This post is jumping into the middle of things, as a huge amount of work has gone into getting the AUV design this far, with several revisions of the design and some background work on the sonar to determine how much AUV I’ll actually need to carry it.
A very preliminary design choice was the dimensions of the AUV. The length will be driven by module and payload lengths, leaving the diameter as something needing a tradeoff between how much I could compact the module electronics vs what I could build. I settled on an outside diameter of 5.5 inches, driven largely by the size parts I can realistically make on my small lathe. I would have preferred a larger diameter, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Interestingly, with a 5 inch ID (0.25-inch wall thickness), I can just fit 8x 15AH LiFePO4 cells for a 24 volt, 360 Watt-hour battery.
Why imperial units for the diameter when most of the rest of the design is metric? That’s driven by the availability of stock acrylic and aluminum tubing to be used as the main pressure hull body components. (Flooded modules will likely just be fiberglass). Mixing imperial and metric is just a necessary part of life up in Canada. Sometimes with poor results.
Knowing the basic dimensions, I’ve been working on detailed 3D CAD models of the entire AUV design, refining the shape and design of the critical components including the Doppler Velocity Log (DVL), drive section, and the universal bulkhead rings (more on those later). The end result is a rough shape of what the AUV will look like in the end. This design will be refined significantly, but is good enough as a starting point, and is shown above. (Note that the antenna on the top wasn’t exported into the flow simulations)
I set up some simulations in OpenFOAM to estimate the drag and flow around the AUV — The goal being to determine enough information to optimize the propulsion design. I’ve been experimenting with both the simpleFoam and pimpleFoam solver. The computational requirements to get a fine enough mesh to resolve the features properly proved difficult on my home laptop, so I stood up a server on AWS to handle the simulations — After much experimentation with setting up OpenFOAM cases, the AUV hull design, boundary conditions, and meshing, I finally got things set up well enough to run at a high level of detail with a configuration I felt I could trust. 48 hours later, I had a result. I probably could have introduced larger timesteps into the pimpleFoam solver (the maximum Courant number was set to 25), so I’ll experiment with that on future runs.
Previous results had already led me to reduce the tail angle in an attempt to reduce the wake, but ultimately I think this will have to do as narrowing the tail angle too much will result in other design challenges in terms of length of the thrust module.
Apart from estimating the drag on the hull, the really cool thing is I can determine the inflow velocity at the propeller disc. Since the hull inevitably has a negative impact on the water speed, designing a propeller for a water flow equal to the vehicle velocity won’t produce an optimal design. The simulation allowed me to extract the velocity profile, which I can feed into propeller design to further optimize the design. If time allows I may optimize the nozzle (it’s currently a vanilla Kort nozzle). However, the purpose of the nozzle in this design isn’t just to attempt to improve the performance, but also to provide a safety guard to protect wildlife and support divers during testing, as well as to reduce the probability of entanglement.
From the results, the hull has a significant impact on the inflow. The Kort nozzle does increase the speed a bit around the propeller tips, but closing into the propeller hub the velocity drops sharply.
Interestingly, the horizontal tangential (y-axis) velocity is low but produces an interesting plot showing that the flow is not perfectly axial, but slightly canted inwards. Note that the scale of this image is different than above. This is mostly included because I believed it was a cool picture.
Of course, I’m not a CFD expert and am learning things as I go, so I need to take these results with a grain of salt. The results seem to be within the order of magnitude of what I can find in literature, so they’re good enough for the next steps in the design process.
Next steps in the CFD work will be verifying the control surface size is sufficient enough to provide good control authority, and to size the motors required to turn them. So far the control surfaces have just been eyeballed, so I’ll have to do some initial calculations to determine what’s required, adjust the design, and simulate.