Figure 1.
The radial distributions of rake X
S/D belonging to the six types of propellers [
19].
Figure 1.
The radial distributions of rake X
S/D belonging to the six types of propellers [
19].
Figure 2.
The geometry of the Kappel tip rake propeller (a) Kap00, (b) Kap01, (c) Kap02, (d) Kap03, (e) Kap04, (f) Kap05.
Figure 2.
The geometry of the Kappel tip rake propeller (a) Kap00, (b) Kap01, (c) Kap02, (d) Kap03, (e) Kap04, (f) Kap05.
Figure 3.
Three-dimensional geometry view of the underwater glider with diamond wing (a) squint view, (b) front view, (c) side view, and (d) top view.
Figure 3.
Three-dimensional geometry view of the underwater glider with diamond wing (a) squint view, (b) front view, (c) side view, and (d) top view.
Figure 4.
Calculation domain division of open water simulation.
Figure 4.
Calculation domain division of open water simulation.
Figure 5.
Meshing of propeller Kap509 (base mesh size is 0.04D).
Figure 5.
Meshing of propeller Kap509 (base mesh size is 0.04D).
Figure 6.
Verification of the accuracy of the SST k-ω+γ transition turbulence model of Kappel propeller Kap509. (a) Data comparison. (b) Simulation errors.
Figure 6.
Verification of the accuracy of the SST k-ω+γ transition turbulence model of Kappel propeller Kap509. (a) Data comparison. (b) Simulation errors.
Figure 7.
The calculation results of the propeller Kap509.
Figure 7.
The calculation results of the propeller Kap509.
Figure 8.
Y+ distribution of propeller Kap509.
Figure 8.
Y+ distribution of propeller Kap509.
Figure 9.
Calculation domain division of self-propulsion simulation.
Figure 9.
Calculation domain division of self-propulsion simulation.
Figure 10.
Meshing of the diamond wing UG + propeller Kap01 simulation example (grid base size is 0.04D): (a) overall view of meshing, (b) bow encryption view, (c) hydrofoil encryption view, (d) stern encryption and prismatic layer magnification view.
Figure 10.
Meshing of the diamond wing UG + propeller Kap01 simulation example (grid base size is 0.04D): (a) overall view of meshing, (b) bow encryption view, (c) hydrofoil encryption view, (d) stern encryption and prismatic layer magnification view.
Figure 11.
Grid independence verification of diamond wing UG + Kap01 self-propulsion simulation, overall force F, resistance D, and propeller thrust T (a); propeller torque Q (b).
Figure 11.
Grid independence verification of diamond wing UG + Kap01 self-propulsion simulation, overall force F, resistance D, and propeller thrust T (a); propeller torque Q (b).
Figure 12.
Grid independence verification of diamond wing UG + Kap04 self-propulsion simulation, overall force F, resistance D, and propeller thrust T (a); propeller torque Q (b).
Figure 12.
Grid independence verification of diamond wing UG + Kap04 self-propulsion simulation, overall force F, resistance D, and propeller thrust T (a); propeller torque Q (b).
Figure 13.
y+ distribution of self-propulsion simulation of diamond wing AUG with propeller Kap01 (a) and Kap04 (b).
Figure 13.
y+ distribution of self-propulsion simulation of diamond wing AUG with propeller Kap01 (a) and Kap04 (b).
Figure 14.
Calculation domain division of glide simulation.
Figure 14.
Calculation domain division of glide simulation.
Figure 15.
Grid independence verification for the glide simulation of diamond wing UG + Kap01, overall drag D, and overall lift L (a), propeller drag D_propeller and lift L_propeller (b).
Figure 15.
Grid independence verification for the glide simulation of diamond wing UG + Kap01, overall drag D, and overall lift L (a), propeller drag D_propeller and lift L_propeller (b).
Figure 16.
Grid independence verification for the glide simulation of diamond wing UG + Kap04, overall drag D, and overall lift L (a), propeller drag D_propeller and lift L_propeller (b).
Figure 16.
Grid independence verification for the glide simulation of diamond wing UG + Kap04, overall drag D, and overall lift L (a), propeller drag D_propeller and lift L_propeller (b).
Figure 17.
y+ distribution of the glide simulation of diamond wing UG with propeller Kap01 (a) and Kap04 (b).
Figure 17.
y+ distribution of the glide simulation of diamond wing UG with propeller Kap01 (a) and Kap04 (b).
Figure 18.
Open water performance propulsive efficiency ηo of Kappel propellers.
Figure 18.
Open water performance propulsive efficiency ηo of Kappel propellers.
Figure 19.
Self-propulsion point calculation of series Kappel propeller with diamond wing underwater glider, speed of 6 kn (a), speed of 5 kn (b), speed of 4 kn (c), speed of 3 kn (d).
Figure 19.
Self-propulsion point calculation of series Kappel propeller with diamond wing underwater glider, speed of 6 kn (a), speed of 5 kn (b), speed of 4 kn (c), speed of 3 kn (d).
Figure 20.
Relationship between self-propulsion point speed and series Kappel propeller models.
Figure 20.
Relationship between self-propulsion point speed and series Kappel propeller models.
Figure 21.
Schematic diagram of wake section location.
Figure 21.
Schematic diagram of wake section location.
Figure 22.
Comparison of calculation results of self-propulsion points of each hybrid-driven underwater glider, actual advance speed VA (a), actual advance speed coefficient J (b), thrust coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ (c), and actual propulsion efficiency η (d).
Figure 22.
Comparison of calculation results of self-propulsion points of each hybrid-driven underwater glider, actual advance speed VA (a), actual advance speed coefficient J (b), thrust coefficient KT and torque coefficient KQ (c), and actual propulsion efficiency η (d).
Figure 23.
Wake fraction ω in self-propulsion points.
Figure 23.
Wake fraction ω in self-propulsion points.
Figure 24.
Flow field distribution at 6 kn speed self-propulsion point, UG + Kap00 (a), UG + Kap01 (b), UG + Kap02 (c), UG + Kap03 (d), UG + Kap04 (e), UG + Kap05 (f).
Figure 24.
Flow field distribution at 6 kn speed self-propulsion point, UG + Kap00 (a), UG + Kap01 (b), UG + Kap02 (c), UG + Kap03 (d), UG + Kap04 (e), UG + Kap05 (f).
Figure 25.
Flow field distribution of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade extension (speed of 1 kn, gliding angle of 12°), UG + Kap00 (a), UG + Kap01 (b), UG + Kap02 (c), UG + Kap03 (d), UG + Kap04 (e), UG + Kap05 (f).
Figure 25.
Flow field distribution of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade extension (speed of 1 kn, gliding angle of 12°), UG + Kap00 (a), UG + Kap01 (b), UG + Kap02 (c), UG + Kap03 (d), UG + Kap04 (e), UG + Kap05 (f).
Figure 26.
Gliding flow field distribution of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade folding, speed of 1.0 kn (a), speed of 0.5 kn (b).
Figure 26.
Gliding flow field distribution of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade folding, speed of 1.0 kn (a), speed of 0.5 kn (b).
Table 1.
Other major geometrical parameters of the Kappel tip rake propeller.
Table 1.
Other major geometrical parameters of the Kappel tip rake propeller.
Diameter (mm) | Pitch Ratio at 0.7R | Skew (°) | Projected Area Ratio | Hub Diameter Ratio |
---|
250 | 1.0338 | 16 | 0.4788 | 0.2 |
Table 2.
Main geometry parameters of diamond wing underwater glider [
31].
Table 2.
Main geometry parameters of diamond wing underwater glider [
31].
Geometric Scale Parameters | Symbols | Numerical Value | Units |
---|
Effective maximum length | L | 2.00 | m |
Maximum body diameter | D | 0.22 | m |
Bow length | L1 | 0.23 | m |
Length of stern | L2 | 0.46 | m |
Long hydrofoil span | B | 0.60 | m |
Wingtip chord length | Ct | 0.05 | m |
Wing root chord length | Cr | 0.10 | m |
Hydrofoil wet surface area | S | 0.18 | m2 |
Table 3.
The correspondence between the grid base size and the total number of grids in the mesh independence analysis of propeller Kap509.
Table 3.
The correspondence between the grid base size and the total number of grids in the mesh independence analysis of propeller Kap509.
Base Size | 0.12D | 0.1D | 0.08D | 0.06D | 0.05D | 0.04D | 0.036D | 0.032D |
---|
Total mesh (×106) | 0.908 | 1.210 | 1.763 | 2.394 | 3.045 | 4.533 | 5.422 | 6.759 |
Table 4.
The corresponding relationship between the mesh base size and the total mesh size in the calculation example with propeller Kap01.
Table 4.
The corresponding relationship between the mesh base size and the total mesh size in the calculation example with propeller Kap01.
Base Size | 0.16D | 0.128D | 0.112D | 0.08D | 0.07D | 0.06D |
---|
Total mesh (×106) | 1.553 | 2.114 | 2.876 | 4.671 | 5.967 | 8.239 |
Table 5.
The corresponding relationship between the mesh base size and the total number of mesh in the calculation example with propeller Kap04.
Table 5.
The corresponding relationship between the mesh base size and the total number of mesh in the calculation example with propeller Kap04.
Base Size | 0.16D | 0.13D | 0.08D | 0.07D | 0.064D |
---|
Total mesh (×106) | 1.764 | 2.565 | 4.758 | 6.103 | 7.288 |
Table 6.
Correspondence between the mesh base size and the total mesh size of the diamond wing UG+ propeller Kap01 gliding simulation example.
Table 6.
Correspondence between the mesh base size and the total mesh size of the diamond wing UG+ propeller Kap01 gliding simulation example.
Base Size | 0.3D | 0.18D | 0.12D | 0.1D | 0.08D |
---|
Total mesh (×106) | 0.932 | 1.691 | 3.251 | 4.228 | 5.234 |
Table 7.
Correspondence between the mesh base size and the total mesh size of the diamond wing UG+ propeller Kap04 gliding simulation example.
Table 7.
Correspondence between the mesh base size and the total mesh size of the diamond wing UG+ propeller Kap04 gliding simulation example.
Base Size | 0.3D | 0.18D | 0.12D | 0.096D | 0.08D |
---|
Total mesh (×106) | 0.947 | 1.784 | 3.344 | 4.237 | 5.280 |
Table 8.
Hull efficiency ηH of self-propulsion point of hybrid-driven underwater glider.
Table 8.
Hull efficiency ηH of self-propulsion point of hybrid-driven underwater glider.
Propeller Paddle Type | Kap00 | Kap01 | Kap02 | Kap03 | Kap04 | Kap05 |
---|
6 kn speed | 1.1431 | 1.1416 | 1.1444 | 1.1437 | 1.1390 | 1.1341 |
5 kn speed | 1.1415 | 1.1417 | 1.1459 | 1.1458 | 1.1436 | 1.1345 |
4 kn speed | 1.1474 | 1.1469 | 1.1491 | 1.1482 | 1.1441 | 1.1384 |
3 kn speed | 1.1496 | 1.1600 | 1.1629 | 1.1548 | 1.1467 | 1.1501 |
Table 9.
Glide calculation results of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade extension (speed of 1 kn, gliding angle of 12°).
Table 9.
Glide calculation results of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade extension (speed of 1 kn, gliding angle of 12°).
| Force (N) |
---|
Combo | Total Resistance D_Total | Propeller Drag D | Total Lift L_Total | Propeller Lift L |
---|
UG + Kap00 | 7.3082 | 3.4759 | 14.0652 | 0.6066 |
UG + Kap01 | 7.3385 | 3.4869 | 13.3335 | 0.6186 |
UG + Kap02 | 7.4030 | 3.5385 | 13.5168 | 0.6413 |
UG + Kap03 | 7.4079 | 3.5439 | 13.2918 | 0.6571 |
UG + Kap04 | 7.4513 | 3.6008 | 13.0136 | 0.6532 |
UG + Kap05 | 7.3936 | 3.4745 | 13.4936 | 0.6491 |
Table 10.
Gliding calculation results of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade extension state (speed of 0.5 kn, gliding angle of 12°).
Table 10.
Gliding calculation results of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade extension state (speed of 0.5 kn, gliding angle of 12°).
| Force (N) |
---|
Combo | Total Resistance D_Total | Propeller Drag D | Total Lift L_Total | Propeller Lift L |
---|
UG + Kap00 | 1.8497 | 0.8470 | 3.2301 | 0.1293 |
UG + Kap01 | 1.8574 | 0.8553 | 3.3110 | 0.1280 |
UG + Kap02 | 1.8678 | 0.8669 | 3.3084 | 0.1438 |
UG + Kap03 | 1.8548 | 0.8505 | 3.3321 | 0.1402 |
UG + Kap04 | 1.8566 | 0.8446 | 3.2140 | 0.1381 |
UG + Kap05 | 1.8748 | 0.8533 | 3.3529 | 0.1369 |
Table 11.
Gliding calculation results of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade folding in working condition.
Table 11.
Gliding calculation results of hybrid-driven underwater glider with propeller blade folding in working condition.
Gliding Speed (kn) | D_Total (N) | D (N) | L_Total (N) | L (N) |
---|
1.0 | 5.7351 | 1.7166 | 13.7148 | 0.0944 |
0.5 | 1.4997 | 0.3872 | 3.7141 | 0.0291 |