Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth (2015) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Kona, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, June 21-26, 2015
Copyright © 2015 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-89-0; ISSN 1098-6189

Dynamics of REMUS AUV in Ocean Current

Bo Li, Tsung-Chow Su
Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering, Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida, USA

allow the AUVs more maneuverability. Using tunnel or azimuth

ABSTRACT thrusters is a straightforward approach to enhance the maneuverability
of AUVs, especially in environments featuring ocean currents, since
REMUS autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) are widely used in they are able to generate forces almost independent of the flow around
the ocean engineering community. However, few studies have been the vehicle. However, strong ocean currents exert a large drag force on
conducted to investigate its nonlinear dynamical behavior in the vehicle, and in that circumstance there is an enormous power
irrotational ocean currents. In the present study, we begin by consumption in the thrusters. In addition, the noise generated by the
introducing the nonlinear equations governing the dynamics of an AUV thrusters may jeopardize the capabilities of the survey devices onboard.
in an ocean current. Then, the stability of the horizontal-plane motion The external thrusters are also susceptible to corrosion and damage
of the AUV in the ocean current is analyzed. The results yield the since they are exposed to the ocean environment. As a result, it is
design criteria according to which the AUV could achieve path-keeping imperative to develop design strategies without thrusters.
in an ocean current without using active fins or thrusters.
Controlling an AUV is a matter of manipulating the states of its
KEY WORDS: underwater vehicle; CFD; nonlinear system; stability underlying dynamical system. Before proposing any design strategy,
the nonlinear dynamical system of a REMUS AUV moving in an ocean
INTRODUCTION current is studied in the present research. The viscous drag coefficients
are obtained by using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods.
Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) are widely used in ocean The nonlinear equations governing the horizontal-plane motion of the
engineering for a variety of underwater missions. New applications of vehicle in an ocean current are used in the analysis. The stability of the
streamlined AUVs require them to be capable of keeping their path and nonlinear system is studied to determine its stability criteria, in an
maneuvering at low speeds in the presence of strong ocean currents. effort to propose a new design of an AUV that is able to accomplish
Conventionally, an AUV uses a stern mounted thruster and control path-keeping in ocean currents.
surfaces to steer its motion. However, the control surfaces may become
ineffective when an AUV moves at low speeds or in environments MODELING OF THE VEHICLE-FLUID DYNAMICAL
featuring strong ocean currents. SYSTEM

When an ocean current exists, the drag force and moment exerted by
the flow tends to push the AUV away from its predefined path.
However, the control surfaces typically used on AUVs cannot provide
enough force to counteract the drag. Adding more control surfaces and
increasing their effective areas could be a solution (Meneses et al.,
2014), however, accurate measurements of the flow velocity need to be
available in order to steer the control surfaces to obtain desired control
forces. For the purpose of improving the maneuverability of AUVs,
new designs of AUVs, which are equipped with extra thrusters, have
also been proposed in literature. For example, through-body tunnel
thrusters could be mounted inside AUVs to overcome the
environmental disturbances caused by currents or surface waves
(Palmer et al., 2008; Saunders and Nahon, 2002; Steenson et al., 2011).
Some AUVs are externally mounted with azimuth thrusters (Yoshida et Fig. 1 REMUS 100 AUV and the body-fixed reference frame
al., 2012) or internally with jet pumps (Alvarez et al., 2009), which

530
The REMUS 100 AUV (see Fig. 1) is the object of the research in the and Woolsey, 2013).
present study due to its extensive use in ocean engineering. The body-
fixed reference frame is also illustrated in the figure. The origin of the Vehicle-Fluid Dynamical System in Real Fluid
frame is the center of buoyancy of the vehicle. The main parameters of
the vehicle’s hull are listed as follows (Prestero, 2001b): Additional terms due to the viscosity of the real fluid need to be
introduced into Eq. 2. The linear drag matrix could be written as
Table 1. Main parameters of a REMUS 100 AUV (Fossen, 2011):

Xu 0
0 Yr 
Parameter Value Units Description 0 0 0 0

 
l +1.33e+000 m Vehicle total length Yv 0 Yp 0
0 0
Dl   
d +1.91e-001 m Maximum hull diameter 0 Zw 0 Zq
0 Kr 
(4)

0 0
Af +2.85e-002 m2 Hull frontal area Kv 0 Kp 0

 
Ap +2.26e-001 m2 Hull projected area(xz plane) 0 Mw 0 Mq
Sw +7.09e-001 m2 Hull wetted surface area  0 Nv 0 Np 0 N r 

+3.15e-002 m3 Estimated hull volume

The nonlinear drag matrices could be written in different forms due to
the preference of the authors. The matrices are split into two parts as
Vehicle-Fluid Dynamical System in Ideal Fluid
follows in the present research:

 X u u ur 
The expressions of the hydrodynamic loads acting on a rigid body
 
moving in an unbounded, stationary fluid are widely known in 0 0 0 0 0
 0 Yr r r 
hydrodynamics (Newman, 1977). Written in matrix notation, the
 
Yv v vr 0 0 0
hydrodynamic force and moment are given by:
 0 0 
Dn1 ( r )  
0 
0 Z w w wr 0 Zq q q
 F0 
 M    M A  C A ( )  0 0 0 Kp p p 0
 0  0 0 
(1)
 
0 M w w wr 0 Mq q q
 0 Nr r r 
 
where F0 and M0 are, respectively, the hydrodynamic force and N v v vr 0 0 0

fixed reference frame. M A is the added mass matrix, and C A ( )

moment acting on the rigid body with respect to the origin of the body- (5)

0 0 
vector of the rigid body is given by   [u , v, w, p, q, r ]T   6 .
denotes the Coriolis-centripetal matrix of the added mass. The velocity
0 Y u 
0 0 0 0
 0 0 0 Yur ur 
0 
uv r

Dn 2 ( r )   
0 Z uwur 0 Z uqur 0
 
When considering the flow of irrotational ocean currents, additional (6)
0 
terms need to be introduced into the equations. By using a Newton- 0 0 0 K upur 0 0

 
Euler formulation, under the assumption that the variation of 0 M uwur 0 M uqur 0
0 N uvur N ur ur 
undisturbed incident flow velocity across the length of the rigid body is
0 0 0
negligible, the hydrodynamic forces on a rigid body in an unbounded
ideal fluid could be written as:
Thus, the hydrodynamic forces acting on the vehicle in an unbounded,
 F0    O33 
 M    M Ar  C A ( r ) r  Mc  C ( ) c  O  ( M A  M ) r
real fluid could be given as:

 0  33 O33 
 F0    O33 
 M    M Ar  C A ( r ) r  Mc  C ( ) c  O  ( M A  M ) r
 0  33 O33 
(2)

 ( Dl  Dn1 ( r )  Dn 2 ( r )) r
C ( ) is the Coriolis-centripetal matrix of the displaced fluid,  is the
in which M is the mass matrix of the fluid displaced by the rigid body,
(7)

undisturbed incident flow (Galper and Miloh, 1994), and  r     c is

symmetric velocity gradient or so-called rate of strain-tensor of the
In the absence of experimental data, the viscous forces are usually
estimated from an empirical formula. In the present research, the CFD
the relative velocity. When expressed in the body-fixed reference
method is used to estimate the viscous coefficients of the vehicle,
frame, could be written as:
which will be compared with the ones based on empirical formula
 2c
given by Prestero (2001a,b). ANSYS Fluent is used to generate the
 ij 
xi x j
(3) mesh and conduct the CFD simulations.

Axial drag. In the calculation of axial drag, the x axis of the vehicle is
where c is the velocity potential of the undisturbed incident flow and xi aligned along the direction of the incident flow. The principal
denotes the coordinates in a body-fixed reference frame. The same parameters in numerical modeling are listed as follows:
result could also be derived from Lagrangian formulation (Thomasson

531
Table 2. Principal parameters in numerical modeling

Parameter Value
Water tank size 8m × 4m × 4m
Turbulence model SST k- model
Number of faces on the vehicle 5,000
Number of cells in the domain 184,000

The experimental results (Prestero, 2001b) together with the CFD

results are plotted in the following figure:

Fig.3 The mesh around the AUV in the fine mesh case

The simulation results are depicted in the following figures, in which

we could conclude that the enhancement of the mesh resolution doesn’t
greatly alter the results. The yaw moment under cross flow is so small
that it is not considered.

Fig. 2 The axial drag on the vehicle at a variety of forward speeds.

Fig. 2 shows that the results from CFD simulation coincide well with
the experimental data, especially when the relative velocity is high.

Cross-flow drag. In this case, the x axis of the vehicle is adjusted to be

perpendicular to the direction of the incident flow. Thus there is no
relative velocity in the x direction. The flow velocity ranges from 0.1
m/s to 1.0 m/s. Accordingly, the Reynold number ranges between
2 104 and 2 105. For a circular cylinder, the boundary layer remains
laminar, and the wake behind the cylinder may be completely turbulent.
Therefore, the k-kl- turbulence model in Fluent is used. An
Fig. 4 Axial drag under cross flow in different mesh cases
independent mesh study is conducted in order to make a reliable
prediction of the cross-flow drag. Three different mesh cases are
generated as a result. The details of the mesh cases are given in Table
3:

Table 3. Mesh size in mesh independent study

Mesh Case Number of faces on the vehicle Number of cells

Coarse 5,000 300,000
Medium 12,000 500,000
Fine 19,000 900,000

The most refined mesh is demonstrated in the following figure:

Fig. 5 Normal drag under cross flow in different mesh cases

532
Body Lift. When an AUV moves at an angle of attack with respect to
the direction of the flow, lift forces on the vehicle are generated. In this
case, the estimates of the lift forces based on empirical formula may not
be very reliable. Therefore, the CFD method is used to calculate the
drag force acting on the vehicle at various angles of attack. In the CFD
simulations, the flow velocity in the direction of the x axis of the
vehicle is fixed at 1.5 m/s. The cross-flow velocity varies from 0.1 m/s
to 1.0 m/s. In the numerical water tank, the angle between the x axis of
the vehicle and the direction of the flow is adjusted to simulate the
cases of different angles of attacks. The Realizable k- turbulence
model is adopted. Three different mesh cases are also generated in
order to guarantee the mesh independence. The details of the mesh
cases are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Mesh size in mesh independent study

Mesh Case Number of faces on the vehicle Number of cells

Coarse 5,000 400,000
Fig. 7 Axis drag under different lateral velocities when u = 1.5 m/s
Medium 12,000 600,000
Fine 19,000 1,100,000

The most refined mesh in this study is illustrated in the following

figure:

Fig. 8 Normal drag under different lateral velocities when u = 1.5 m/s

Fig. 6 The mesh around the vehicle at a nonzero angle of attack

The drag forces acting on the vehicle under a variety of cross-flow

velocities are demonstrated in the following figures:

Fig. 9 Yaw moment under different lateral velocities when u = 1.5 m/s

We make an assumption based on Fig. 7 that the axial drag remains

unchanged when the relative velocity along the x axis is constant. The

533
lateral force acting on the vehicle is assumed to be comprised of two centripetal inertia matrix of the vehicle. Therefore, the dynamical
components due to circulation and cross flow (Hoerner and Borst, equation of the vehicle in steady and spatially uniform flow is as
1985). The lateral or lift force due to circulation depends on the follows:

M RBr  CRB ( r ) r   M Ar  C A ( r ) r  ( Dl  Dn1 ( r )  Dn 2 ( r )) r

magnitude and angle of the total relative velocity, while the cross-flow
drag depends on the magnitude of the lateral component of the relative
velocity. Based on this assumption, we could separate the body lift (9)
force from the total lateral drag by removing the cross-flow drag
obtained in the cross-flow simulation. The results are illustrated in the When considering the motion in the horizontal plane, the linear drag
following figure, in which U is the magnitude of the total relative matrix could be neglected. First, we consider the case of calm flow,
velocity: which means r= . Then, the dynamical equations governing the
horizontal-plane motion are written as:

( m  a11 )u  ( m  a22 )vr  ( mx g  a26 ) r 2  X u u u u  T


( m  a22 )v  ( m  a11 )ur  ( mx g  a26 ) r  Yv v v v  Yr r r r

  Yuv uv  Yur ur
( I  a ) r  ( a  a )uv  ( mx  a )( v  ur )  N v v  N r r
 zz
  N uv uv  N ur ur
66 22 11 g 26 vv rr


(10)

where m is the mass of the vehicle; a11, a22, a26 and a66 are the added
mass in surge, sway, sway-yaw coupled and yaw direction respectively;
xg is the position of the center of gravity in the x axis; T denotes the
constant thrust force provided by the propeller. The values of the
additional coefficients to Table 5 are given by Prestero (2001b):

Table 6. Inertia and hydrodynamic coefficients of the REMUS AUV

Fig. 10 Drag coefficient under different angles of attack
Parameter Value Units
The curve of body lift coefficient is linear as expected when the angle
of attack is small. Thus the hydrodynamic coefficient Yuv could be m +3.05e+001 kg
estimated by using the slope of the linear curve. As for the yaw Izz +3.45e+000 kg m2
moment, it comprises the moments on the bare hull and the vertical
rudders. The hydrodynamic coefficients obtained from the CFD a11 +9.30e-001 kg
simulations are listed together with the coefficients given by Prestero a22 -1.79e+001 kg/m
(2001b):
a26 -1.93e+000 kg m/rad
Table 5. Axial, cross-flow drag and body lift coefficients a66v +4.88e+000 kg m2/rad
xg +0.00e+000 m
Parameter CFD Method Prestero (2001b) Units
Yr|r| +6.32e-001 kg m/rad2
Xu|u| -3.91e+000 -3.87e+000 kg/m
Yur +8.62e+000 kg/rad
Yv|v| -1.00e+002 -1.31e+002 kg/m
Nr|r| -9.40e+001 kg m2/rad2
Nv|v| +7.38e+000 -3.18e+000 kg
Nur -6.40e+000 kg m/rad
Yuv -1.79e+001 -2.86e+001 kg/m

x  f ( x ) as:
Nuv -3.00e+001 -1.69e+001 kg The nonlinear dynamical equations could be written in the form

u  Avr  Dr 2   u u  T '

STABILITY OF A REMUS AUV IN OCEAN CURRENTS

v  Guv  Hur  Kv v  Mr r
In the present research which involves the development of a six-degree

(11)

 r  Iuv  Jur  Lv v  Nr r
of freedom simulation model for the REMUS autonomous underwater
vehicle, we only consider the dynamical motion of an AUV in the

spatially uniform, we have   0 and the following equation (Fossen,

horizontal plane. Assuming the ocean current velocity is steady and
where A = (m+ a22)/(m+ a11), D = (mxg+ a26)/(m+ a11), = Xu|u|/(m+
2011): a11) in the first equation. Besides, we have that:
M RB  CRB ( )  M RBr  CRB ( r ) r (8)

where MRB and CRB( ) are, respectively, the inertia matrix and Coriolis-

534
 CE   3  E 3 B  EF   4  E 4
G , H
The unstable, and other two stable equilibrium points are clearly
1  EF 1  EF demonstrated in Fig. 11. The stable manifold Ws (Perko, 1991) divides
C   3  F 3  F (1  B )   4  F  4
I , J
the phase space into two regions. The states which are not on Ws will
1  EF 1  EF
(12) converge to the two stable equilibrium points in their own regions.

1  E 1  2  E 2 r  F 1   F 2
Note that the stability conditions which are used to derive Eq. 14 are
K , M , L 1 , N 2
1  EF 1  EF 1  EF 1  EF
equivalent to the ones given in Triantafyllou (2002) due to the fact that
both are based on linearized system, although more terms are involved in
the present research. However, further nonlinear analysis presents the
where B = -1/A, C = -(a22 - a11)/(Izz+a66), E = (mxg + a26)/(m + a22), F = global behavior of the dynamical system instead of the local behavior in a
(mxg + a26) /(Izz + a66), 1 = Yv|v|/(m + a22), 2 = Yr|r|/(m + a22), 3 = neighborhood of the equilibrium point, which gives us insight into the
Yuv/(m + a22), 4 = Yur/(m + a22), 1 = Nv|v|/(Izz + a66), 2 = Nr|r|/(Izz + a66), dynamics of the system.
3 = Nuv/(Izz + a66) and 4 = Nur/(Izz + a66).
Based on the kinematic relations given by:

 x  u cos  v sin
One equilibrium point of the nonlinear system could be found as x0 =


[U0,0,0], in which:
 y  u sin  v cos
  r
(16)
U0   
T
(13)
Xuu
where x, y are the position of the vehicle in earth-fixed reference frame
The linearized system in a neighborhood of this equilibrium point is and is the heading angle of the vehicle with respect to the x axis of
given by: the earth-fixed frame, we can determine the steady-state path of the

u   2U 0
AUV without control, which is:
0  u  U 0 
 v    0 HU 0   v  
0
u 2  vs2
      xs (t )  s sin( rs t   )
GU 0 (14)
 r   0 JU 0   r  

IU 0 rs
 u 2  vs2
 ys (t )   s sin( rs t   )

In order for x0 to be a stable equilibrium point in its neighborhood, we (17)


must have G+J < 0, GJ-HI > 0 since U0 > 0 and < 0. Thus we could rs

 s (t )  rs t
find the conditions under which x0 is a stable equilibrium point in its
neighborhood:

  3   4  E 3  F  4

  BC   3 F   4 C   3 B   4 3   3 4
(15) in which [us, vs, rs] is a stable equilibrium point. As expected, the
steady-state path is a turning circle whose radius is determined by the
stable equilibrium points of the system. In calm flow, even if the
If the conditions cannot be satisfied at the same time, x0 will be an vehicle doesn’t have the property of straight-line stability, its path
unstable equilibrium point. By using the data in Table 5~6, we could could be constantly adjusted using rudders. However, in strong ocean
show that the equilibrium point [U0,0,0] of the REMUS AUV is not currents, rudders may not work as effectively as expected.
stable. The phase portrait of the nonlinear system which is obtained by
solving the equations numerically is illustrated as follows: Under the assumption that the velocity of the ocean current is steady
and spatially uniform, we could actually obtain the dynamical
equations in ocean current by replacing u and v in Eq. 11 by ur and vr
respectively. The new stable equilibrium points are given by:

us '  us  U c cos( rs t   0 )


 vs '  vs  U c sin( rs t   0 )
r '  r
(18)
s s

where Uc is the magnitude of velocity of the ocean current whose

direction is assumed to be along the x axis of an earth-fixed reference
frame without loss of generality, and 0 depends on the initial and
transient states of the system. The phase portrait of the nonlinear
system considering the ocean current is given as follows:

Fig. 11 Phase portrait of the nonlinear dynamical system

535
 Fig. 14 The trajectory of stable equilibrium points as increases

As illustrated in Fig. 14, when is larger than 2, the two stable

Fig. 12 Phase portrait of the nonlinear system considering ocean current equilibrium points collapse into the position of the unstable equilibrium
point, thus the vehicle achieves straight-line stability. If we increase the
When Uc = 0, the limit circles in Fig. 12 will shrink into single points planform area Sfin of the rudders instead of their moment arm, it could
as in Fig. 11. At steady state, the AUV will move along a circle which be shown that Sfin should be at least two times the original area so that
itself is drifting in the same direction as the steady and spatially the vehicle could achieve straight-line stability.
uniform current.
Increasing the rudder area is the simplest method to achieve straight-
As pointed out before, rudders may not be as effective in strong ocean line stability. However, it is more advantageous to use position-
currents as they are in calm water. Therefore, it is advantageous for an adjustable rudders in the sense that the degree of stability of the vehicle
AUV to have straight-line stability in order to be able to achieve path- could be modified based on the requirement of the mission. In calm
keeping despite ocean currents. A possible design would involve water when better maneuverability is expected, the vertical rudders
extending the distance between the vertical rudders and the center of could then be retrieved to their original position on the vehicle (see Fig.
buoyancy of the vehicle. 1). On the contrary, the vehicle could move along a straight line with
the distance of the rudders extended, when path-keeping capability is
required in the mission of cruising in strong ocean currents.

CONCLUSIONS

The uncontrolled dynamics of a REMUS AUV is analyzed in the

present study. The hydrodynamic coefficients used in the study are
obtained from CFD simulations and compared with the results based on
empirical formulas. The nonlinear dynamical system governing the
horizontal-plane motion of the AUV in steady and spatially uniform
ocean currents is directly analyzed. The analysis of the stability of the
nonlinear system gives the conditions under which the equilibrium
point [U0,0,0] is stable. When the system is not stable, the steady-state
path, a turning circle, is related with the stable equilibrium points of the
nonlinear system. In order to achieve path-keeping in ocean currents,
the design of position-adjustable rudders is proposed. If needed, the
Fig. 13 A REMUS AUV with movable vertical rudders. distance between the vertical rudders and the center of buoyancy could
be enlarged to make the point [U0,0,0] become a stable equilibrium
If the position of the vertical rudders is adjustable, longer distances will point. When better maneuverability is preferred, the rudders could be
allow the vehicle to satisfy the conditions given by Eq. 15. In that case, moved back to their original position. Thus the vehicle would be
the equilibrium point [U0,0,0] in calm water, or [U0+Uccos 0,- allowed the capabilities of switching uncontrolled stability states in
Ucsin 0,0] in ocean current will be asymptotically stable, and the different environments.
unstable equilibrium points will disappear at the same time. As for
rudders alone, their hydrodynamic coefficients could be written as Yuv
= - CL Sfin, Yur=Nuv= - CL Sfinxfin, Nur= - CL Sfinx2fin, where is the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
water density, CL is the slope of the lift coefficient, Sfin is the planform
area of the rudder and xfin is distance between the rudder and the The work of Tsung-Chow Su is supported under the Naval Engineering
buoyancy center. If we introduce a factor to xfin, then we could plot Education Consortium funded by NAVSEA, USA.
the positions of the stable equilibrium points with respect to its value as
follows: REFERENCES

536
Alvarez, A., Caffaz, A., Caiti, A., Casalino, G., Gualdesi, L., Turetta,
A., & Viviani, R. (2009). “Folaga: a low-cost autonomous underwater
vehicle combining glider and AUV capabilities,” Ocean Engineering,
36(1), 24-38.

Fossen, T.I. (2011). Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and

Motion Control, John Wiley & Sons.

Galper, A. and Miloh, T. (1994). “Generalized Kirchhoff Equation for a

Deformable Body Moving in a Weakly Non-uniform flow field,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical
and Physical Sciences, 446(1926), 169-193.

Hoerner, S.F. and Borst, H.V. (1985). Fluid-dynamic Lift: Practical

Information on Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Lift, Hoerner Fluid
Dynamics Midland Park, NJ

Meneses, Andrea M., et al (2014). "Development of a Morphing AUV

for Path and Station Keeping in Complex Current Environments," The
Twenty-fourth International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, Busan, Korea. ISOPE, Vol 2, www.isope.org.

Newman, J.N. (1977). Marine Hydrodynamics. MIT Press.

Palmer, A.R., Hearn, G.E. and Stevenson, P. (2008). “Modelling Tunnel

Thrusters for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles,” Proc 2nd IFAC
Workshop on Navigation, Guidance and Control of Underwater Vehicles,
Killaoe, Ireland, 2(1), 91-96.

Perko, L. (1991). Differential equations and dynamical systems, Texts in

applied mathematics. Springer-Verlag.

Prestero, T. (2001a). “Development of a six-degree of freedom

simulation model for the REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle,” In
Proceedings of the OCEANS, 2001. MTS/IEEE Conference and
Exhibition, 1, 450-455.

Prestero, T.J. (2001b). “Verification of a Six-degree of Freedom

Simulation Model for the REMUS Autonomous Underwater Vehicle,”
Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Saunders, Aaron and Nahon, Meyer (2002). “The Effect of Forward

Vehicle Velocity on Through-Body AUV Tunnel Thruster Performance,”
In OCEANS'02 MTS/IEEE, 1, 250-259.

Steenson, L.V., Phillips, A.B., Furlong, M., Rogers, E., Turnock, S.

(2011). “The Performance of Vertical Tunnel Thrusters on an
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Operating near the Free Surface in
Waves,” In Second International Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
Hamburg, Germany, SMP11

Thomasson, P.G. and Woolsey, C.A. (2013). “Vehicle Motion in

Currents,” Ocean Engineering, IEEE Journal of, 38(2), 226-242.

Triantafyllou, Michael S., and Franz S. Hover (2002). Maneuvering and

control of marine vehicles, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Class
Notes, http://xxpt.ynjgy.com/resource/data/081301/U/707/pdfs/all.pdf,
19-20.

Yoshida, Hiroshi, Tadahiro Hyakudome, Shojiro Ishibashi, Hiroshi Ochi,

Yoshitaka Watanabe, Takao Sawa, Yoshiyuki Nakano, Shinobu Ohmika,
Makoto Sugesawa, and Takeshi Nakatani (2012) “Development of the
cruising-AUV “Jinbei”,” In OCEANS, , 2012-Yeosu, 1-5.

537