A New Six-DoF Parallel Mechanism for Captive Model Test

Lu, Yun; Wu, Jinbo; Li, Weijia; Wu, Yaozhong

doi:10.2478/pomr-2020-0041

Abstract

In order to obtain the hydrodynamic coefficients that can save cost and meet the accuracy requirements, a new hydrodynamic test platform based on a 6DoF (six degrees of freedom) parallel mechanism is proposed in this paper. The test platform can drive the ship to move in six degrees of freedom. By using this experimental platform, the corresponding hydrodynamic coefficients can be measured. Firstly, the structure of the new device is introduced. The working principle of the model is deduced based on the mathematical model. Then the hydrodynamic coefficients of a test ship model of a KELC tank ship with a scale of 1:150 are measured and 8 typical hydrodynamic coefficients are obtained. Finally, the measured data are compared with the value of a real ship. The deviation is less than 10% which meets the technical requirements of the practical project. The efficiency of measuring the hydrodynamic coefficients of physical models of ships and offshore structures is improved by the device. The method of measuring the hydrodynamic coefficients by using the proposed platform provides a certain reference for predicting the hydrodynamic performance of ships and offshore structures.

References

1. Muscari R., Dubbioso G., Viviani M., Mascio A. D. (2017): Analysis of the asymmetric behavior of propeller–rudder system of twin screw ships by CFD. Ocean Engineering, 143, 269–281.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.07.056
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Lidtke A. D., Turnock S. R., Downes J. (2017): Hydrodynamic design of underwater gliders using k-kL-ω RANS transition model. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 43(2), 356–368.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Chen J., Wei J., Yang L. (2018): Hydrodynamic optimization of appendages on ROPAX by using CFD and model tests. Ship Building of China, 59(2), 33–41.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Jianglong S., Haiwen T., Yongnian C., De X., Jiajian Z. (2016): A study on trim optimization for a container ship based on effects due to resistance. Journal of Ship Research, 60(1), 30–47.10.5957/JOSR.60.1.150022
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Haiwen T., Yunfei Y. et al. (2018): A modified admiralty coefficient for estimating power curves in EEDI calculations. Ocean Engineering, 150, 309–317.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.12.068
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Chuang Z., Steen S. (2013): Speed loss of a vessel sailing in oblique waves. Ocean Engineering, 64, 88–99.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.02.018
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Lee P.-M., Jun B.-H., Kim K.-H., Lee J.-H., Aoki T., Hyakudome T. (2007: Simulation of an inertial acoustic navigation system with range aiding for an autonomous underwater vehicle. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 32(2), 327–345.10.1109/JOE.2006.880585
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Li B., Su T.-C. (2016): Nonlinear heading control of an autonomous underwater vehicle with internal actuators. Ocean Engineering, 125, 103–112.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.08.010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Kim J.-Y., Kim K.-H., Choi H.-S., Seong W.-J., Lee K.-Y. (2002): Estimation of hydrodynamic coefficients for an AUV using nonlinear observers. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 27(4), 830–840.10.1109/JOE.2002.805098
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Mansoorzadeh S., Javanmard E. (2014): An investigation of free surface effects on drag and lift coefficients of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) using computational and experimental fluid dynamics methods. Journal of Fluids & Structures, 51(1), 161–171.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.09.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Gala F. L., Dubbioso G., Ortolani F., et al. (2012): Preliminary evaluation of control and manoeuvring qualities for the AUTODROP-UUV vehicle. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 45(27), 132–137.10.3182/20120919-3-IT-2046.00023
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Li G. (2011): Numerical and experimental research on hydrodynamic characters of shuttle submersible. Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Avila J. P. J., Adamowski J. C. (2011): Experimental evaluation of the hydrodynamic coefficients of a ROV through Morison’s equation. Ocean Engineering, 38(17), 2162–2170.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.09.032
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Xu F., Zou Z. J., Yin J. C., et al. (2013): Identification modeling of underwater vehicles’ nonlinear dynamics based on support vector machines. Ocean Engineering, 67, 68–76.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.02.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Zhao J.-X. (2011): The hydrodynamic performance calculation and motion simulation of an AUV with appendages. Harbin Engineering University, Harbin.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Pang Y.-J., Wang Q.-Y., Li W.-P. (2017): Model test study of influence of propeller and its rotation on hydrodynamics of submarine maneuverability. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 38(1), 109–114.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Kijima K., Nakiri Y. (1990): On a numerical simulation for predicting of ship manoeuvring performance. 19th International Towing Tank Conference, Madrid, Spain, Vol. 2, 559–568.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Maekawa K., Shuto C., Karasuno K., Nonaka K. (1999): Estimation of added mass coefficients mx’, my’ by using CFD through oblique towing test with constant acceleration. Journal of Kansai Society of Naval Architects Japan, 232, 55–61.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Kijima K., Nakari Y., Furukawa Y. (2000): On a prediction method for ship manouevrability. International Workshop on Ship Manoeuvrability at the Hamburg Ship Model Basin, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 536–543.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Petersen, J. B., Lauridsen, B. (2000): Prediction of hydrodynamic forces from a database of manoeuvring derivatives. MARSIM 2000, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 401–420.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Yang C.-F., Wu B.-S., Shen H.-C. (2006): Analysis of experiment validation for full- ship maneuverability hydrodynamic forces prediction. Journal of Ship Mechanics, 10(4), 559–568.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Gao T., Wang Y.-X., Pang Y.-J., Chen Q.-L., Tang Y.-G. (2018): A time-efficient CFD approach for hydrodynamic coefficient determination and model simplification of submarine. Ocean Engineering, 154, 16–26.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.02.003
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Stewart D. (1966): A platform with six degrees of freedom. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 38(4), 30–35.10.1108/eb034141
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Yurt S. N., Ozkol I., Hajiyev C. (2004): Error analysis and motion determination of a flight simulator. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 76(2), 185–192.10.1108/00022660410526051
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Landry S. J., Jacko J. (2012): Pilot Procedure-Following Behavior during Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(2), 131–139.10.1080/10447318.2012.634766
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Phoemsapthawee S., Le Boulluec M. (2013): A potential flow based flight simulator for an underwater glider. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 12(1), 112–121.10.1007/s11804-013-1165-x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Kim G. S. (2007): Design of a six-axis wrist force/moment sensor using FEM and its fabrication for an intelligent robot. Sensors and Actuators A Physical, 133(1), 27–34.10.1016/j.sna.2006.03.038
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Nekrasov V: (2019): Mean-Square Non-Local Stability of Ship in Storm Conditions of Operation. Polish Maritime Research, 26(4), 6-15.10.2478/pomr-2019-0061
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Kun D., Yunbo L. (2019): Manoeuvring Prediction of KVLCC2 with Hydrodynamic Derivatives Generated by a Virtual Captive Model Test. Polish Maritime Research, 26(4), 16-26.10.2478/pomr-2019-0062
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. CSSRC (2018): Ship test report for KELC tank ship. Report (Wuhan China), pp. 17–24.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

A New Six-DoF Parallel Mechanism for Captive Model Test

Abstract

Paradigm

My account