Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2019, Article ID 1631930, 17 pages
[Link]

Research Article
Maneuverability Analysis of a Novel Portable Modular AUV

Xiaoming Wang and Shengguo Liang

School of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin 300222, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xiaoming Wang; wxm@[Link]

Received 19 February 2019; Revised 5 May 2019; Accepted 3 June 2019; Published 26 June 2019

Academic Editor: Boulaı̈d Boulkroune

Copyright © 2019 Xiaoming Wang and Shengguo Liang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

ZFAUV is a novel portable modular AUV. There are four fixed thrusters at tail, and two tunnel thrusters are set at front. The
maneuverability of ZFAUV is relatively high. It can turn around in situ, move lateral or move up/down vertical. The yaw and pitch
can be controlled by tunnel thrusters or differential control of tail thrusters, but differential control will reduce the forward force.
Different from propeller-rudder AUVs, the turning radius is related to speed forward: the smaller the speed forward, the smaller
the turning radius. The minimum turning radius tends to be zero. The mathematical model is built first; then CFD is used to
predict the thrust and torque of tail thrusters and tunnel thrusters. Through numerical simulation, zigzag maneuver analysis in
horizontal plane, and trapezoidal steering maneuver analysis in vertical plane, the maneuverability of ZFAUV is obtained. The
maneuverability of ZFAUV becomes worse with the increase of speed. The maneuverability of differential control is better than
that of tunnel control. In the case of specific thrust distribution of tail thrusters and tunnel thrusters, ZFAUV can turn around
in situ (the maximum angular velocity is about 24.1∘ /s), move lateral or move up/down vertical (the maximum velocity is about
0.4m/s). Finally, an example, PID parameters tuning, is given to illustrate the application of maneuverability analysis. The dynamic
performance of ZFAUV can be quickly and accurately analyzed by mathematical method, which has important guiding significance
for the choice of control strategy and experiments and also has reference value for the later development of AUVs.

1. Introduction X rudder[3], cross rudder[4, 5], rudder behind propeller[6],

and rudder at front [2]. But the rudder efficiency is relatively
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) is defined as a ve- low at low speed, the steering force is greatly reduced,
hicle that can perform underwater tasks and missions au- and the mobility is insufficient. In order to improve the
tonomously, using onboard navigation, guidance, and control maneuverability at low speed, through-body tunnel thrusters
systems [1]. AUVs are being used increasingly in a variety of were adopted [7], some researchers have put forward vector
applications, such as surveys, exploration, inspection, main- propulsion system instead of the traditional propeller-rudder
tenance and construction, search and rescue, environmental control system [8], and some have a more complex configura-
and biological monitoring, military, undersea mining, and tion allowing them to move more slowly and across complex
recreation [2]. terrain, e.g., the WHOI ABE and SENTRY AUVs [9]. There
Due to the limitation of weight and economic cost, are many problems for the control surfaces mentioned above,
most AUVs use fewer thrusters to achieve multi-degree-of- such as the driving mechanism is complex, maintenance is
freedom coupling motion control, which makes them typical more difficult, and so on. The adoption of differential control
underactuated system. The shape of these AUVs is gener- of multiple fixed thrusters can avoid these problems; the
ally streamlined, most are torpedo-shaped (e.g., the NERC horizontal and vertical motions are just adjusted by the speed
Autosub6000 AUV and REMUS-100 AUV). The traditional of thrusters, e.g., X4AUV [10–15], but X4AUV is only a model
propeller-rudder control mode is adopted by most AUVs that at present and has no practical application.
is a main propeller and control surface is arranged at the We developed a small portable modular AUV with four
tail. At present, the control systems adopted by underactuated fixed thrusters at tail, named ZFAUV; it weighs about 20kg.
AUVs are generally classified into the following categories: Meanwhile, in order to improve the maneuverability of
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

y
L2
T6 x

L1 T5

L3

Figure 1: Modular ZFAUV.

T1 z
L1
T3
T4
ZFAUV, two tunnel thrusters are set at front: one is horizontal
T2
and the other is vertical, as shown in Figure 1. With the aid
of these six thrusters, some actions that ordinary propeller-
rudder AUVs cannot achieve, such as turning around in Figure 2: Thruster arrangement.
situ, moving lateral, moving up/down vertical, etc., can be
achieved.
To the best of our knowledge, the AUVs who have tunnel
thrusters both at front and at rear are both conventional first; then the CFD is used to predict the thrust and torque
propeller-rudder AUVs. They are equipped with two tunnel of thrusters. And the mathematical model is simplified in
thrusters (vertical usually) [16] or four tunnel thrusters (two horizontal plane and vertical plane, respectively. The motion
horizontal and two vertical)[17, 18]. The purpose is to improve characteristics of ZFAUV are studied in detail, including
the maneuverability at low speed, achieve near-bottom and steady linear maneuver, maneuverability in vertical plane,
low-speed sailing, moving up/down vertical, etc. But in order maneuverability in horizontal plane, etc.
to achieve turning around in situ, moving lateral, moving The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
up/down vertical etc., four tunnel thrusters are needed at presents the mathematical model. The thrust and torque of
least; this is difficult for small AUV due to the limited space. tail thrusters and tunnel thrusters is calculated with CFD in
For the speed of the tail thrusters of ZFAUV can be different, Section 3. In Section 4, motion simulation and maneuverabil-
or even reversed, the effect is the same as that of vertical and ity analysis is offered. An example, PID parameters tuning, is
horizontal tunnel thrusters at rear. So the limited space can given to illustrate the application of maneuverability analysis
be used to equip other sensors. in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper.
Researchers model the dynamic behavior of AUVs to
evaluate their performances [19]. The turning circle and spiral 2. Mathematical Model
and zigzag maneuvers are usually designed and used to
evaluate the performance of AUVs [20, 21]. Kim et al. used 2.1. Geometric Model. As shown in Figure 1, ZFAUV with
spiral and zigzag maneuvers to model linear AUV system four fixed thrusters at tail and two tunnel thrusters at front
[22]. is proposed in this paper. The thrusters' number is shown in
Mathematical model is needed to predict the maneuver- Figure 2. 𝑇5 is horizontal tunnel thruster, 𝑇6 is vertical tunnel
ability; although numerous underwater vehicle models have thruster, 𝑇1 and 𝑇2 are vertical thrusters, and 𝑇3 and 𝑇4 are
been presented, there is a little study of the model of this novel horizontal thrusters. The angle between 𝑇1 , 𝑇2 , 𝑇3 , 𝑇4 and 𝑂𝑥
AUV with four fixed thrusters and two tunnel thrusters. Thus, axis is 𝜗, 𝜗 = 22.5∘ .
there is an urgent need to build dynamics model for this novel
AUV. Meanwhile, there are many hydrodynamic coefficients 2.2. Motion Analysis. The forces and torques acting on
in the mathematical model. Generally, there are two different ZFAUV are complex during the survey task, including gravity,
approaches to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients. The buoyancy, thruster's thrust, and water resistance. In order to
conventional method is towing tank experiment, but it takes study the motion of ZFAUV, we only analyze the influence of
a long time and costs a lot. The other method is using of CFD. thruster's thrust on the attitude of ZFAUV.
In the field of AUVs, the use of CFD has increased in recent Figures 3(a)–3(i) are the top view of ZFAUV. For the
years due to the increasing availability of powerful computers thrust of thruster is adjustable, the following is a simple
and user-friendly CFD software, which has become an almost analysis of the situation of |𝑇3 | = |𝑇4 | and 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 > 0.
completely necessary tool for predicting the hydrodynamic Figure 3(a), 𝑇3 = 𝑇4 > 0, 𝑇5 = 0, ZFAUV moves forward.
coefficients used in maneuverability predictions [23]. And Figure 3(b), 𝑇3 = 𝑇4 > 0, 𝑇5 > 0, ZFAUV turns right.
advances on high-performance computing brought the pos- Figure 3(c), 𝑇3 = −𝑇4 > 0, 𝑇5 = 0, ZFAUV turns right.
sibility of numerically solving differential equations with high Figure 3(d), 𝑇3 = 𝑇4 > 0, 𝑇5 < 0, ZFAUV turns left.
degree of difficulty [24]. Figure 3(e), 𝑇3 = −𝑇4 < 0, 𝑇5 = 0, ZFAUV turns left.
The purpose of this study is to simulate the maneu- Figure 3(f), 𝑇3 = −𝑇4 < 0, 𝑇5 > 0, ZFAUV can move right
verability of ZFAUV. So the mathematical model is built lateral under certain conditions.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

T3 T3
 
 
T4 L1 L3 T4 L1 L3 T5

(a) (b)
T3 T3 T5
 
T4  
L1 L3 T4 L1 L3

(c) (d)

 
T3  T3 
T4 L1 L3 T4 L1 L3 T5

(e) (f)
T3 T5 T3
 
T4  T4 
L1 L3 L1 L3 T5

(g) (h)
T5

T3 
T4 L1 L3

(i)

Figure 3: Motion of ZFAUV in horizontal plane.

Figure 3(g), 𝑇3 = −𝑇4 > 0, 𝑇5 < 0, ZFAUV can move left decrease also. So, the pitch is better to be controlled by the
lateral under certain conditions. tunnel thruster.
Figure 3(h), 𝑇3 = −𝑇4 > 0, 𝑇5 > 0, ZFAUV can turn right
in situ under certain conditions. 2.3. Reference Frames. In order to model ZFAUV, two refer-
Figure 3(i), 𝑇3 = −𝑇4 < 0, 𝑇5 < 0, ZFAUV can turn left in ence frames are defined to describe motion of ZFAUV: the
situ under certain conditions. body-fixed reference frame (𝐵 − 𝑥𝑦𝑧) and the earth-fixed
In the case of differential control, Figures 3(c) and 3(e), reference frame (𝐸 − 𝑋𝑌𝑍). Figure 5 shows the reference
ZFAUV can turn right or left, but the forward force will frames.
decrease. So, the yaw is better to be controlled by the tunnel
thruster. 2.4. Kinematics and Dynamics. According to reference (Fos-
Figures 4(a)–4(g) are the side view of ZFAUV; the sen, 2011; Xiaoming Wang, 2009)[25, 26], we design the kine-
following is a simple analysis of the situation of |𝑇1 | = |𝑇2 | matics and dynamics equations. They are shown separately as
and 𝑇3 = 𝑇4 > 0.
Figure 4(a), 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 > 0, 𝑇6 = 0, ZFAUV moves forward. 𝜑̇ = 𝑝 − (𝑞 cos 𝜑 − 𝑟 sin 𝜑) tan 𝜃
Figure 4(b), 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 > 0, 𝑇6 < 0, ZFAUV turns down.
Figure 4(c), 𝑇1 = −𝑇2 > 0, 𝑇6 = 0, ZFAUV turns down. 𝜃 ̇ = 𝑞 sin 𝜑 + 𝑟 cos 𝜑
Figure 4(d), 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 > 0, 𝑇6 > 0, ZFAUV turns up.
Figure 4(e), 𝑇1 = −𝑇2 < 0, 𝑇6 = 0, ZFAUV turns up. (𝑞 cos 𝜑 − 𝑟 sin 𝜑)
𝜓̇ =
Figure 4(f), 𝑇1 = −𝑇2 < 0, 𝑇6 < 0, ZFAUV can move cos 𝜃
down vertical under certain conditions.
𝑋̇ 𝑒
Figure 4(g), 𝑇1 = −𝑇2 > 0, 𝑇6 > 0, ZFAUV can move up
vertical under certain conditions. = 𝑢 cos 𝜃 cos 𝜓 + V (sin 𝜓 sin 𝜑 − sin 𝜃 cos 𝜓 cos 𝜑)
In the case of differential control, Figures 4(c) and 4(e),
ZFAUV can turn up or down, but the forward force will + 𝑤 (sin 𝜓 cos 𝜑 + sin 𝜃 cos 𝜓 sin 𝜑)
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

T1 T1
 
 
T2 L1 L2 T2 L1 L2 T6

(a) (b)

T1 T1 T6
 
T2  
L1 L2 T2 L1 L2

(c) (d)

 
T1  T1 
T2 L1 L2 T2 L1 L2 T6

(e) (f)

T1
T6

T2 
L1 L2

(g)

Figure 4: Motion of ZFAUV in vertical plane.

Ye + 𝑤 (cos 𝜓 cos 𝜑 − sin 𝜃 sin 𝜓 sin 𝜑)

𝑉𝑇 = √𝑢2 + V2 + 𝑤2
V
Xe
𝛼 = arctan (− )
E
𝑢

y 𝑤
Ze x 𝛽 = arcsin ( )
𝑉𝑇
(1)

B (𝑚 + 𝜆 11 ) 𝑢̇

= 𝑚V𝑟 − Δ𝐺 sin 𝜃 + (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 ) cos 𝜗

z 1
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇𝑆𝐶𝑥 (0)
2
Figure 5: Reference frame of ZFAUV. (𝑚 + 𝜆 22 ) V̇ + 𝜆 26 𝑟 ̇

= −𝑚𝑢𝑟 − Δ𝐺 cos 𝜃 cos 𝜑 + (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑇6

𝑌𝑒̇ = 𝑢 sin 𝜃 + V cos 𝜃 cos 𝜑 − 𝑤 cos 𝜃 sin 𝜑
1
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇𝑆 (𝐶𝛼𝑌 𝛼 + 𝐶𝑟𝑌𝑟󸀠 )
𝑍̇ 𝑒 2

= −𝑢 cos 𝜃 sin 𝜓 (𝑚 + 𝜆 33 ) 𝑤̇ + 𝜆 35 𝑞̇

+ V (cos 𝜓 sin 𝜑 + sin 𝜃 sin 𝜓 cos 𝜑) = 𝑚𝑢𝑞 + Δ𝐺 cos 𝜃 sin 𝜑

Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

1 𝛽 𝑝 𝑞 𝐾𝑄2 𝜌𝐷2 5 󵄨 󵄨 2
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆 (𝐶𝑍 𝛽 + 𝐶𝑍 𝑝󸀠 + 𝐶𝑍 𝑞󸀠 ) + 𝑇5 𝑄5 = 𝑛5 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑛5 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝑛max5
2 602
− (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗 𝐾𝑄2 𝜌𝐷2 5 󵄨 󵄨 2
𝑄6 = 𝑛6 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑛6 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝑛max6 ,
(𝐽𝑥 + 𝜆 44 ) 𝑝̇ 602

= 𝑚𝑦𝐺𝑢𝑞 + 𝐺𝑦𝐺 cos 𝜃 sin 𝜑 𝑝𝐿

𝑝󸀠 = ,
𝑉𝑇
1 𝛽 𝑝 𝑞
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿 (𝐶𝑅 𝛽 + 𝐶𝑅 𝑝󸀠 + 𝐶𝑅 𝑞󸀠 ) 𝑞𝐿
2 𝑞󸀠 = ,
𝑉𝑇
+ (−𝑄1 + 𝑄2 − 𝑄3 + 𝑄4 ) cos 𝜗
𝑟𝐿
𝑟󸀠 = ,
(𝐽𝑦 + 𝜆 55 ) 𝑞̇ + 𝜆 35 𝑤̇ 𝑉𝑇
1 2 (3)
𝛽 𝑝 𝑞
= 𝜌𝑉 𝑇𝑆𝐿 (𝐶𝑀𝛽 + 𝐶𝑀𝑝󸀠 + 𝐶𝑀𝑞󸀠 )
2
(𝑋𝑒, 𝑌𝑒 , 𝑍𝑒 ) is the position in 𝐸, 𝜑, 𝜃, and 𝜓 are roll angle, pitch
− (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 − 𝑇5 𝐿 3 + (−𝑄1 + 𝑄2 ) sin 𝜗 angle, and yaw angle, and 𝑝, 𝑞, and 𝑟 are the angular velocity.
+ 𝑄6 Some physical parameters in the model, such as 𝑚, 𝐷1 ,
𝐷2 , 𝐽𝑥 , 𝐽𝑦 , 𝐽𝑧 , etc., can be acquired by 3D modeling software
(𝐽𝑧 + 𝜆 66 ) 𝑟 ̇ + 𝜆 26 V̇ (SolidWorks). Other hydrodynamic coefficients (for example,
𝐾𝑇 and 𝐾𝑄 of thrusters in Section 3) can be obtained by CFD
1 simulation.
= 𝐺𝑦𝐺 sin 𝜃 + 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿 (𝐶𝛼𝑁𝛼 + 𝐶𝑟𝑁𝑟󸀠 )
2
− (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 + 𝑇6 𝐿 2 + (𝑄3 − 𝑄4 ) sin 𝜗 3. Thrust Analysis
+ 𝑄5 For ZFAUV, the power comes from each thruster. Therefore,
(2) the performance of thruster is very important for the dynamic
performance and maneuverability of ZFAUV. Therefore, the
thrust of tail thruster and tunnel thruster under different
where conditions needs to be analyzed in detail.
Thrust performance analysis of thruster is relatively
𝐾𝑇1 𝜌𝐷1 4 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨 2 complex. There are two main ways at present. First, physical
𝑇1 = 𝑛1 󵄨󵄨𝑛1 󵄨󵄨 𝑛max1
602 test, the results are accurate, but the cycle is long, which
requires a huge amount of manpower and material resources.
𝐾𝑇1 𝜌𝐷1 4 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨 2
𝑇2 = 𝑛2 󵄨󵄨𝑛2 󵄨󵄨 𝑛max2 Second, CFD simulation, with low cost and short cycle, can
602 obtain complete data and can set up computational flow field
𝐾𝑇1 𝜌𝐷1 4 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨 2 according to research needs, which is sometimes difficult to
𝑇3 = 𝑛3 󵄨󵄨𝑛3 󵄨󵄨 𝑛max3 achieve in physical experiments. Therefore, CFD method is
602
used to predict the thrust.
𝐾𝑇1 𝜌𝐷1 4 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨 2 In the numerical calculation, the propeller is assumed to
𝑇4 = 𝑛4 󵄨󵄨𝑛4 󵄨󵄨 𝑛max4 be located deep below the water surface, without considering
602
the influence of surface effects such as surface waves. In order
𝐾𝑇2 𝜌𝐷2 4 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨 2 to simulate the infinite flow field, the size of computational
𝑇5 = 𝑛5 󵄨󵄨𝑛5 󵄨󵄨 𝑛max5
602 domain should be much larger than 10 times the diameter
of the propeller to ensure that the boundary layer has no
𝐾𝑇2 𝜌𝐷2 4 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨 2 effect on the motion of the propeller. According to the
𝑇6 = 𝑛6 󵄨󵄨𝑛6 󵄨󵄨 𝑛max6 ,
602 characteristics of propeller when it rotates, the computational
𝐾𝑄1 𝜌𝐷1 5 󵄨 󵄨 2 domain is divided into two parts: the dynamic region near
𝑄1 = 𝑛1 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑛1 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝑛max1 the propeller and the static region far from the propeller, as
602 shown in Figures 6 and 7. Multiple reference frames (MRF)
𝐾𝑄1 𝜌𝐷1 5 󵄨 󵄨 2 method is used; that is, the rotating coordinate system is
𝑄2 = 𝑛2 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑛2 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝑛max2 used to solve the dynamic fluid-1 and the Cartesian inertial
602 coordinate system is used to solve the static fluid-2.
𝐾𝑄1 𝜌𝐷1 5 󵄨 󵄨 2 Three-dimensional solver in Fluent is used to solve the
𝑄3 = 𝑛3 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑛3 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝑛max3 physical model, and unsteady uncoupled invisible algorithm
602
is used. Modified RNG k-𝜀 turbulence equation is used to
𝐾𝑄1 𝜌𝐷1 5 󵄨 󵄨 2 describe the turbulence model, and enhanced wall function is
𝑄4 = 𝑛4 󵄨󵄨󵄨𝑛4 󵄨󵄨󵄨 𝑛max4 used to solve the flow around the wall. The pressure-velocity
602
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 1: Calculated thrust and torque of tail thruster at different flow velocity.

n/%
T/N Q/N∙m
10 20 40 60 80 100
vflow /m/s
1.47 3.31 5.89 12.95 22.82 35.41
0.26
0.0173 0.0403 0.0714 0.1596 0.2815 0.4391
1.17 2.78 5.06 11.59 20.71 32.43
0.56
0.0161 0.0381 0.0674 0.1538 0.2725 0.4249
0.82 2.24 4.40 10.26 18.51 25.76
1.14
0.0119 0.0316 0.0605 0.1401 0.2519 0.3935
0.48 1.69 3.68 8.93 16.46 20.39
1.79
0.0060 0.0223 0.0481 0.1198 0.2194 0.3560
0.13 1.13 3.03 7.60 14.26 14.42
2.22
0.0018 0.0159 0.0412 0.1061 0.1988 0.3267
-0.22 0.57 2.37 6.27 12.06 8.46
2.87
-0.0024 0.0094 0.0343 0.0923 0.1782 0.2975

wall
coupling method is SIMPLEC method, which is discretized
through second-order upwind method.
fluid-1
3.1. Tail Thruster. According to the characteristics of ZFAUV,
Velocity-inlet

the speed forward is about 0-5 kn. The physical model used
outflow

fluid-2
in CFD is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 7 shows the pressure distribution on the propeller
blade surface and wake flow trace distribution at rated speed.
The thrust and torque at different flow velocity was
calculated and analyzed, as shown in Table 1.
wall At rated speed, the thrust coefficient and torque coeffi-
cient can be obtained by the following equations:
Figure 6: Physical model of tail thruster in CFD.
𝑇 = 𝐾𝑇 𝜌𝐷4 ∗ 𝑛2 (4)

𝑄 = 𝐾𝑄𝜌𝐷5 ∗ 𝑛2 (5)
1.73e+04
1.17e+04
6.20e+03
The advance coefficient J and the efficiency of the pro-
6.79e+02 peller can be calculated by the following equations:
-4.85e+03
-1.04e+04 𝑉𝑝
𝐽= (6)
𝑛𝐷
-1.59e+04
-2.14e+04
-2.70e+04
𝑇𝑉p 𝐾𝑇 𝐽
-3.25e+04 𝜂= = ⋅ (7)
-3.80e+04 2𝜋𝑛𝑄 𝐾𝑄 2𝜋
Apr 30, 2019
Contours of Static Pressure (pascal)
FLUENT 6.3 (3d, pbns, mgke)
So the open water performance of tail thruster at rated
8.78e+03
7.90e+03
speed can be obtained, as shown in Figure 8.
7.02e+03
6.14e+03 3.2. Tunnel Thruster. Tunnel thruster is mainly used to
5.27e+03
change the heading and pitch angle of ZFAUV. The per-
4.39e+03
3.51e+03
formance of tunnel thruster is deeply influenced when
2.63e+03 the forward velocity changes, accordingly influencing the
1.76e+03 turning radius and maneuverability. Therefore, it is nec-
8.78e+02 essary to analyze the thrust at different forward veloc-
0.00e+00
ity.
Apr 30, 2019
Pathlines Colored by Particle ID
FLUENT 6.3 (3d, pbns, mgke) Due to the existence of tunnel, and the fact that there's no
duct, the physical model of tunnel thruster in CFD is different
Figure 7: CFD result of tail propeller. from that of tail thruster. Tunnel needs to be added to the
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

Table 2: Calculated thrust and torque of tunnel thruster at different forward velocity.

n/%
T/N Q/N∙m
10 20 40 60 80 100
vflow /m/s
0.23 0.51 1.81 4.19 8.06 13.04
0.26
0.003 0.007 0.026 0.058 0.110 0.176
0.25 0.81 2.22 4.43 7.74 11.87
0.56
0.003 0.010 0.030 0.061 0.106 0.163
0.23 1.06 3.55 6.49 8.02 13.27
1.14
0.003 0.013 0.042 0.082 0.110 0.178
0.51 1.14 3.34 7.11 15.07 17.51
1.79
0.007 0.014 0.040 0.086 0.179 0.221
0.075 0.82 3.63 6.85 14.21 23.6
2.22
0.002 0.011 0.042 0.083 0.167 0.279
0.075 0.74 5.30 7.64 13.41 21.41
2.87
0.001 0.010 0.066 0.088 0.159 0.254

0.55 2.67e+04

0.5 2.08e+04
1.49e+04
0.45
8.95e+03
0.4
3.03e+03
0.35
-2.89e+03
0.3 -8.81e+03
0.25 -1.47e+04
0.2 -2.07e+04
0.15 -2.66e+04
0.1 -3.25e+04
0.05 Contours of Static Pressure (pascal)
Apr 25, 2019
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 FLUENT 6.3 (3d, pbns, mgke)

J 7.19e+00
6.47e+00
KQ  5.76e+00
KT 5.04e+00
4.32e+00
Figure 8: Open water performance at rated speed. 3.60e+00
2.88e+00
2.16e+00
1.45e+00
7.28e-01
wall 9.97e-03

fluid-1 Velocity Vectors Colored By Velocity Magnitude (m/s)

Apr 25, 2019
FLUENT 6.3 (3d, pbns, mgke)
Velocity-inlet

Figure 10: CFD result of tunnel thruster.

outflow

fluid-2

axis of tunnel is set as 90 degrees. The physical model used in

CFD is shown in Figure 9.
Figure 10 shows the pressure distribution on the propeller
wall
blade surface and velocity vector distribution at rated speed.
The hydrodynamic performance of tunnel thruster is
Figure 9: Physical model of tunnel thruster in CFD. calculated and analyzed for different forward velocity, the
thrust and torque is shown in Table 2.
The thrust variation of tunnel thruster at different for-
ward velocity can be drawn, as shown in Figure 11.
physical model, as shown in Figure 9; dynamic fluid-1 is the In order to make the simulation result more real and
area where the tunnel is located. reliable, the thrust and torque coefficients of the tunnel
The direction of flow is perpendicular to the axis of thruster should be corrected in real time according to the
tunnel, so the angle between the direction of inflow and the calculated speed.
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

25 − (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 − 𝑇5 𝐿 3 + (−𝑄1 + 𝑄2 ) sin 𝜗

20 + 𝑄6

15 𝜑̇ = 𝑝
T (N)

10 𝜓̇ = 𝑞 cos 𝜑

5 𝑉𝑇 = √𝑢2 + 𝑤2
0 𝑤
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 𝛽 = arcsin ( )
n (%)
𝑉𝑇

v=2.87 v=1.14 𝑢 = 𝑉𝑇 cos 𝛽

v=2.22 v=0.56
v=1.79 v=0.26 𝑋̇ 𝑒 = 𝑢 cos 𝜓 + 𝑤 sin 𝜓 cos 𝜑
Figure 11: The thrust of tunnel thruster. 𝑍̇ 𝑒 = −𝑢 sin 𝜓 + 𝑤 cos 𝜓 cos 𝜑

− (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 + 𝑇6 𝐿 2 + (𝑄3 − 𝑄4 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑄5 = 0

4. Motion Simulation and (8)
Maneuverability Analysis
4.1.1. Steady Motion in Horizontal Plane. In steady maneuver,
On the basis of 6-DOF mathematical model in Section 2, the motion parameters remain unchanged and the accelera-
we perform motion simulation and maneuverability analysis tion parameters are zero:
of ZFAUV. The motion simulations can be divided into two
main aspects: lateral motions and longitudinal motions.
𝜔̇ = 𝑞̇ = 𝑝̇ = 0

4.1. Lateral Motions. In order to study the dynamical behav- 𝑢 = 𝑉𝑇,

ior of ZFAUV in horizontal plane, including steady maneuver
𝑝 = 0,
and zigzag maneuver, the mathematical model has to be
simplified in 𝐵𝑥𝑧. 𝜑 = 𝜑𝑐 (9)
When ZFAUV moves in horizontal plane, V, 𝑟, and 𝑌𝑒 are
all zero, 𝜃 is very small; it can be considered that sin 𝜃 = 0, 𝑞 = 𝑞𝑐 ,
cos 𝜃 = 1. Therefore, the simplified model in horizontal plane
can be obtained as follows: 𝛽 = 𝛽𝑐 ,
𝑛5 = const
(𝑚 + 𝜆 11 ) 𝑢̇
1 where subscript 𝑐 means steady value. Introduce (9) into (8):
= (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 ) cos 𝜗 + 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐶𝑥 (0)
2
𝑞󸀠𝑐
(𝑚 + 𝜆 33 ) 𝑤̇ + 𝜆 35 𝑞̇ [ ]
𝐴[ ]
[ 𝛽𝑐 ] = 𝐵𝑇5 + 𝐶 (10)
= 𝑚𝑢𝑞 + Δ𝐺 sin 𝜑
[sin 𝜑𝑐 ]
1 𝛽 𝑝 𝑞
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆 (𝐶𝑍𝛽 + 𝐶𝑍 𝑝󸀠 + 𝐶𝑍 𝑞󸀠 ) + 𝑇5 where
2
− (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗 𝑎11 𝑎12 𝑎13
[𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 ]
(𝐽𝑥 + 𝜆 44 ) 𝑝̇ 𝐴 = [ 21 22 23 ] ,

= 𝑚𝑢𝑦𝐺𝑞 + 𝐺𝑦𝐺 sin 𝜑 [𝑎31 𝑎32 𝑎33 ]

1 𝑏11
𝛽 𝑝 𝑞
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿 (𝐶𝑅 𝛽 + 𝐶𝑅 𝑝󸀠 + 𝐶𝑅 𝑞󸀠 ) [𝑏 ]
2 𝐵 = [ 21 ] ,
+ (−𝑄1 + 𝑄2 − 𝑄3 + 𝑄4 ) cos 𝜗 [𝑏31 ]

(𝐽𝑦 + 𝜆 55 ) 𝑞 ̇ + 𝜆 35 𝑤̇ 𝑐11
[𝑐 ]
𝐶 = [ 21 ] ,
1 𝛽 𝑝 𝑞
= 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇𝑆𝐿 (𝐶𝑀𝛽 + 𝐶𝑀𝑝󸀠 + 𝐶𝑀𝑞󸀠 ) [𝑐31 ]
2
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

𝑚𝑉2 𝑇 1 2 𝑞 of rudder will be reduced; it also increases the complexity

𝑎11 = + 𝜌𝑉 𝑇 𝑆𝐶𝑍 ,
𝐿 2 of structure design and program design. With the four fixed
thrusters of ZFAUV, this problem can be solved simply and
1 𝛽
𝑎12 = 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐶𝑍 , effectively.
2 When ZFAUV is moving forward, if the tunnel thruster
𝑎13 = Δ𝐺, is executed, lateral force and yaw moment will be produced.
Under the action of lateral force and yaw moment, ZFAUV
𝑚𝑉2 𝑇 1 𝑞 will turn left or turn right.
𝑎21 = 𝑦𝐺 + 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿𝐶𝑅,
𝐿 2 According to (10), the following can be obtained:
1 𝛽 𝑞󸀠𝑐
𝑎22 = 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿𝐶𝑅 , [ ]
2 [ 𝛽𝑐 ] = 𝐴−1 𝐵𝑇5 + 𝐴−1 𝐶 = 𝐷𝑇5 + 𝐸
[ ] (14)
𝑎23 = 𝐺𝑦𝐺,
[sin 𝜑𝑐 ]
1 𝑞
𝑎31 = 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿𝐶𝑀, where
2
𝑑11
1 𝛽 1 [ ]
𝑎32 = 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿𝐶𝑀, 𝐷= [𝑑21 ] ,
2 |𝐴|
𝑎33 = 0, [𝑑31 ]

𝑏11 = −1, 𝑒11

1 [ ]
𝐸= [𝑒21 ] ,
𝑏21 = 0, |𝐴|
[𝑒31 ]
𝑏31 = 𝐿 3 ,
|𝐴| = a11 a22 a33 − a11 a23 a32 − a21 a12 a33 + a21 a13 a32
𝑐11 = − (𝑇4 − 𝑇3 ) sin 𝜗,
+ a31 a12 a23 − a31 a13 a22 ,
𝑐21 = (𝑄1 − 𝑄2 + 𝑄3 − 𝑄4 ) cos 𝜗,
𝑑11 = (a22 a33 − a23 a32 ) b11 − (a12 a33 − a13 a32 ) b21
𝑐31 = (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 + (𝑄1 − 𝑄2 ) sin 𝜗 − 𝑄6 ,
+ (a12 a23 − a13 a22 ) b31 ,
2 (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 )
𝑉2 𝑇 =− , 𝑑21 = − (a21 a33 − a23 a31 ) b11 + (a11 a33 − a13 a31 ) b21 (15)
𝑆𝐶𝑥 (0)
𝑞𝑐 𝐿 − (a11 a23 − a13 a21 ) b31 ,
𝑞󸀠𝑐 = .
𝑉𝑇 𝑑31 = (a21 a32 − a22 a31 ) b11 − (a11 a32 − a12 a31 ) b21
(11)
+ (a11 a22 − a12 a21 ) b31 ,
In steady linear maneuver, 𝑞󸀠𝑐 = 𝛽𝑐 = 𝜑𝑐 = 0, 𝑇5 = 0,
introduce this into (10): 𝑒11 = (a22 a33 − a23 a32 ) c11 − (a12 a33 − a13 a32 ) c21

𝑐11 = 𝑐21 = 𝑐31 = 0 (12) + (a12 a23 − a13 a22 ) c31 ,

𝑐11 = 0 󳨐⇒ 𝑒21 = − (a21 a33 − a23 a31 ) c11 + (a11 a33 − a13 a31 ) c21
𝑇3 = 𝑇4 − (a11 a23 − a13 a21 ) c31 ,
𝑐21 = 0 󳨐⇒ 𝑒31 = (a21 a32 − a22 a31 ) c11 − (a11 a32 − a12 a31 ) c21
𝑄1 = 𝑄2 󳨐⇒ (13) + (a11 a22 − a12 a21 ) c31 .
𝑇1 = 𝑇2 Therefore,
𝑐31 = 0 󳨐⇒ 1 1
𝑞󸀠𝑐 = 𝑑11 𝑇5 + 𝑒
|𝐴| |𝐴| 11
𝑄6 = 0
1 1
So, ZFAUV is only possible to keep steady linear maneu- 𝛽𝑐 = 𝑑 𝑇 + 𝑒 (16)
|𝐴| 21 5 |𝐴| 21
ver under the condition of 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 , 𝑇3 = 𝑇4 , and 𝑇5 = 𝑇6 = 0.
In order to achieve steady linear maneuver, propeller-rudder 1 1
𝜑𝑐 = arcsin ( 𝑑 𝑇 + 𝑒 )
AUVs have to use differential rudder, but the effective range |𝐴| 31 5 |𝐴| 31
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 3: Turning radius of ZFAUV at different speed. ta

Tunnel 15
Forward 0v

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20 t0v

20%(0.56m/s) 6.1 3.3 2.8 2.5 2 15 50

10
40%(1.14m/s) 13.2 9.5 8 5.8 4.4
5

n5 (%)
60%(1.79m/s) 29 20 14 10.5 8.2

 (∘ )
0 0
80%(2.22m/s) 52 30 20 15 12 −5
100%(2.87m/s) 72 38.5 26 21 17 −10
−15 −50
80 −20
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
70
t (s)
turnning radius (m)

60
50 Figure 13: Performance of heading zigzag maneuver.
40
30
20
20/10 zigzag maneuver turns the rudders to 20∘ and changes
direction when the check heading angle of 10∘ is reached [27–
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 29].
n5 (%) For ZFAUV, the direction is controlled by tunnel thruster
or differential control of tail thrusters; behind, tunnel thruster
Vt=0.56 Vt=2.22 or differential control of tail thrusters is replaced by ‘rudder’.
Vt=1.14 Vt=2.87 So the 50%/15∘ zigzag maneuver is adopted in this study;,
Vt=1.79
that is, when ZFAUV is moving forward at constant speed,
Figure 12: Turning radius at different speed. the ‘rudder’ is executed to 50% (the first execute), ZFAUV
starts to turn right. Once the check heading angle of -15∘ is
reached for the first execute, the ‘rudder’ is executed to -50%
(the second execute). At this time, ZFAUV will continue to
The turning radius is as follows: turn right because of inertia, but the turning rate gradually
decreases. When 𝑞 = 0, ZFAUV starts to turn left. Once the
𝑉 𝐿 check heading angle of 15∘ is detected for the second execute,
𝑅𝑐 = 󵄨󵄨 𝑇󵄨󵄨 = 󵄨󵄨 󸀠 󵄨󵄨 (17)
󵄨󵄨𝑞𝑐 󵄨󵄨 󵄨󵄨𝑞𝑐 󵄨󵄨 the ‘rudder’ is executed to 50% (the third execute). So it is
repeated 5 times. Figure 13 shows the performance of ZFAUV
The relationship between the turning radius and the in zigzag maneuver simulation.
speed of tunnel thruster is shown in Table 3. The characteristic parameters of zigzag maneuver include
As can be seen from Table 4 and Figure 12, at a certain the initial turning period, the overshoot time, the overshoot
tunnel thruster speed, the greater the speed forward, the heading angle, and the full cycle. The smaller the character-
larger the turning radius. Different from propeller-rudder istic parameters, the better the heading changing ability of
AUVs, the turning radius is the same at a given rudder angle ZFAUV.
[26]. The initial turning period (𝑡𝑎 ), as shown in Figure 13, is
the time between the first ‘rudder’ execute and the second
4.1.2. Zigzag Maneuver. Zigzag maneuver is widely used to ‘rudder’ execute. It indicates the ability to change heading.
evaluate the maneuverability of ships and torpedoes, so this Usually, the dimensionless form of the initial turning period
can be used to evaluate the maneuverability of ZFAUV. is used as the criterion of the heading changing ability; that
In a general zigzag maneuver, the vehicle is moving for- is, 𝑡󸀠𝑎 = 𝑡𝑎 (𝑉𝑇/𝐿).
ward at constant speed and the rudder is executed to a spec- The overshoot time (𝑡0V ) is the time from the second
ified maximum rudder angle in one direction at maximum ‘rudder’ execute to ZFAUV stop turning in the original
rudder rate. The vehicle responds by turning in that direction. direction (𝑞 = 0).
When the vehicle heading angle reaches a specified check After the second execute, ZFAUV keeps turning in the
heading angle, the rudder is turned at maximum rudder rate original direction. The overshoot heading angle (𝜓0V ) is the
in the opposite direction until it reaches the maximum rudder difference between the maximum yaw angle and the steering
angle specified. The vehicle reacts by turning in the opposite yaw angle (15∘ ).
direction, and the procedure is repeated when the check The characteristic parameters of ZFAUV at different
heading angle in the opposite direction is reached. This results speed can be obtained, as shown in Tables 4 and 5, Figures 14
in a zigzag response that is used to assess the maneuverability and 15. It can be seen from the figures that with the increase
of the vehicle. The maximum rudder angle and the check of the speed, the ability to change heading becomes worse
heading angle characterize the maneuver type; for instance, a gradually.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

Table 4: Heading zigzag parameters-tunnel control (50%).

Forward speed (%) 10 20 40 60 80 100

𝑉𝑇 (m/s) 0.26 0.56 1.14 1.79 2.22 2.87
𝑡𝑎 (s) 8.50 6.31 6.38 8.19 9.69 12.00
𝑡󸀠𝑎 2.21 1.77 3.64 7.33 10.76 17.22
𝑡0V (s) 6.50 3.25 1.63 1.03 0.83 0.63
𝜓0V ( ∘ ) 38.6 11.8 2.9 1.2 0.8 0.5

Table 5: Heading zigzag parameters-differential control (50%).

Forward speed (%) 10 20 40 60 80 100

𝑉𝑇 (m/s) 0.16 0.39 0.81 1.27 1.57 2.03
𝑡𝑎 (s) 6.25 5.31 4.13 4.00 4.25 4.94
𝑡󸀠𝑎 1.00 1.04 1.67 2.54 3.34 5.01
𝑡0V (s) 5.85 3.88 1.98 1.23 0.98 0.75
𝜓0V ( ∘ ) 60.6 31.1 9.5 4.2 2.4 1.7

18 of speed, and the overshoot yaw angle decreases with the

16 increase of speed. Tunnel control has poor heading changing
14 ability, but its overshoot yaw angle is smaller; differential
12 control has better heading changing ability, but the overshoot
10 yaw angle is larger. Comparatively, the maneuverability of
ta

8 differential control is better than that of tunnel control, but

6 differential control is at the cost of losing speed. When the
4 demand for speed is higher, the heading accuracy should
2 be reduced, so tunnel control can be used, and differential
0 control can be used when high heading precision is needed.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Vt (m/s) (2) Compared with ordinary propeller-rudder AUVs,
the overshoot angle of ZFAUV is larger at low speed. The
tunnel control reason is that the steering force and moment of ZFAUV,
differential control whether controlled by differential or tunnel, is independent
Figure 14: 𝑡󸀠𝑎 at different speed in horizontal plane. of the forward speed. At low speed, steering force and
moment is more powerful than forward force; this results
in larger overshoot. But the rudder efficiency of ordinary
70 propeller-rudder AUVs is related to speed. So, ZFAUV is
60 more advantageous at low speed when good maneuverability
is required.
50
0 (∘ )

40 4.1.3. Turning around In Situ. As shown in Figures 3(h)

30 and 3(i), ZFAUV can turn around the center of buoyancy
in situ when certain conditions are satisfied; that is, the
20
turning radius is zero. When stable state is achieved, the
10 motion parameters remain unchanged and the acceleration
0 parameters are zero:
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Vt (m/s) 𝑢 = 0,
tunnel control
𝑤 = 0,
differential control

Figure 15: 𝜓0V at different speed in horizontal plane. 𝑉𝑇 = 0

𝑢̇ = 0, (18)

From Figures 14 and 15, we can get the following conclu- 𝑤̇ = 0

sions: 𝜑 = 𝜑𝑐 ,
(1) Same as propeller-rudder AUVs [23], the heading
changing ability of ZFAUV becomes worse with the increase 𝜑̇ = 0
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

T3 l1 l2 R2 Table 6: Angular velocity of turning around in situ.

 x
n5(%) 10 20 40 60 80 100
T4 
R1 T5 𝜓󸀠 ( ∘ /s) 0.2 0.9 3.8 8.6 15.3 24.1
L1 L3
z
25
Figure 16: Force analysis when turning around in situ.
20

10 15

 (∘ /s)
0
10
 (∘ /s)

−10
5
−20
0
−30 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
n5 (%)
t (s)
100 Figure 18: Angular velocity of turning around in situ.
0
−100
 (∘ )

l3
R3
−200
 x
−300
T3 
−400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 T4 L1 L3 T5
t (s) z

Figure 17: Simulation result of turning around in situ. Figure 19: Force analysis when moving lateral.

Then, the force acting on ZFAUV is shown in Figure 16, with the increase of n5 , and the maximum turning angular
including thrust (𝑇3 ,𝑇4 ,𝑇5 ) and equivalent fluid viscous velocity is about 24.1∘ /s.
resistance (𝑅1 ,𝑅2 ). The equivalent location of 𝑅1 and 𝑅2 can
be obtained by CFD simulation: 4.1.4. Moving Lateral. As shown in Figures 3(f) and 3(g),
ZFAUV can move lateral when certain conditions are satis-
2𝑇3 sin 𝜗 + 𝑅2 = 𝑇5 + 𝑅1 fied. When stable state is achieved, the motion parameters
(19)
2𝑇3 sin 𝜗𝐿 1 + 𝑇5 𝐿 3 = 𝑅1 𝑙1 + 𝑅2 𝑙2 remain unchanged and the acceleration parameters are zero.
Then, the force acting on ZFAUV is shown in Figure 19,
after stable state is achieved. including thrust (𝑇3 ,𝑇4 ,𝑇5 ) and equivalent fluid viscous
The equation of rotating along y-axis can be simplified as resistance (𝑅3 ). For the asymmetry of the geometrical shape,
follows: the location of 𝑅3 is a distance away from the buoyancy (𝑙3 ).
𝑙3 can be obtained by CFD simulation.
(𝐽𝑦 + 𝜆 55 ) 𝑞̇ = − (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 − 𝑇5 𝐿 3 + 𝑅1 𝑙1 −2𝑇3 sin 𝜗(𝐿 1 − 𝑙3 ) = 𝑇5 (𝐿 3 + 𝑙3 ) after stable state is
achieved.
+ 𝑅2 𝑙2 (20)
The equation along z-axis can be simplified as follows:
𝜓̇ = 𝑞 cos 𝜑
𝑍̇ 𝑒 = 𝑤
where (22)
(𝑚 + 𝜆 33 ) 𝑤̇ = 𝑇5 − (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗 − 𝑅1
𝑇3 = −𝑇4
where
1 2 2
𝑅1 = 𝜌𝑞 𝐿 𝐶𝑞1 𝑆𝑞 (21) 𝑇3 = −𝑇4
2
1 2 2 1 2 (23)
𝑅2 = 𝜌𝑞 𝐿 𝐶𝑞2 𝑆𝑞 𝑅3 = 𝜌𝜔 𝐶𝑍 𝑆𝑍
2 2
Figure 17 is the simulation result of 𝑛5 = 100%. Figure 20 is the simulation result of 𝑛5 = 100%.
The relationship between turning angular velocity and 𝑛5 The maximum velocity of moving lateral is about 0.39m/s.
is shown in Table 6 and Figure 18.
From Figure 18 and Table 6, it can be concluded that, after 4.2. Longitudinal Motions. In order to study the dynami-
stable state is achieved, the turning angular velocity increases cal behavior of ZFAUV in vertical plane, including steady
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

0 4.2.1. Steady Maneuver in Vertical Plane. In steady maneuver

20 of ZFAUV, the motion parameters remain unchanged and the
acceleration parameters are zero:
Z (m)

40
60 𝑢̇ = V̇ = 𝑟 ̇ = 0
80 𝑢 = 𝑢𝑐 ,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
t (s) V = V𝑐 ,
0.4 (25)
0.3
𝜃 = 𝜃𝑐
 (m/s)

0.2 𝑟 = 0,
0.1 𝑛6 = const
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 where subscript 𝑐 means steady value. Introduce (25) into
t (s) (24):
Figure 20: Simulation result of moving lateral. − Δ𝐺 sin 𝜃 + (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 ) cos 𝜗
1
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐶𝑥 (0) = 0
2
maneuver and trapezoidal steering maneuver, the mathemat-
ical model has to be simplified in 𝐵𝑥𝑦. 1
− Δ𝐺 cos 𝜃 + (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑇6 + 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐶𝛼𝑌 𝛼 = 0 (26)
When ZFAUV moves in vertical plane, 𝛽, 𝑤, 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝜑, 𝜓, 𝑍𝑒 2
are all zero. Therefore, the simplified model in vertical plane 1
can be obtained as follows: 𝐺𝑦𝐺 sin 𝜃 + 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿𝐶𝛼𝑁𝛼 − (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1
2
(𝑚 + 𝜆 11 ) 𝑢̇ + 𝑇6 𝐿 2 + (𝑄3 − 𝑄4 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑄5 = 0
= 𝑚V𝑟 − Δ𝐺 sin 𝜃 + (𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 ) cos 𝜗 After simplification, the following can be obtained:
1
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇𝑆𝐶𝑥 (0) 𝑎 sin2 𝜃𝑐 + 𝑏 sin 𝜃𝑐 + 𝑐 = 0 (27)
2
(𝑚 + 𝜆 22 ) V̇ + 𝜆 26 𝑟 ̇ where 𝑎 = 𝑑2 + 𝑒2 , 𝑏 = −2𝑑𝑓, 𝑐 = 𝑓2 − 𝑒2 , 𝑑 = 𝐺𝑦𝐺𝐶𝛼𝑌 ,
𝑒 = Δ𝐺𝐶𝛼𝑁𝐿, 𝑓 = 𝑔𝐶𝛼𝑌 + ℎ𝐿𝐶𝛼𝑁, 𝑔 = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 − 𝑇6 𝐿 2 −
= −𝑚𝑢𝑟 − Δ𝐺 cos 𝜃 + (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑇6 (𝑄3 − 𝑄4 ) sin 𝜗 − 𝑄5 , and ℎ = (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑇6 .
1 In order to ensure the safety of ZFAUV, the range of
+ 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇𝑆 (𝐶𝛼𝑌 𝛼 + 𝐶𝑟𝑌𝑟󸀠 ) pitch angle is limited as 𝜃 ∈ [−30∘ , 30∘ ]; therefore, sin 𝜃 ∈
2 [−1/2, 1/2]. 𝑑 ≠ 0, 𝑒 ≠ 0 󳨐⇒ 𝑎 ≠ 0; the following can be
(𝐽𝑧 + 𝜆 66 ) 𝑟 ̇ + 𝜆 26 V̇ obtained:
1 𝑏2 − 4𝑎𝑐 ≥ 0
= 𝐺𝑦𝐺 sin 𝜃 + 𝜌𝑉2 𝑇 𝑆𝐿 (𝐶𝛼𝑁𝛼 + 𝐶𝑟𝑁𝑟󸀠 )
2 (28)
(24) 1 −𝑏 ± √𝑏2 − 4𝑎𝑐 1
− (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 + 𝑇6 𝐿 2 + (𝑄3 − 𝑄4 ) sin 𝜗 − ≤ ≤
2 2𝑎 2
+ 𝑄5 According to (28), the reasonable range of 𝑇6 , or 𝑇1 and
𝑇2 can be obtained.
𝜃̇ = 𝑟
If 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 , 𝑇3 = 𝑇4 , 𝜃 is determined by 𝑇6 . This is
𝑋̇ 𝑒 = 𝑢 cos 𝜃 − V sin 𝜃 the main difference between ZFAUV and ordinary propeller-
rudder AUVs. ZFAUV can still change the pitch angle
𝑌𝑒̇ = 𝑢 sin 𝜃 + V cos 𝜃 without forward speed. Propeller-rudder AUVs can change
its attitude only if the forward speed exists.
𝑉𝑇 = √𝑢2 + V2
4.2.2. Trapezoidal Steering. Trapezoidal steering maneuver
V is the most typical test to verify the maneuverability in
𝛼 = arctan (− )
𝑢 vertical plane; it is of great significance to the study of deep
− (𝑇3 − 𝑇4 ) sin 𝜗𝐿 1 − 𝑇5 𝐿 3 + (−𝑄1 + 𝑄2 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑄6 maneuvering motion [30, 31].
In a general trapezoidal steering maneuver, the vehicle
=0 is moving forward at constant speed and the ‘rudder’ is
14 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 7: Trapezoidal steering parameters-tunnel control (30%).

Forward speed (%) 10 20 40 60 80 100

𝑉𝑇 (m/s) 0.33 0.56 1.14 1.79 2.22 2.87
𝑡𝑒 (s) 3.62 3.62 4.12 4.87 5.62 6.75
𝜃0V ( ∘ ) 12.8 7.8 3.4 1.6 1.2 0.8
𝜉0V (m) 0.21 0.98 2.29 4.20 5.96 9.13

Table 8: Trapezoidal steering parameters-differential control (30%).

Forward speed (%) 10 20 40 60 80 100

𝑉𝑇 (m/s) 0.25 0.39 0.81 1.27 1.57 2.03
𝑡𝑒 (s) 3.75 3.75 4.12 5.00 5.87 7.5
𝜃0V ( ∘ ) 3.0 2.5 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1
𝜉0V (m) -0.22 0.03 0.24 0.45 0.63 0.96

7.5
7
o
6.5
6
o
te
te (s) 5.5
5
30 10 40
4.5
5 45 4
n6 (%)

 (m)

3.5
 (∘ )

0 0 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Vt (m/s)
−5 55
tunnel control
−30 −10 60
differential control
0 25 50 75 100 125
t (s) Figure 22: 𝑡𝑒 of trapezoidal steering.

Figure 21: Simulation result of trapezoidal steering.

The execution time (𝑡𝑒 ), as shown in Figure 21, is the time

executed to a specified ‘rudder’ angle (𝛿0 ) at certain ‘rudder’ from the ‘rudder’ execute to the check pitch angle (𝜃𝑒 ) is
rate. The pitch angle will change accordingly. When the reached. The smaller the 𝑡𝑒 , the better the maneuverability in
specified check pitch angle (𝜃𝑒 ) is reached, the ‘rudder’ is set vertical plane.
as zero, the depth will continue to increase, and the pitch After the ‘rudder’ is executed to zero, the pitch angle
angle will continue to increase also and gradually return to will continue to increase and gradually return to zero. The
zero due to its righting moment effect. Then, the vehicle overshoot pitch angle (𝜃0V ) is the difference between the
will move forward at another depth. The whole process is a maximum pitch angle and the check pitch angle (7∘ ).
complete vertical trapezoidal steering maneuver; for ZFAUV, The overshoot depth (𝑌𝑒0V ) is the difference between the
it can be expressed as extreme depth after the second ‘rudder’ execute and the depth
at the second ‘rudder’ execute, as shown in Figure 21.
{
{ 𝑛 ̇6 ⋅ 𝑡 𝑡 ≤ 𝑡1 The maximum ‘rudder’ angle and the check pitch angle
{
{ characterize the maneuver type; for instance, a 10/7 trape-
𝑛6 (𝑡) = {𝑛0 𝑡1 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 𝑡2 (29) zoidal steering maneuver turns the ‘rudder’ to 10∘ and set as
{
{
{ 0 when the check pitch angle of 7∘ is reached. For ZFAUV,
{𝑛0 − 𝑛6̇ ⋅ (𝑡 − 𝑡2 ) 𝑡2 ≤ 𝑡 ≤ 𝑡3 30%/7∘ trapezoidal steering maneuver is adopted. The char-
where 𝑛̇6 = 𝑛0 /𝑡0 , 𝑛0 , 𝑡0 are the command tunnel speed and acteristic parameters at different speed can be obtained, as
the command time, respectively. shown in Tables 7 and 8, Figures 22–24.
Figure 21 shows the performance of ZFAUV in trape- From Figures 22–24, we can get the following conclu-
zoidal steering maneuver. sions:
The characteristic parameters of trapezoidal steering (1) Different with ordinary propeller-rudder AUVs (t e
maneuver include the execution time, the overshoot pitch becomes smaller with the increase of velocity), 𝑡𝑒 of ZFAUV
angle, and the overshoot depth. The smaller the characteristic becomes larger with the increase of velocity. 𝑡𝑒 of tunnel
parameters, the better the depth changing ability of ZFAUV. control is smaller than that of differential control.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 15

14
R4 y
12 l4
 x
10
T1 
8
o (∘ )

T2 L1 G L2 T6
6
4
Figure 25: Force analysis when moving down vertical.
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0
Vt (m/s)
10

Y (m)
tunnel control 20
differential control
30
Figure 23: 𝜃0V of trapezoidal steering.
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
10 t (s)
0.5
8
0.4
6

v (m/s)
0.3
o (m)

4 0.2
0.1
2
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
t (s)
−2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 26: Simulation result of moving down vertical.
Vt (m/s)

tunnel control
differential control
The equation along y-axis can be simplified as follows:
Figure 24: 𝜉0V of trapezoidal steering.
𝑌𝑒̇ = V
(30)
(2) Different with ordinary propeller-rudder AUVs (𝜃0V (𝑚 + 𝜆 22 ) 𝑤̇ = −△𝐺 + (𝑇1 − 𝑇2 ) sin 𝜗 + 𝑇6 − 𝑅2
becomes larger with the increase of velocity ), 𝜃0V of ZFAUV
becomes smaller with the increase of velocity. 𝜃0V of tunnel where
control is larger than that of differential control.
𝑇1 = −𝑇2
(3) Same as ordinary propeller-rudder AUVs, 𝜉0V
becomes larger with the increase of velocity. 𝜉0V of tunnel 1 2 (31)
control is larger than that of differential control. 𝑅2 = 𝜌V 𝐶𝑌 𝑆𝑌
2
(4) Comparatively, the depth changing ability of differen-
tial control is better than that of tunnel control. Figure 26 is the simulation result of 𝑛6 = 100%.
(5) At low speed, the depth mobility of ZFAUV is better The maximum velocity in the vertical direction is about
than that of ordinary propeller rudder AUV [27, 28]; at high 0.41m/s, which is slightly larger than that in the horizontal
speed, the depth mobility of ZFAUV is worse. direction. For the influence of antenna, the area of ZFAUV in
horizontal direction is little larger than that in vertical direc-
4.2.3. Moving up/down Vertical. As shown in Figures 4(f) tion, so the steady moving velocity in horizontal direction is
and 4(g), ZFAUV can move up/down vertical when certain relatively low.
conditions are satisfied. When stable state is achieved, the
motion parameters remain unchanged and the acceleration 5. Application Example of Dynamics Analysis
parameters are zero. Then, the force acting on ZFAUV
is shown in Figure 25, including thrust (𝑇1 , 𝑇2 , 𝑇6 ), net Path tracking is the basis of motion control of AUVs, and path
buoyancy (△𝐺 = 𝐺 − 𝐵), and equivalent fluid viscous tracking strategy and control algorithm are needed. Line-
resistance (𝑅4 ). For the asymmetry of the geometrical shape, of-Sight (LOS) guidance is the most widely used guidance
the location of 𝑅4 is a distance away from the buoyancy (𝑙4 ). strategy, and PID is the most widely used controller. For
𝑙4 can be obtained by CFD simulation. PID controller, it is necessary to adjust the parameters. If the
−2𝑇1 sin 𝜗(𝐿 1 − 𝑙4 ) = −𝑇6 (𝐿 3 + 𝑙4 ) + △𝐺𝑙4 after stable state parameters of PID are not adjusted properly, the final effect
is achieved. will be greatly affected.
16 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

−100 −100

−80 −80

−60 −60

z (m)
z (m)

−40 −40

−20 −20

0 0
−20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
x (m) x (m)

P=1,I=0.05,D=1 P=1,I=0.2,D=0.5 Simulation result

P=0.8,I=0.05,D=1 Target trajectory Experimental result
P=1,I=0.1,D=0.1 Target trajectory

Figure 27: Tracking effect with different PID parameters. Figure 28: Experimental result of path tracking with the same
parameters.

By using the mathematical model and LOS path tracking

etc., can be achieved. Particularly, in the absence of forward
algorithm, the effect of path tracking is optimized by modify-
speed, it can also change yaw and pitch. Different from
ing the PID parameters. Figure 27 shows the effects of several
ordinary AUVs, the turning radius is related to speed for-
different PID parameters, black (P=0.8, I=0.05, D=1), cyan
ward. The smaller the speed forward, the smaller the turning
(P=1, I=0.05, D=1), blue (P=1, I=0.1, D=0.1), and magenta
radius.
(P=1, I=0.2, D=0.5). It can be seen from Figure 27 that the
tracking error of black (P=0.8, I=0.05, D=1) is smaller than (2) ZFAUV can change yaw and pitch by tunnel thrusters
that of cyan (P=1, I=0.05, D=1). When blue (P=1, I=0.1, D=0.1) or differential control of tail thrusters, but differential control
or magenta (P=1, I=0.2, D=0.5) is adopted, ZFAUV shakes will reduce the forward force. According to actual needs, the
seriously during sailing; this will seriously affect the operation driving mode can be chosen flexibly.
of acoustic and optical sensors. So, the tracking effect is better (3) Same as ordinary propeller-rudder AUVs, the heading
when P=0.8, I=0.05, D=1. maneuverability of ZFAUV becomes worse with the increase
The same parameters (P=0.8, I=0.05, D=1) are adopted in of speed. In general, the maneuverability of differential
water experiment, as shown in Figure 28, green. Because of control is better than that of tunnel control.
the difference between ZFAUV and mathematical model, the (4) The depth maneuverability of ZFAUV becomes worse
results cannot be exactly the same; the experimental result with the increase of speed, and the depth maneuverability
is in good agreement with the simulation result (Figure 28, of differential control is better than that of tunnel con-
black). trol.
These PID parameters can be tuned in one hour in the (5) Through numerical simulation, reasonable PID
simulation system. If the parameters are tuned by water parameters can be quickly tuned, and the experiment result
experiment, it will take about 5-7 days, which will waste a lot is in good agreement with the simulation result, this can save
of time and money. This further highlights the importance of a lot of time and money.
dynamic analysis and simulation. The research results of this paper have guiding signifi-
cance for the future development of AUVs.
6. Conclusion
Data Availability
For ZFAUV, there are four fixed thrusters at tail, and two
tunnel thrusters are set at front. The maneuverability of Some data used to support the findings of this study are
ZFAUV is relatively high. Through the establishment of math- included within the article; others are available from the
ematical model and maneuverability analysis, the following corresponding author upon request.
conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The maneuverability of ZFAUV is better than ordi- Conflicts of Interest
nary propeller-rudder AUVs. Some actions that ordinary
propeller-rudder AUVs cannot achieve, such as turning The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
around in situ, moving lateral, moving up/down vertical, regarding the publication of this article.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 17

Acknowledgments [14] G. R. L. Tu, K. Watanabe, and I. Nagai, “The design and produc-
tion of thrusters for an AUV without rudders,” in Proceedings
This research is supported by the National Natural and Sci- of the 10th Asian Control Conference, ASCC 2015, pp. 1–4, June
ence Foundation of Hebei (No. E2018202259) and Scientific 2015.
Research Project of Tianjin Education Commission (No. [15] Z. M. Zain, N. Harun, K. Watanabe, and I. Nagai, “Comparison
2017KJ022). of an X4-AUV performance using a direct Lyapunov - PD
controller and backstepping approach,” in Proceedings of the
References 10th Asian Control Conference, ASCC 2015, pp. 1–6, June 2015.
[16] R. Zheng, Y. Ma, B. Zhang et al., “Stable control for AUV’s
[1] M. Ataei and A. Yousefi-Koma, “Three-dimensional optimal near-bottom and low-speed sailing based on vertical thruster,”
path planning for waypoint guidance of an autonomous under- Jiqiren/Robot, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 588–592, 2016.
water vehicle,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 67, pp. [17] L. V. Steenson, A. B. Phillips, E. Rogers et al., “Control of
23–32, 2015. an AUV from thruster actuated hover to control surface
[2] F. Azarsina and C. D. Williams, “Manoeuvring simulation of the actuated flight,” Specialists Meeting Avt-189/rsm-028 Assessment
MUN Explorer AUV based on the empirical hydrodynamics of of Stability & Control Prediction Methods for Nato Air & Sea
axi-symmetric bare hulls,” Applied Ocean Research, vol. 32, no. Vehicles, 2011.
4, pp. 443–453, 2010. [18] A. Saunders and M. Nahon, “The effect of vehicle velocity and
[3] Y. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Sun, J. Zeng, and L. Wan, “Design and simu- drift angle on through-body AUV tunnel thruster perform-
lation of X-rudder AUV’s motion control,” Ocean Engineering, ance,” Ocean Systems Engineering, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 297–315, 2011.
vol. 137, pp. 204–214, 2017. [19] L. G. Miller and K. V. Ellenrieder, “Modeling and simulation
[4] A. Kukulya, A. Plueddemann, T. Austin et al., “Under-ice oper- of an AUV-towfish system,” in Proceedings of the OCEANS
ations with a REMUS-100 AUV in the Arctic,” in Proceedings 2013 MTS/IEEE San Diego Conference: An Ocean in Common,
of the 2010 IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, AUV September 2014.
2010, September 2010. [20] M. T. Issac, S. Adams, N. Bose, C. D. Williams, R. Bachmayer,
[5] L. Meng, Y. Lin, R. Zheng et al., “Mechanical design and and T. Crees, “Analysis of horizontal zigzag manoeuvring trials
implementation of a modular autonomous underwater vehicle,” from the MUN explorer AUV,” in Proceedings of the OCEANS
Jiqiren/Robot, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 395–401, 2016. 2008, pp. 1–7, September 2008.
[6] M. J. Doble, A. L. Forrest, P. Wadhams, and B. E. Laval, [21] L. V. Steenson, A. B. Phillips, M. Furlong et al., “Maneuvering
“Through-ice AUV deployment: Operational and technical of an over-actuated autonomous underwater vehicle using
experience from two seasons of Arctic fieldwork,” Cold Regions both through-body tunnel thrusters and control surfaces,”
Science and Technology, vol. 56, no. 2-3, pp. 90–97, 2009. Autonomous Underwtaer Vehicles Applications Center, 2011.
[7] A. Palmer, G. E. Hearn, and P. Stevenson, “Modelling tunnel [22] K. Kim, J. Kim, H. S. Choi, K.-Y. Lee, and W. Seong, “Estimation
thrusters for autonomous underwater vehicles,” IFAC Proceed- of hydrodynamic coefficients of a test-bed AUV-SNUUV I by
ings Volumes, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 91–96, 2008. motion test,” in Proceedings of the Ocean’s 2002 Conference and
[8] S. Willcox and B. Joseph, “Bluefin-12 based system solution Exhibition, pp. 186–190, USA, October 2002.
for the US Navy’s surface mine counter-measures unmanned [23] J. Dantas and E. d. Barros, “Numerical analysis of control sur-
underwater vehicle program: increment 2 (SMCM/UUV-2),” face effects on AUV manoeuvrability,” Applied Ocean Research,
2006, [Link] vol. 42, pp. 168–181, 2013.
[9] R. B. Wynn, V. A. I. Huvenne, T. P. Le Bas et al., “Autonomous [24] G. da Silva Costa, A. Ruiz, M. Reis et al., “Numerical analysis
Underwater Vehicles (AUVs): their past, present and future of stability and manoeuvrability of Autonomous Underwater
contributions to the advancement of marine geoscience,” Vehicles (AUV) with fishtail shape,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 144,
Marine Geology, vol. 352, pp. 451–468, 2014. pp. 320–326, 2017.
[10] G. R. L. Tu, X. Xu, K. Watanabe, and I. Nagai, “Stabilizing [25] T. Fossen, Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and
control for the attitude of a small-sized X4-AUV,” in Proceedings Motion Control, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK, 2011.
of the 55th Annual Conference of the Society of Instrument and [26] W. Xiaoming, Dynamical behavior and control strategies of the
Control Engineers of Japan, SICE 2016, pp. 1185–1190, September Hybrid Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, Tianjin University,
2016. Tianjin, China, 2009.
[11] N. Harun, Z. M. Zain, and M. M. Noh, “PSO approach for a [27] A. Mofidi and P. M. Carrica, “Simulations of zigzag maneuvers
PID back-stepping control method in stabilizing an underac- for a container ship with direct moving rudder and propeller,”
tuated X4-AUV,” in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Computers & Fluids, vol. 96, pp. 191–203, 2014.
Conference on Underwater System Technology: Theory and [28] J. Wang, L. Zou, and D. Wan, “Numerical simulations of zigzag
Applications, USYS 2017, pp. 1–6, Malaysia, December 2017. maneuver of free running ship in waves by RANS-Overset grid
[12] K. Watanabe, S. Takisawa, and I. Nagai, “Underactuated con- method,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 162, pp. 55–79, 2018.
trol for an X4-AUV using partial linearization and attitude [29] P. M. Carrica, A. Mofidi, K. Eloot et al., “Direct simulation
linearization,” in Proceedings of the 2013 13th International and experimental study of zigzag maneuver of KCS in shallow
Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, ICCAS 2013, water,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 112, pp. 117–133, 2016.
pp. 1425–1430, Republic of Korea, October 2013. [30] X. Liang, Y. Li, Z. Peng et al., “Nonlinear dynamics modeling
[13] Z. M. Zain, M. M. Noh, K. A. Ab Rahim, and N. Harun, and performance prediction for underactuated AUV with fins,”
“Design and development of an X4-ROV,” in Proceedings of Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 237–249, 2016.
the 6th IEEE International Conference on Underwater System [31] D. Fei and P. Shuo, “Motion simulation based on the modified
Technology: Theory and Applications, USYS 2016, pp. 207–211, REMUS model,” Applied Science and Technology, vol. 39, no. 4,
December 2016. pp. 83–88, 2012.
Advances in Advances in Journal of The Scientific Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi
Decision Sciences
Hindawi
Applied Mathematics
Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi
[Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link]
[Link] Volume 2018
2013 [Link] Volume 2018

International
Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Sciences

Journal of

Hindawi
Optimization
Hindawi
[Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

[Link]

International Journal of
Engineering International Journal of
Mathematics
Hindawi
Analysis
Hindawi
[Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018

Journal of Advances in Mathematical Problems International Journal of Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi
Numerical Analysis
Hindawi
in Engineering
Hindawi
Differential Equations
Hindawi
Nature and Society
Hindawi
[Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018

International Journal of Journal of Journal of Abstract and Advances in

Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematics
Hindawi
Function Spaces
Hindawi
Applied Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi
[Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018 [Link] Volume 2018