of body frame and inertial frame

(L: lift, D: drag, B-G: net buoyancy, α: attack angle, θ: pitch angle, γ:
gliding angle)
The HUG has both AUV and AUG performance, the
evaluation indexes need to take into account the gliding
efficiency of the AUG model and the static stability of the
AUV model.
Fig.4 Shell pressure coefficient of the four typical gliders
(1) In a single gliding period, when the horizontal gliding
Fig.4 shows the shell pressure coefficient of the four distance (s) is constant, the smaller the γ is, the slower the
typical gliders at the velocity of 0.5kn, 0º angle of attack, the gliding slope is, and the smaller the vertical gliding distance
extreme pressure coefficient of Seaglider is -0.256, and the (h) is, the less the gliding energy consumes is and the gliding
point is 1.313m, where is the largest radius of Seaglider, the efficiency is higher. γ is proportional to the L/D:
slope of the Seaglider curve changes rapidly between 1.5-2.0 1
L 2h
m, resulting in this range of pressure coefficient is also tan      = (2)
D s
changing dramatically. The extreme pressure coefficient of (2) The glider is generally stable when gliding, but need to
Slocum is -0.262, and the point is 0.175m, which means that consider the static stability in the AUV model. The static
the bow curve of Slocum is full and the curvature changes stability can be divided into the horizontal static stability and
faster, resulting in the early separation of the bow boundary the vertical static stability.
layer. The extreme pressure coefficient of Spray and
Seaexplorer are -0.064, the point is 0.67m, and the pressure  v  
Y   1  l 2V 2Y ' 
2 v

distribution of are similar, the bow curve of Spray is more



 
 N v   1  l V N v' 
2
3 2

(3)
full, and the length of Spray is shorter by 0.2m.  N v  l Yv

The tail of Seaglider and Seaexplorer are narrow, so l'  l / l  N v' / Yv'
that the utilization of effective space is very low and
manufacturing more difficult, Spray has excellent  w  
 Z = 1  V 2l 2 Z ' 
2 w

hydrodynamic performance, the utilization of effective space


 w  
M = 1  V l M w' 
2
2 3
(4)
is high, and manufacture processing is easy, so the body of  M  l Z
 w
 w
Spray is selected as the reference model of the HUG. l'  l / l   M w' / Z w'
where, β is the side angle, α is the attack angle, V is the
3. Wing Hydrodynamics Optimization velocity of the glider, Yv is the side force, Zw is the pitch
3.1 Orthogonal Experiments force, Nv is the side moment, Mw is the pitch moment, Yv’ and

- 65 -
 JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

Zw’ are non-dimensional hydrodynamic, Nv’ and Mw’ are non-

Fig.6 (a) indicates that the aspect ratio, the chord length
dimensional hydrodynamic moment, lβ and lα are the arm of
the glider. the glider has the horizontal static stability when and the axial position on the L/D have a positive influence,
lβ’≥0, and the glider has the vertical static stability when and the sweep angle has a negative impact.
lα’≤0.
Fig.6 (b) shows that the four factors have litter effect on
The NACA wing is not easy to flow separation
phenomenon, the hydrodynamic performance is much better the horizontal static stability, it means that the glider always
than the flat wing. Based on the test data, the glider selects has static stability in the horizontal plane.
the NACA0012 airfoil 14). Fig.6 (c) shows that the aspect ratio, chord length and
The influence of wing aspect ratio, chord length, axial sweep angle have a negative impact on the vertical static
position and sweep angle on the hydrodynamic performance stability, and axial position has a positive impact on it. It
of HUG is studied. The simulation is carried out at the indicated that, with the axial position move back and the CB
velocity of 1kn and the attack angle of 8º. is original point, the other three factors increase, the vertical
static stability is better.
3.2 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is used to quantitatively evaluate the
effect of parameter changes on the model. Highly sensitive
parameters have a more important effect on the model and
lower sensitivity of the model has a low effect on the model.
When the sensitivity coefficient is negative, the impact on
the model is negative. OTA method is widely used 15). For
multi-parameter model analysis, it is necessary to keep the
(a) remaining parameters in the neutral value, and adjust the
parameters to be analysed every time. The sensitivity
coefficient is defined as:
y j
Si  (5)
xi
where, Si is the sensitivity coefficient of the i-th variable to
the j-th objective function, yi is the j-th objective function, xi
is the i-th variable.
Fig.7 shows that the chord length has the greatest positive
effect on the L/D, but the sweep angle increases lead to
reduce the L/D. The four parameters have little effect on the
(b)
lβ’, and the stability of the horizontal plane has always met
the design requirements. The axial position move back and
the other three factors increase, which have positive effect on
the lα’, and the sweep angle has the most important influence.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the axial
position has little effect on the three evaluation indexes.
Referring to the axial position of the other typical glider, the
axial position is selected at the CB.

(c)
Fig.6 The change tend of L/D, the horizontal static stability, the
vertical static stability

- 66 -
 JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

(b)
Fig.7 Sensitivity analysis for the wing parameters
3.3 Wing Parameters Design
The drag of the glider is mainly provided by the body, the
drag of the wing is litter. The lift of the glider is mainly
provided by the wing, the lift of the body is smaller which
can be neglected. The parameters of the wing have a greater
effect on the L/D of the glider.
The lift to drag ratio of the wing (λw) as shown follow:
  CLw AwV 2
 Lw  2

  CDw AwV 2
 Dw  2 (6) (c)

  w L Fig.8 The relationship between λw with α, ξ and ζ
 w Dw
Fig.8 (a) indicates that the λw proportional to the sweep
where, Lw is the lift of the wing, Dw is the drag of the wing, angle at small angle of attack (0-8°), it is inversely
CLw is the lift coefficient of the wing, CDw is the drag proportional to the sweep angle at large angles of attack
coefficient of the wing, Aw is the surface of the wing. (α≥8°). In generally, as the sweep angle increases, the wing
According to the Whicker formula 16): root torque and the overall load of the glider will also
 1.8 C increase.
CLw     DC  2
 2 
 cos  4   1.8 Fig.8 (b) indicates that the λw proportional to the aspect
 cos 4

 (7) ratio at big angle of attack (α≥8°), it is inversely

C  C   CLw 
2
proportional to the aspect ratio at small angles of attack (0-
 Dw D0w
0.9 8°).
where, ξ is the aspect ratio, ζ is the sweep angle. For the Fig.8 (c) indicates that the λw increases first and then
NACA0012 airfoil, the cross flow drag coefficient (CDC) is decreases with aspect ratio, the change point is ξ =10. The λw
0.8, the airfoil drag coefficient (CD0) is 0.008. inversely proportional to the large sweep angle (ζ ≥40°).
From the above analysis, the ξ is 10, and the ζ is 40º.
The chord length of the wing will affect the Reynolds
number of the flow field. According to experience, the
Reynolds number range of the wing is 0~30000 17). The
maximum velocity of the water jet propulsion underwater
glider is 5kn, according to eq.(2) can get the effective chord
length.
Re 
c (8)
V
where, the value of chord length is c  102 mm, take 100mm
(a) in here.

- 67 -
 JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

5) Pla, P., & Tricarico, R. : Towards a low cost observing

4. Conclusions system based on low logistic SeaExplorer glider.
In this paper, the hydrodynamic shape of the hybrid Underwater Technology. IEEE. p.1-3 (2015)
underwater glider optimization is carried out, the 6) Rudnick, D. L., Davis, R. E., Eriksen, C. C., Fratantoni,
hydrodynamic performance of the four typical gliders are D. M., & Perry, M. J. : Underwater gliders for ocean
analyzed by using CFD method. The orthogonal experiments research. Marine Technology Society Journal,Vol. 38,
of the wing are carried out by using CFD method, the wing No.2, p.73-84 (2004)
parameters is analyzed of sensitivity based on OAT method, 7) Merckelbach, L. M., Briggs, R. D., Smeed, D. A., &
and the wing parameters is designed in detail according to Griffiths, G. : Current measurements from autonomous
Whicker formula. The following three conclusions can be underwater gliders. Current Measurement Technology,
reached. 2008. Cmtc 2008. Ieee/oes, Working Conference on.
(1) Comparing the hydrodynamic performance of the four IEEE.p.61-67 (2008)
typical gliders, the drag of the Spray body is the smallest, 8) Allen,T., Caldwell,J., Kuhn,S., et al. : Autonomous
and the pressure coefficient curve is the smoothest, the Spray Underwater Vehicle: Powered Glider, Technical
body is selected to the reference model. Report. Florida Institute of Technology. 2007.
(2) The orthogonal experiments and the sensitivity 9) Claus, B., Bachmayer, R., & Williams, C. D. :
analysis of the wing parameters show that the chord length Development of an auxiliary propulsion module for an
has the most influence on the economy efficiency, the wing autonomous underwater glider. Proceedings of the
parameters have litter influence on the horizontal static Institution of Mechanical Engineers -- Part M, Vol.224,
stability, the sweep angle has the most influence on the No.4, p.255-266 (2010)
vertical static stability, and the axial position has little 10) Pettigrew, N. R., Neary, M., Fleming, R., & Fikes, C.
influence on the three evaluation indexes. P. : Evaluations of a 600 kHz RDI phased array system
(3) According to the Whicker formula, the axial position ADCP and a wave module operating on a G2 Slocum
of the wing is located in the CB, the aspect ratio is 10, the glider. Oceans - St. John's. IEEE.p.1-7 (2014)
sweep angle is 40º, and the chord length is 100mm. 11) Arima, M., Ichihashi, N., & Ikebuchi, T.: Motion
Characteristics of an Underwater Glider with
Acknowledgments Independently Controllable Main Wings. Oceans.
This paper is supported by the China National key IEEE.Vol.2009, p.1-7 (2008)
research and development program of China: No. 2016YFC0 12) Wu, J., Zhang, M., & Sun, X.: Hydrodynamic
301204. Characteristics of the Main Parts of a Hybrid-Driven
Underwater Glider PETREL. Autonomous Underwater
References Vehicles. InTech. 2011.
1) Stommel, H.: The slocum mission. Oceanography, 13) Liu, F., Wang, Y., Niu, W., & Ma, Z. : Hydrodynamic
Vol.2, No.1,p.22-25 (1989) performance analysis and experiments of a hybrid
2) Eriksen, C. C., Osse, T. J., Light, R. D., & Wen, T.: underwater glider with different layout of wings.
Seaglider a long-range autonomous underwater vehicle Oceans. IEEE. p.1-5 (2004)
for oceanographic research. Oceanic Engineering IEEE 14) Wu, J., Zhang, M., & Sun, X.: Hydrodynamic
Journal of, Vol.26, No.4,p.424-436 (2001) Characteristics of the Main Parts of a Hybrid-Driven
3) Schofield, O., Kohut, J., Aragon, D., Creed, L., Graver, Underwater Glider PETREL. Autonomous Underwater
J., & Haldeman, C., et al. : Slocum gliders: robust and Vehicles. InTech. 2011.
ready. Journal of Field Robotics, Vol.24, No.6, p.473- 15) Ma, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, N., & Ma, D. M.: Study on
485 (2007) energy and hydrodynamic performance of the
4) Sherman, J., Davis, R. E., Owens, W. B., & Valdes, J. : underwater glider. Journal of Ship Mechanics, 10
The autonomous underwater glider "Spray". IEEE (2006)
Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol.26, No.4, p.437- 16) Whicker, L. F., & Fehlner, L. F.: Free-stream
446 (2001) characteristics of a family of low-aspect-ratio, all-
movable control surfaces for application to ship design.
1958.

- 68 -
 JFPS International Journal of Fluid Power System 11-3, 63/69, 2018

17) Webb, D. C., Simonetti, P. J., & Jones, C. P. : Slocum: energy. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol.26,
an underwater glider propelled by environmental No.4, p.447-452 (2001)

- 69 -