Special Issue Article
Dynamic modeling of an underwater moored platform equipped with a hydrokinetic energy turbine
Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2018, Vol. 10(2) 1–10 Ó The Author(s) 2018 DOI: 10.1177/1687814017754158 journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
Wenlong Tian , Zhaoyong Mao and Baowei Song
Abstract The limited battery energy restricts the underwater operation duration of the underwater moored platforms. In this article, a horizontal axis ocean current turbine is conceptually designed to produce power for the underwater moored platforms and extend their operational durations. As part of the development of the horizontal axis ocean current turbine, a three-dimensional dynamic model of the system is proposed. The underwater moored platform is modeled as a rigid body with the Newton–Euler method and the cable is modeled with a lumped mass method. Motion simulations are then performed to evaluate the motion performance of the moored system under different operation conditions. The influences of the net buoyancy and the ocean current velocity on the motion of the underwater moored platform are investigated. The simulation results show that the underwater moored platform oscillates in water due to the periodically changed rotor forces. The system has a higher motion stability at a higher net buoyancy, with a smaller horizontal offset and a smaller cable inclination angle. The motion stability of the system also increases with the decreased ocean current velocity. Keywords Underwater moored platform, ocean current turbine, dynamics, motion, simulation
Date received: 6 July 2017; accepted: 19 December 2017 Handling Editor: Zhaojie Ju
Introduction Nowadays, intelligent robots are playing a more and more important role in a plethora of applications.1 Among the various kinds of robots, increasing emphasis has been put on the development and improvement of underwater moored platforms (UMPs). UMPs are a class of underwater robots which are tethered to the seabed using mooring cables. UMPs have broad applications in both civil and military missions, such as underwater monitoring (oceanographic sensors),2 communication (acoustic communication nodes),3 defense (moored mines),4 and multi-object missions (selfmoored autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV)),5 with expected performance durations typically ranging from months to years. The biggest concern for the UMPs is the duration of their underwater operation,
which is mainly determined by the total energy contained in the onboard batteries and the consumption of energy by the electronic devices. Although most UMPs are designed by low-power techniques, the operation durations are still non-satisfying due to the limited battery energy. Extending the operational life of UMPs can significantly reduce the cost for missions where a sustained presence is required. UMPs are often deployed where ocean currents are consistently School of Marine Science and Technology, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China Corresponding author: Wenlong Tian, School of Marine Science and Technology, Northwestern Polytechnical University, 127 Youyi Xilu, Xi’an 710072, Shaanxi, China. Email:
[email protected]
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/ open-access-at-sage).
2 available. The kinetic energy stored in ocean currents provides an ideal alternative to recharge the UMPs. Previous studies have studied the feasibility of using solar energy to power a sensor network.6 Similarly, the Institute of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (IUUV) at Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU) has designed two ocean current turbines, including a vertical axis ocean current turbine (VAOCT)7 and a horizontal axis ocean current turbine (HAOCT),8 to extract energy from the ocean currents and power the UMPs. The turbines will be installed on the UMPs as independent units. A previous study proved that the HAOCT had a relatively high coefficient of power of 0.327 and was compatible with a moored AUV.8 However, most UMPs are moored with an attitude of nose-up and taildown for a stronger stability against the ocean currents. Therefore, a new type of HAOCT is required for the vertically moored UMPs. The motion of the UMP system is the result of the coupled forces between the UMP body, the cable, and the HAOCT. Only a few studies investigated the dynamic modeling of the underwater moored ocean current turbines. Vanzwieten et al.9 proposed a three-dimensional dynamic model for a 1/30th scale model of a moored ocean current turbine, and later, they updated this model by replacing the turbine model with an unsteady blade element momentum method.10 Comprehensive efforts have been given on the dynamic modeling of underwater towed systems which consist of a surface vessel, a cable (sometimes two or three cables), and an underwater device such as an underwater vehicle.11–15 In these studies, the underwater device and the cable are separately modeled and then coupled together. The underwater device is usually modeled as a rigid body and the dynamic equations are derived from the Newton’s law and Euler’s equation.11–13 While for the modeling of the cable, three common methods can be found in previous studies, including the lumped mass approximation method,16,17 absolute nodal coordinate formulation method,18–20 and finite element method.14,21,22 Each of the three methods has its own advantages and disadvantages and is widely used. Motion stability of the UMP system is the precondition for the proper operation of the HAOCT and the onboard sensors; therefore, it needs to be investigated before the manufacture of the device. In this study, emphasis is placed on the dynamic modeling of the UMP system. The dynamic model of the UMP body is built based on the Newton–Euler method, and the cable is modeled using the lumped mass method. The coupling effects between the UMP body and the turbine is neglected and the turbine is considered as periodic forces. Motion simulations are then performed to investigate the effects of two key factors, the net buoyancy and the velocity of the current, on the motion characteristics of the system.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 1. Composition of the HAOCT: closed (top) and opened (bottom).
The UMP system and the turbine The UMP considered in this study is an existing model that has a maximum diameter of 0.5 m and a length of 7 m. The HAOCT designed for the UMP must not affect the deployment of the UMP; therefore, a HAOCT with retractable blades is designed, as shown in Figure 1. The blades are installed at the end of a telescopic rotating shaft, which can be controlled to shrink or stretch by a hydraulic system. The hydraulic system is composed of a pump, a valve, and a hydraulic multistage rod. The hydraulic rod, which is controlled by drawing or expelling the seawater using the pump, is connected to the telescopic shaft with a ceramic bearing, helping to control the length of the telescopic shaft and not affect its rotation. The torque generated on the blades is transmitted through the telescopic rotating shaft to a magnetic coupling, then to a gear box, and eventually to a permanent magnet (PM) generator to convert kinetic energy into electricity. The magnetic coupling is used instead of common shaft connections because the magnetic couplings can transmit forces in the magnetic field and the sealing problem can be easily solved by simply adding a shield in the middle of the magnetic coupling. Consequently, the loss of power caused by the friction in common seals can be eliminated. Figure 2 shows the HAOCT when the UMP is tethered to the seabed. In the beginning of the deployment, the two blades fit closely to the surface of the UMP without influencing other functions of the UMP. And when the platform successfully moors to the sea floor, the pump inside the HAOCT starts to draw water and make the telescopic rotating shaft to stretch, pushing
Tian et al.
3
Figure 3. UMP-fixed frames of reference.
Figure 2. Sketch of the UMP in moored state.
the blades to the outside of the UMP and generating power for the UMP. Once missions completed, the pump expels water and pulls back the blades, and then, the UMP releases the cable and rises to the sea surface to be retrieved.
of the 18 independent states can be found in the work of Tiansen.23 The kinematic equations describe the geometrical relationship between the inertial coordinate frame and the UMP-fixed coordinate frame and can be described as follows h_ = J(h)V =
CBE 03 3 3
03 3 3 V C2
ð1Þ
where 0
cos u cos c sin u CBE = @ cos u sin c
sin u cos c cos u + sin c sin u cos u cos c sin u sin c cos u + cos c sin u
1 sin u cos c cos u + sin c cos u A cos u sin u sin u sin c sin u + cos c cos u
and
Mathematical model
0
1 0 C2 = @ 0 sin u 0 cos u
Frames of reference The inertial and the UMP-fixed frames of reference. A UMPfixed coordinate frame Bxyz is assigned to the UMP with its origin at the center of buoyancy (CB). Let By axis lie along the long axis of the vehicle, and Bz axis along the right side of the vehicle and Bx axis orthogonal to By and Bz, as shown in Figure 3. Consider an inertial coordinate frame EXYZ with its origin at some arbitrary fixed point on the sea surface, its EX axis pointing toward the North, and EY axis pointing upward. The generalized position vector h = ½x, y, z, u, c, uT is defined in the inertial coordinate frame. The generalized velocity vector V = ½vx , vy , vz , vx , vy , vz T and force vector F = ½Fx , Fy , Fz , Mx , My , Mz T are defined in the UMP-fixed coordinate frame. A detailed explanation
1 sin u cos u cos u A cos u sin u
Cable-fixed frames of reference. The cable-fixed frames of reference are used to calculate the forces and positions of the cable elements. These frames, O2 btn, are attached to the elements of the cable with t pointing to the tangential direction and the other two components, b and n, pointing to the normal directions, as shown in Figure 4. The geometrical relationship between the cable-fixed frame and the inertial frame can be described as follows 0
1 2 X cos q @ Y A = 4 sin q Z 0
sin q cos f cos q cos f sin f
32 3 sin q sin f b cos q sin f 54 t 5 cos f n ð2Þ
4
Advances in Mechanical Engineering accelerates in water. The added-mass forces can be calculated by FA = MA V_ + CA (V)V
ð6Þ
where MA is the added-mass matrix and CA (V) is a matrix of Coriolis and centrifugal terms.23 MA has the following form 0
l11 B0 B B0 MA = B B0 B @0 0
Figure 4. Cable-fixed frames of reference.
where q and f are the two attitude angles of each element.
Dynamic model for the UMP The vehicle has 6 degrees of freedom. Based on Newton’s law and Euler’s equation, the translational and rotational dynamic equations of the vehicle are expressed in a compact form23 MRB V_ + CRB (V)V = F
ð3Þ
where MRB is the mass matrix and CRB (V) is the matrix of Coriolis and centripetal terms.23 In equation (3), the external force vector applied on the UMP is described as F = Fm + FBG + Fy + FA + Fc
ð4Þ
where Fm is the hydrodynamic force, FG is the gravity and buoyant force, Fy is the rotor force, FA is the added-mass force, and Fc is the cable force. Gravity and buoyancy. The gravity and the buoyancy both act along the inertial EY axis and are treated together 1 1 0 B CEB @ N A C B C B C 0 1 0 0 0 11 C FG = B B xg C 0 B C @ @ yg A 3 @CE @ N AA A B zg 0 0
0
ð5Þ
where N = B G is the net buoyancy with G being the gravity and B being the buoyancy, ½xg , yg , zg T is the center of gravity in the UMP-fixed frame, and CEB is the transposed matrix of CBE . Added-mass force. The added mass represents the effect of fluid being accelerated by the UMP when it
0 l22 0 0 0 l62
0 0 l33 0 l53 0
0 0 0 l44 0 0
0 0 l35 0 l55 0
1 0 l26 C C 0 C C 0 C C 0 A l66
ð7Þ
where lij represents the added mass. Considering that the UMP is symmetry about Bxy, Byz, and Bxz plane, the matrix can be simplified by l62 = l26 , l53 = l35 , l11 = l33 , l44 = l66 , and l26 = l35 = 0. Therefore, only four added masses need to be calculated, including l11 , l22 , l44 , and l55 . These added masses can be estimated using the empirical formulas for long ellipsoids.24 Hydrodynamic forces. The hydrodynamic forces, Fm , are produced when the UMP translates or rotates in water at a constant velocity and the forces can be calculated by 0
1 2 Cx ð0Þ + Cxa a + Cxa a2 B C Cya a + Cyvz vz B C vy B C 1 C v 2B z y C Fm = rSV B C vx 2 Lmx vx B C vy @ A aLmy vyv z L mz a + mz v z
ð8Þ
where r is the density of seawater; S is the maximum cross-sectional area of the hull; a is the angle of attack; 2 v v and Cx (0), Cxa , Cxa , Cya , maz , Cyv z , Cz y , mxv x , my y , and mvz z are the hydrodynamic coefficients. Rotor forces. The interactions between the UMP and the rotor are complicated, and it is hard to model the rotor forces directly. A common method is to simplify the rotor as two forces, including a thrust, Ty , and a torque, My .9,10 As for the rotor in the current design, it has been numerically investigated in a previous study.25 Transient computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed on the rotor to evaluate its hydrodynamic performances using the ANSYS Fluent software. The thrust and the torque of the rotor at zero yaw state are shown in Figure 5. The rotor locates downstream of the UMP and is affected by the wake of the UMP; therefore, the forces on the turbine show periodic changes due to the rotation motion. A previous study shows that the change in the rotor forces is
Tian et al.
5
Figure 5. Thrust and torque of the rotor varying with time.
less than 7.4% when the yaw angle is smaller than 15°.26 Therefore, the effect of yaw on the rotor forces is neglected and the rotor forces at zero yaw state are used in this model. The force vector of the rotor is found by 2
3 Ty fy = CEB 4 0 5 0
ð9Þ
and the torque vector of the rotor is the sum of the initial rotor torques and the torques induced by the rotor forces 2
3 2 3 xy My T4 my = C 2 0 5 + 4 yy 5 3 f y zy 0
ð10Þ
where CEB and CT2 are the transposed matrixes of CBE and C2 , respectively, and ½xy , yy , zy T is the location of rotor in the UMP-fixed frame. The rotor forces can then be written in the vectored form as Fy =
fy my
ð11Þ
where Mi is the nodal mass matrix, X€i is the acceleration of the node, and Fi represents the forces on the node, including hydrodynamic drag, elastic tension force, internal damping force, gravity and buoyance. A detailed description of the cable model can be found in Buckham et al.16 The forces of cable on the UMP is found by 0
1 E F1 0 CB1 B xc C C Fc = B @ @ yc A 3 C E F A B 1 zc
ð13Þ
where F1 is the force vector of the first node of the cable (node 1) and (xc , yc , zc )T is the anchor location of the cable in the UMP-fixed frame.
UMP-cable coupling conditions The top of the cable (node 1) is connected to the UMP; therefore, its position and velocity are the same with those of the UMP. Besides, the dynamic effects of node 1 on the UMP must be considered and equation (3) is updated as (MRB + M1 )V_ + CðVÞV = F
ð14Þ
Cable forces
where M1 is the mass matrix of node 1 in the UMPfixed frame.
The cable is modeled as linear elastic finite elements, and a lumped mass approximation method is used to model the forces on each node. Neglecting the bend and twist of the cable, the dynamic equations of the ith node is obtained by applying Newton’s Law16
Simulation results and discussion
Mi X€i = Fi
ð12Þ
The motion characteristics of the UMP system are determined by the external sea conditions (ocean current velocity) and the design parameters of the platform, such as net buoyancy, center of gravity, length of
6
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Table 1. Main parameters of the UMP and the cable. Parameters
Value
Parameters
Value
Length of UMP Mass of UMP Maximum diameter of UMP Center of gravity Rotor location
7m 1249 kg 0.5 m (0, –1.5 m, 0) (0.6 m, 0, 0)
Length of cable Linear density of the cable Diameter of the cable Cable strength of extension Anchor location
20 m 1.2 kg/m 8 mm 390 MPa (0.25 m, 0, 0)
Figure 6. Trajectories of the UMP for different net buoyancies.
Tian et al.
Figure 7. Shapes of cable in the EXY plane for different net buoyancies.
cable, and the rotor location. Simulations are carried out to evaluate the influences of the above five factors. But due to the limited space, only the results of the two most significant factors, the ocean current velocity and the net buoyancy, are presented in the following contents. Some main parameters of the UMP and the cable are shown in Table 1.
Influences of net buoyancy on the motion characteristics of the moored system Simulations for three different net buoyancies, N = 1000, 1200, and 1400 N, are performed. The initial position of the UMP is (0, –13.5 m, 0) and the ocean current velocity is 0.514 m/s pointing to the EX direction. The total time of each simulation is 600 s and a time step of 0.05 s is chosen. Figure 6 shows the generalized position trajectories, including three translational components and three rotational components, of the UMP with different net buoyancies. The position of the UMP converges with oscillation due to the periodic thrust and torque of the rotor. It can be seen in the subfigure of the X-position that the UMP with a larger net buoyancy shows a smaller oscillation amplitude and a faster convergence. In the case of N = 1400 N, the motion converges at about t = 500 s, while in the case of N = 1000 and 1200 N, there is still weak oscillation at the end of the simulations. This means that the larger the net buoyancy, the higher the stability of the platform. In addition, the platform with a larger net buoyancy has a smaller X-position at the end of the simulation, The final X-positions of the platforms with net buoyancy of 1000, 1200, and 1400 N are –4.68, –4.12, and –3.79 m, respectively. The Y-position trajectory of the UMP is
7 similar to that of the X-motion and also converges with oscillation. The larger the net buoyancy is, the smaller the amplitude of oscillation and the faster the convergence. The amplitudes of oscillation in the Y-direction are on the order of 0.1 m that is much smaller compared to that in the X-direction. The movement of the UMP is very weak in the Z-direction, with a maximum value of about 0.003 m, which is far less than those in the X- and Y-directions. Therefore, it can be said that the hydrodynamic forces of the rotor has a greater influence of the X-direction motion and a smaller effect on the Y-direction motion and that the Z-direction motion can be ignored. Figure 6 also shows the variation of the three Euler angles, roll, yaw, and pitch, with time between t = 500– 600 s and under different net buoyancy conditions. The three angles change periodically with time. In the subfigure of the roll angle, a larger net buoyancy corresponds to a larger amplitude of oscillation in the roll angle, with values of 2.0°, 1.6°, and 1.5° for N = 1000, 1200, and 1400 N, respectively. Besides, the mean roll angle also increases with the net buoyancy. The torque of gravity relative to the CB is balanced with the torque of the rotor so that the UMP achieves roll stability. Because the volume of the platform is fixed and the net buoyancy is adjusted by changing the mass of the platform, a larger net buoyancy means a smaller gravity and the platform needs a larger roll angle to obtain a larger gravity torque to balance the torque of the rotor. The net buoyancy has little effect on the yaw angle, which changes irregularly around zero and has a mean value of zero. The variation of the pitch angle is much weaker compared to the roll angle, with a maximum peak-to-peak value of 0.015°. The pitch angle changes periodically and has a mean value of zero. The amplitude of the pitch angle increases with the net buoyancy. Figure 7 shows the shapes of the cable in the EXY plane at the end of simulation for different net buoyancies. It can be seen from the figure that the thrust of the rotor causes the platform to shift in the ocean current direction. The increase in the net buoyancy causes the increase in the X-directional offset and the decrease in the inclination angle of the cable.
Influences of ocean current velocity on the motion characteristics of the moored system In order to study the influence of ocean current velocity on the motion characteristics of the UMP, simulations for three different ocean current velocities, v = 0.257, 0.386, and 0.514 m/s, are performed and the results are compared. The initial position of the UMP is (0, –13.5 m, 0) and the net buoyancy is 1000 N. The total time of each simulation is 600 s and a time step of 0.05 s is chosen.
8
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Figure 8. Trajectories of the UMP for different upstream velocities.
Figure 8 shows the generalized position trajectories of the UMP at different ocean current velocities. The ocean current velocity has a great influence on the movement of X- and Y-directions, but hardly affects the Z-motion, which varies on the order of millimeters when the upstream velocity changes. It can be seen in the subfigure of the X-position that the increase in upstream velocity results with a greater amplitude of oscillation and a slower convergence of the movement. Besides, the X-position of the platform decreases with
the increase in the upstream velocity. The final X-positions of the platform under upstream velocities of v = 0.257, 0.386, and 0.514 m/s are –2.14, –3.22, and –4.68 m, respectively. This is because that the thrust of the rotor is proportional to the square of the current velocity, and the greater the current velocity is, the greater the thrust will be. The Y-position trajectory of the UMP is similar to that of the X-motion and also converges with oscillation and also decreases with the increased upstream velocity.
Tian et al.
9 3.
4.
The system has a higher motion stability at a higher net buoyancy, with a smaller X-offset and a smaller cable inclination angle. But the averaged roll angle increases with the net buoyancy. The system has a higher motion stability at a smaller upstream velocity, and the X-offset and the roll angle decreases with the upstream velocity.
Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding Figure 9. Shapes of cable in the EXY plane for different upstream velocities.
From the subfigures of the three Euler angles, it can be seen that the amplitude of oscillation increases with the ocean current velocity. Both the yaw and pitch angles fluctuate around zero because of the absence of external forces in the yaw and pitch directions. The mean value of the roll angle increases with the ocean current velocity, with values of 0.11°, 0.26°, and 0.46° for cases of v = 0.257, 0.386, and 0.514 m/s, respectively. This is because that the torque of the rotor increases with velocity and the UMP needs a larger roll angle to obtain the enough torque of gravity to reach the balance of roll motion. Figure 9 shows the shapes of cable in the EXY plane at the end of simulation for different ocean current velocities. The increase in the ocean current velocity causes the increase in the X-directional offset and the curvature of the cable is decreased.
Conclusion In this study, a HAOCT was conceptually designed for UMPs to extend their underwater operation time. As part of the development of the HAOCT, a threedimensional dynamic model of the system was proposed based on the Newton–Euler method and the lumped mass method. Simulations were then performed to study the motion characteristics of the moored UMP equipped with the HAOCT under different operating conditions. Important results of this research are summarized as follows: 1. 2.
The UMP oscillates in water due to the periodically changed rotor forces. The Z-motion, yaw motion, and pitch motion of the UMP are much weaker than the other three motion components.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos 51179159, 61572404), the Shaanxi Province Youth Science and Technology New Star Project (Grant No. 2016KJXX-57), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
ORCID iD Wenlong Tian
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0489-4745
References 1. Wang X, Yang C, Ju Z, et al. Robot manipulator selfidentification for surrounding obstacle detection. Multimed Tools Appl 2016; 76: 1–26. 2. Tomizawa Y and Toda M. Oscillation reduction control for ocean environment monitoring buoys. IFAC P Vol 2010; 43: 277–282. 3. Qiao G, Babar Z, Ma L, et al. MIMO-OFDM underwater acoustic communication systems—a review. Phys Commun 2017; 23: 56–64. 4. Andrew E, Lyle G and William M. Chinese mine warfare: a PLA navy ‘‘assassin’s mace’’ capability. Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2009. 5. Robert B. Mechanical design of a self-mooring autonomous underwater vehicle. Master thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2010. 6. Zhang J, Li Z and Tang S. Value of information aware opportunistic duty cycling in solar harvesting sensor networks. IEEE T Ind Inform 2015; 12: 348–360. 7. Tian W, Song B and Mao Z. Conceptual design and numerical simulations of a vertical axis water turbine used for underwater mooring platforms. Int J Nav Arch Ocean 2015; 5: 625–634. 8. Tian W, Song B, Vanzwieten JH, et al. Numerical simulations of a horizontal axis water turbine designed for underwater mooring platforms. Int J Nav Arch Ocean 2016; 8: 73–82. 9. Vanzwieten J, Driscoll FR, Leonessa A, et al. Design of a prototype ocean current turbine—part I: mathematical
10
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering modeling and dynamics simulation. Ocean Eng 2006; 33: 1485–1521. Vanzwieten J, Vanrietvelde N and Hacker BL. Numerical simulation of an experimental ocean current turbine. IEEE J Oceanic Eng 2013; 38: 131–143. Park J and Kim N. Dynamics modeling of a semisubmersible autonomous underwater vehicle with a towfish towed by a cable. Int J Nav Arch Ocean 2015; 7: 409–425. Grosenbaugh MA. Transient behavior of towed cable systems during ship turning maneuvers. Ocean Eng 2007; 34: 1532–1542. Teixeira FC, Aguiar AP and Pascoal A. Nonlinear adaptive control of an underwater towed vehicle. Ocean Eng 2010; 37: 1193–1220. Park HI, Jung DH and Koterayama W. A numerical and experimental study on dynamics of a towed low tension cable. Appl Ocean Res 2003; 25: 289–299. Choi JK, Shiraishi T, Tanaka T, et al. Safe operation of an autonomous underwater towed vehicle: towed force monitoring and control. Automat Constr 2011; 20: 1012–1019. Buckham B, Nahon M, Seto M, et al. Dynamics and control of a towed underwater vehicle system, part I: model development. Ocean Eng 2003; 30: 453–470. Kamman JW and Huston RL. Multibody dynamics modeling of variable length cable systems. Multibody Syst Dyn 2001; 5: 211–221. Berzeri M and Shabana AA. Development of simple models for the elastic forces in the absolute nodal coordinate formulation. J Sound Vib 2000; 235: 539–565. Gerstmayr J and Shabana AA. Analysis of thin beams and cables using the absolute nodal co-ordinate formulation. Nonlinear Dynam 2006; 45: 109–130. Shabana AA and Yakoub RY. Three dimensional absolute nodal coordinate formulation for beam elements: theory. J Mech Des 2001; 123: 614–621. Wu J, Chwang AT, Wu J, et al. Investigation on a twopart underwater manoeuvrable towed system. Ocean Eng 2001; 28: 1079–1096. Yuan Z, Jin L, Chi W, et al. Finite difference method for solving the nonlinear dynamic equation of underwater towed system. Int J Comput Methods 2014; 11: 85–89.
23. Tiansen L. Torpedo manoeuvrability. Beijing, China: National Defense Industry Press, 2007. 24. Busch R. Modelling and simulation of an autonomous underwater vehicle. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University, 2009. 25. Tian W. Study on the key technologies of hydrokinetic current turbines designed for underwater moored platforms. PhD Thesis, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China, 2016 (in Chinese). 26. Tian W, Vanzwieten JH, Pyakurel P, et al. Influences of yaw angle and turbulence intensity on the performance of a 20 kW in-stream hydrokinetic turbine. Energy 2016; 111: 104–116.
Appendix 1 Notation Bxyz EXYZ F FA Fc Fy Fm G MA Mi MRB N O2 btn S V a h lij v r
UMP-fixed coordinate frame inertial coordinate frame generalized force vector added-mass force cable force rotor force hydrodynamic force gravity (g) added-mass matrix nodal mass matrix mass matrix net buoyancy (N) cable-fixed frame maximum cross-sectional area of the hull (m2) generalized velocity vector angle of attack (°) position vector added mass ocean current velocity (m/s) density of seawater
