Biomimetics Makes Waves

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Flies, fish and the inferior olive help improve unmanned undersea design.


Navy researchers are examining work conducted jointly by the New York University Medical School and Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod State University and Institute for Applied Sciences that uses brain activity as the model for controlling movement in unmanned undersea vehicles. The advances culled from this research could support better designs for autonomous underwater vehicles that could hunt mines, deliver and retrieve sensors, track ship movement or gather plume samples.

The work is taking place at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), Newport, Rhode Island, with help from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Arlington, Virginia. Techniques being explored would be used on unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) to solve two problems that limit their effectiveness. While current designs allow the Navy to conduct operations that might otherwise be impossible, the service is interested in improving the maneuverability and decreasing the noise of UUVs so the craft can conduct new types of missions in the future.

Dr. Thomas McKenna, program officer, division of cognitive, neural and social science and technology, department of human systems science and technology, ONR, explains that the objective of the current work is to enable precise and quiet maneuvering as well as long endurance.

To accomplish these tasks, however, requires basic research in a number of areas, and researchers are turning to biology for at least some of the answers. McKenna notes that in comparing the movements of fish and those of manmade vehicles, scientists have observed that neither has the advantage in speed when moving in one direction. However, when it comes to maneuverability and turning radius, fish are more agile than manmade vehicles by a large margin. To bring the two a little closer together, scientists have to determine both the structures that would facilitate movement and the connections to make these structures respond quickly.

McKenna explains that one facet the engineers are examining in the structures area is the high-lift principle. The principle emerged from the study of the wings of flies. The combination of the pitching and heaving motion results in enhanced lift when compared to fixed wings—up to five times higher. To improve propulsion, the researchers are exploring how to build foils in combination with motors that can mimic this superior lift.

The NUWC is working on the high-lift actuators project. The challenge is that these actuators would require a number of degrees of freedom so that the pitching and heaving could be varied among the thrusters situated on various parts of the UUV. “It’s a nonlinear control problem, and we’re taking a look at a new, very rapid and adaptive nonlinear controller based on brain circuitry,†he offers.

This nonlinear controller, called the universal control system, is based on how the cerebellum and a related structure, known as the inferior olive, work in the human body. By examining the physiology of this biological system, researchers at New York University Medical School and Nizhny Novgorod State University and Institute for Applied Sciences have built a model of chaotic oscillators.

The universal control system, which is an array of oscillators, can be divided into smaller elements, each controlling a different actuator. “We’re building the electronic hardware prototype of the system, and we’re evaluating it now to determine how good that control is compared to the conventional way of controlling actuators,†McKenna relates.

This evaluation is taking place in the form of a “little competition,†he reveals. During the next year, two scale models of UUVs that feature the high-lift foils will be built. The NUWC will work with one of the models using a series of conventional and artificial neural network controllers. Researchers at New York University will employ their brain-control circuit system to assess the effectiveness of their technology. “Once we have those results, we’ll have some idea about whether the Navy should proceed with just the high-lift foils or the high-lift foils in conjunction with the brain-based controller,†McKenna explains.

From the mechanical standpoint, the high-lift foils in the near term must be adapted to work with rotating motors. This could limit their range of motion and does not completely solve the issue of noise. But researchers are exploring solutions to this problem as well. “In the future, we’re looking at linear actuators that are like actual muscles. There are a number of efforts, about six that ONR is supporting, to build muscle-like actuators out of various compounds—in particular electro-active polymers. But they are not quite ready to be used at this scale yet,†McKenna states. Once this issue is resolved, rotating motors would not be required, and the noise would decrease tremendously, he adds.

One of the Navy’s visions in the long term would be a fleet of small UUVs equipped with communications systems and sensors that can remain in an area for some time, conducting reconnaissance and surveillance missions. The size of these vessels could be somewhere between a trout and a shark, a design feature that is limited by the power source and sensor package, he says.

As envisioned, these UUVs would be semi-autonomous. Missions would be preprogrammed into the vehicle; however, the information gathered by onboard sensors could be shared very quickly with the propulsion system, so they could adapt quickly.

--0--

Within the sanctity and spirit of this topic - I've always wondered why anechoic tiles for subs were not made in the manner of sharkskin. It's been demonstrably proved that the barbed pattern of sharkskin assists in it's fluid mechanics...

any resident aero/fluid mechs on here care to comment??

(Subscriber list only) No links.
 

Pendekar

New Member
maybe it will decrease it's capability to absorb sound.

actually i found shark very interesting. a state of the art in sensors and propulsion technology. it's tailfin is the best propulsion system to propelled a body underwater. it's sonar is even better then our most advance digital sonar system. of course, we're looking at the product from several million years of R&D.
 

highsea

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
... I've always wondered why anechoic tiles for subs were not made in the manner of sharkskin. It's been demonstrably proved that the barbed pattern of sharkskin assists in it's fluid mechanics...
Gary, I'm no expert, that's for sure. I suspect evolution has created better boundary layer control than us humans can ever manage to acheive. Sharkskin, fish scales, bird feathers, etc.

We know if we can trip the turbulence in the downstream boundary layer we can reduce drag. Also, by keeping the boundary layer thin and close to the surface, you have less drag than a thick layer would create.

The boundary layer vortices will generate lines of force that are opposed to the streamwise flow. This increases drag and promotes separation of the flow at the surface. That's why airplane wings use vortex generators to decrease stall at high AOA's. By generating a thin, controlled layer of turbulence, we can delay a large uncontrolled one from developing (disruption of laminar flow). Some skyscrapers and bridges also use vortex generators to control the boundary layer in high winds. The trick is to keep the turbulent layer thin and close to the surface, and as equal as possible fore and aft. Drag can be reduced up to 30% with effective controls.

Interestingly enough, speed skaters are also experimenting with vortex generators. Gains of 7 seconds or so in a 5000 Meter race are not uncommon. They are also finding that the technique of drafting behind another skater to get in the low pressure pocket is not always a good idea. If the skater in front has an effective vortex generator, the guy behind can actually get hit with high pressure vortex tubes or "donuts", which take away the advantage of drafting.

In a submarines the advantage of controlling the boundary layer is obvious. Lower drag means better efficiency. One would assume there would be acoustical benefits by reducing turbulence around the hull, and especially around the propellors.

My guess is that the shark's skin serves to create a very thin boundary layer and keep it in contact with his body. Very efficient in keeping drag at a minimum and saves a lot of energy.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
highsea said:
My guess is that the shark's skin serves to create a very thin boundary layer and keep it in contact with his body. Very efficient in keeping drag at a minimum and saves a lot of energy.
In actual fact what we are seeing is natures version of a cavitating hull. In weapons systems such as the torpedoes developed by the Russians (skval) and the torpedoes that the USN did about 15 years ago, the boundary layer was induced - and that is an inefficient process in it's own right.

The key is establishing initial thrust to self generate the boundary layer - and I reckon thats where sharkskin type solutions are worth looking at.

The USN actually developed cavitating torpedoes about 10-15 years before the Russian Skval but abandoned it due to efficiency and practicality reasons. The USN does have cavitating projectiles - but not torpedoes. Interestingly enough that weapon is based on force generation and not on surface shape.
 

highsea

New Member
Did these tordpedoes induce an air pocket around them? That would eliminate the boundary layer between the skin and surrounding water. Did they actually release air from the nose, or did they heat and vaporize the water? They must have placed control surfaces aft of the cavitation zone, or they wouldn't steer very well.

Too much turbulence can cause cavitation, due to localized pressure decreases, but controlling the turbulence around a surface can be done without cavitation, and still get the benefit of reduced drag. Any object in motion in a fluid (gaseous or liquid) will have a boundary layer, where the molecules at the surface are not moving relative to the stream flow. The trick is to control that layer and keep it thin and close so laminar flow is not disrupted.

I don't know how fast sharks can swim, but some tuna can burst to 50mph. I wonder if they actually get a cavitation envelope at those speeds? It's certainly possible, you would have a tiny low pressure zone behind every scale.

Are there any pictures of the cavitating torpedoes available?
 

redsoulja

New Member
yeah a few years back, i remember reading popsci where they talked about the russian conception of supersonic underwater torpedoes, the nose of the torpedo releases a bubble that covers the missile thus there is not much of a boudary layer, i saw comp generated pics but not real ones
 

redsoulja

New Member
highseas its one of those things i dont remember clearly, yet i beleive it was faster than any underwater torpedo in existence
 

highsea

New Member
The skval that gf mentioned went about 200 knots, IIRC. But it was never a working system AFAIK.

The US has experimented with high speed supercavitating projectiles for undersea terminal torpedo defense, but these were gun launched (in theory). They have broken the underwater speed of sound, but only in controlled laboratory conditions. Going that fast underwater creates some very complicated conditions to say the least.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
highsea said:
The skval that gf mentioned went about 200 knots, IIRC. But it was never a working system AFAIK.

The US has experimented with high speed supercavitating projectiles for undersea terminal torpedo defense, but these were gun launched (in theory). They have broken the underwater speed of sound, but only in controlled laboratory conditions. Going that fast underwater creates some very complicated conditions to say the least.
Yep, you're talking about RAMICs. I actually know the bloke who invented the concept and projectiles. I was trying to get him to work with us on another ballistics project a few years ago.

He has been able to get a 25mm round into a submerged mine and penetrate it to a depth of 30cm. Very tricky and impressive. The USN for some ungodly reason decided to change it to 30mm and changed the dynamics competely.

There are pictures of Skval about, and the USN does have one. At least thats my understanding from someone who worked in a foreign materials acquistition and assessment area. The USN had developed their own about 10-15 years prior, but I'm not sure what the differences were between theirs and the Russian. Mainly in thrust engines IIRC, the Russians were using rockets and the USN was using electric motors.
 

Pendekar

New Member
i'm just wondering. skhval was based on the super cavitation right. i want to know what kind of propulsion they use. is it a screw or something more exotic. i guess that the torp is actually fly inside the steam created by low pressure am i right?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Pendekar said:
i'm just wondering. skhval was based on the super cavitation right. i want to know what kind of propulsion they use. is it a screw or something more exotic. i guess that the torp is actually fly inside the steam created by low pressure am i right?
Skval is rocket powered. Think of a boundary layer of air as it passed over a wing. It's a similar concept. Aerodynamics is heavily related to some areas of fluid dynamics.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Awang se said:
how about the drag? the rocket must be extremely powerfull.
it is, but once the rocket gets the torpedo to a speed where the boundary layer starts to work, the energy friction and load is reduced.

the USN data on them is classified, so I can't give you any detail here.
 

highsea

New Member
Awang Se, That's why the cavitation pocket is needed. To keep the water away from the torpedo. Funny things happen with the rocket plume at high speeds. Experiments show that non-linear effects pick up very quickly when speeds around 1000m/sec. are reached, and wild oscillations start happening. Not good.

It has been known for some time that introducing bubbles around a hull can decrease the turbulence at the boundary layer. Darpa currently has a project aimed at reducing drag friction on surface ships and submarines using an applied coating of polymers or microbubbles. Tests show an 80% or so reduction in drag is possible, and the program goals are for a practical reduction of 50%.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
It has been known for some time that introducing bubbles around a hull can decrease the turbulence at the boundary layer
I've heard about polymer, but what i heard is they use liquid polymer injected from the nose of the sub.

Awang Se, That's why the cavitation pocket is needed. To keep the water away from the torpedo.
so, that thing is flying inside the bubble. question, how did they form the pocket? is it by installing fast propeller in the nose?
 

highsea

New Member
Awang se said:
so, that thing is flying inside the bubble. question, how did they form the pocket? is it by installing fast propeller in the nose?
It's probably more like traveling in a foamy froth than an actual bubble.

I really don't know how they generated the envelope. There are lots of ways it could be accomplished. Your could expel a gas from the nose of the torpedo or you could heat the water and form bubbles that way. You could build riblets into the body, or have a "fish scale" surface that would generate low pressure zones along the length. The nose could be constructed in such a way as to create a very low pressure area directly behind the front of the torp. Imagine a sharply pointed conical "penetrator" that is flared at the base, attached to the nose.

That's why I was interested in a picture, the last option sounds simplest to me...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
The US cavitator has a modified head and a tail (more or less to create a vortex I assume. I haven't seen shots of it on the web, but I have seen the schematics of it from the original inventor.

The Skval has a backend like a multi nozzle booster rocket. IIRC the nozzles are slightly offset.
 
Top