Propeller Design

TIP FACE B^cg
TYPES OF PROPELLER CAVITATION
A Propeller Design Method

BY LIEUT. COMMANDER /VL K . ECKHARDT, U S N , l VISITOR, AND
W. B. ~ORGAN, 2 ASSOCIATE ~V[EMBER
INTRODUCTION
A marine propeller, unlike most pieces of hy-
A method of propeller design based on draulic machinery, cannot be designed for easily
hydrodynamic principles is presented in controlled conditions. On the contrary, it gener-
this paper. This method, developed ally operates in a continually changing relative
around the circulation, or lifting-line the- flow pattern. As a result, the complexity of the
ory, includes a pitch correction which water motion flowing into the propeller and
complements lifting-line theory with lift- around and between the blade leads to a difficult
ing-surface theory. No attempt is made to theoretical problem. To meet this problem early
give a complete theory, but the basic as- methods of design depended almost entirely upon
sumptions and the necessary equations for methodical series tests. These same kind of
the practical application of this method series results are still used today and usually give
are included. Two examples are shown; good agreement between shaft horsepower, shaft
one, a nonoptimum free-running propeller, revolutions, and ship speed. However, there are
the other a wake-adapted propeller. A other problems in propeller design--cavitation,
comparison with Lerbs' rigorous induc- vibration, and noise--for which those curves do
tion-factor method shows that this method not provide the best results.
is accurate enough for these types of pro- Not until 1907 did we have a basis for a modern
pellers. Test results also show that both propeller theory that eventually enabled the flow
these designs meet the design conditions I M a r e I s l a n d N a v a l S h i p y a r d , Vallejo, Cal.
within the accuracy of the tests. 2 N a v a l A r c h i t e c t , D a v i d T a y l o r Model Basin, N a v y D e p a r t m e n t ,
Washington, D.C.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N.Y., No-
v e m b e r 9-12, 1955, of THR SOCIRTY OF NAVAL ARCHtTECrS ANn
MARINE ENGINEERS.
325
326 A PROPELLER DESIGN METHOD
\
1.4
1.3
0.5 / ~ /
J
0"4/ ~..lJ J
J
/
/
J
0.3/ o.97~/ J
O.Z
0.1
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 ~.0
FIG 1 GOLDSTEIN FUNCTIONS (K) FOR THREE-BLADED PROPELLERS
to be analyzed at any radius. In that year F. W. wieg, Ginzel, and Lerbs studied the problem from
Lanchester, a British mechanical engineer, pub- a theoretical point of view (2, 3).
lished his discovery of the now famous vortex Many important advancements have been made
theory in a treatise entitled "Aerial Flight." A in the theoretical approach, one of these being
little later this theory was developed on a mathe- Lerbs' calculation of the induction factors (4),
matical basis by Prandtl. Then Helmbold, which allows the velocities at each blade section
Goldstein, and others developed these ideas fur- to be determined with great accuracy. This im-
ther for use in propeller design. Certain dis- portant calculation, plus other theoretical work,
crepancies existed, however, between the results makes it possible today to develop a design
of theory and experiment; for instance, the lack theory based on hydrodynamic principles.
of pitch or angle of attack resulting from appliea- Actually there are two methods by which one
tion of the circulation theory to wide-blade marine may approach this problem: (a) The approxi-
propellers. Hill developed empirical curves for
3 Numbers in parentheses refer to the Bibliography at the end of
this angle of attack (1);8 others, namely, Lud- the paper.
A PROPELLER DESIGN METHOD 527
1.4
1.2 ~
~0,3
1.0
0.4 / / / / /
I
1.5 2.0 ~.s 3.0 as 4.0 4.s 5.0 5.5 6.0
I/h i
FIG. 2 GOLDSTEIN FUNCTIONS (K) FOR FOUR-BLADED PROPELLERS
mate method, which is to .be presented in this factory agreement with the rigorous and the calcu-
paper; (b) a rigorous method, using the induction lations are considerably simpler. The only dif-
factors just mentioned, which will be used here ference between the two methods is in the pro-
only as a basis for a comparison. The rigorous cedure of obtaining the lift-length coefficients, the
method gives a more precise solution to the pro- tangential and axial components of the induced
peller-design problem than the approximate velocities, and the circulation distribution. Af-
method, which uses the Goldstein function. 4 ter these results are obtained, the methods are
Yet the results of the latter method are in satis- identical.
The approximate method also has advantages
4 T h e Ooldsteiu function allows the circulation to be computed for over other modern methods: (a) It requires a
an o p t i m u m propeller with a finite n u m b e r of blades when the circu-
lation for an infinite number of blades is known. This function was minimum of previous knowledge, experience and
recently recalculated at the David Taylor Model Basin. T h e largest
errors were found at large values of pitch ratio near the hub and tip intuition. (b) I t is based almost wholly upon
of a propeller. The values were replotted and are published for the
first time in this paper (Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4). hydrodynamic principles. (c) I t is applicable
1.3
_ _ 0.2
,0 - - -
o.8 ~- i
. ~ / /
o.G
/
o. J /
/
j J
o.9s/ f l
/ /
0.4
/
0.2
1.5 2.0 Z.5 3,o 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 s.s 6.0
Fro. 3 GOLDSTI~IN F U N C T I O N S (K) FOR F I v E - B L A D E D P R O P E L L E R S
not only to free-running 5 b u t also wake-adapted cuss the theory or mathematics, although suf-
propellers. 6 (d) T h e pitch and camber correc- ficient references will be given for those interested
tions, except for viscous corrections, are based on in the theory. Following the assumptions will
theory. (e) Tests and comparisons with other be a description of the design method. N e x t will
methods indicate t h a t the results of this method be a discussion of the results of the two examples
are quite accurate. given in the Appendix, one being a free-running,
In presenting this method, it will be convenient the other a wake-adapted propeller. Included in
first to outline the approximations and assump- this discussion are results obtained by designing
tions involved. No a t t e m p t will be made to dis- these propellers by other methods; t h a t is, in-
duction factors (4), Troost's series (5), and
s A free-running propeller is one which has u n d i s t u r b e d water Wageningen wake-adapted (6).
ahead of it. T h i s condition is closely a p p r o x i m a t e d in the case of
multiscrew ships in which the shafts are s u p p o r t e d by s t r u t s and the
propeller is well clear of the hull and appendages. 1 ]~ASIC CONSIDERATION
6 T h e wake-adapted propeller is one which m u s t o p e r a t e in a The propeller as it rotates in the water induces
v a r i a b l e wake field caused b y hull and a p p e n d a g e interference of t h e
flow ahead of the propeller. T h e propeller is designed to :fit the three velocity components, radial, tangential and
axial velocities in t h e wake. T h e propeller for a single-screw mer-
c h a n t ship is a t y p i c a l example. axial. These three velocities are small as corn-
1.3
I.Z ~ , ~ r/R=O,2
t.o~...~o.4 ~~___~'~
0.5 ~ ~ ~ . ~ _ --
o.g / o.?.L.-- ~
/f / /
0.9/
0.5 o,g~/
0.3
0.2
t.5 2.0 2.5 &O 3,5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
I/),~
FIG. 4 GOLDSTEIN FUNCTIONS (~) FOR SIX-BLADED I::)ROPELLERS
pared to the inflow velocities for a moderately

loaded propeller; yet they are the factors t h a t 90 ,4,.,,~.' -
give the designer the most difficulty. To meet
this difficulty certain assumptions are required for
I
even the most rigorous approach to propeller-
design theory. In discussing these assumptions
here, let us first consider the case of the propeller
blade as a lifting line (7) operating in a non-
viscous fluid, Fig..5. One of these assumptions is
t h a t there is no contraction, or reduction in di- I
_..t
ameter, of the slipstream. This is a justifiable
approximation which can be made for all b u t
heavily loaded propellers whose slipstreams are oor . . . . ~q
contracted considerably.
T h e radial component of the induced velocity
FIG/ 5 VELOCITY DIAGRAM FOR NONVISCOUS FLOW AT
can then be ignored. The other two compo- BLADE SECTION
I0
8
6
I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
OJ
0.08
0.06
'0.04
0.02
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
o.ooJ ~,
00
4
3 "~
2
O.Ou~ u.UU~" O.OO~ 0.01 O.OP 0.04 0.1 0.2 04 I 4 6 810
Va
Advance coefficient X = - -
renD
FIG. 6 KRAMER'S THRUST COEFFICIENT CURVES
nents, tangential (ut) and axial (ua) (Fig. 5), m u s t b y the approximate method. In this method the
be calculated or approximated. In determining assumption is made t h a t the "condition of nor-
these components the blade is replaced b y a lifting m a l i t y " exists, in other words t h a t the resultant
line. I t then can be shown, b y the m o m e n t u m induced velocity u/2 is perpendicular to the re-
theory for instance (8), t h a t the components at sultant inflow velocity Vr, Fig. 5. With this
this lifting line are one half their final value down- assumption the components can be expressed in
stream. simple trigonometric expressions t h a t contain the
For design purposes ua and uo can be estimated Goldstein function K (9), which has been re-
4.0
3.0
el
2.0
1.0
1.2
7.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0."/
0.4 0.5 o.6 o.7 o.8 o.9 I.o I.I 1.2
AE/A o
FIG. 7 CAMBER CORRECTION COEFFICIENTS
calculated recently (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4). Fur- line to a curved twisted plate. This problem was
thermore, K r a m e r ' s curves, Fig. 6, can be used partially solved b y Ludwieg and Ginzel who ex-
as a first approximation for the ideal efficiency of a amined the curvature of flow at the halfway point
propeller. This approximation, as will be seen of each section (2). Their work resulted in cam-
later, then allows the first estimate of the hydro- ber corrections which are presented in a slightly
dynamic pitch angle Bi to be calculated easily. modified form, Fig. 7.
Before proceeding a n y further it m u s t be B u t experience has shown t h a t this correction
pointed out that the assumption of the condition to pitch is insufficient. Lerbs traced the defi-
of normality holds exactly only for free-running ciency in pitch to the change in curvature over
o p t i m u m propellers. 7 B u t this paper has refer- the chord (3), which was not covered in Ludwieg
ence to more practical classes of propellers, the and Ginzel's work. Using Weissinger's simpli-
free-running n o n o p t i m u m and wake-adapted. fied lifting surface theory (10), he was able to find
And it has been shown b y much work at the D a v i d the relations t h a t approximately define this de-
T a y l o r Model Basin t h a t the assumption is suffi- fieiency. These relations can then be used in
cient in these cases. conjunction with Ludwieg and Ginzel's to make
Now it will be remembered t h a t the foregoing the theory more complete.
discussion has referred to the blade as a lifting line T h e second limitation mentioned is the problem
operating in a nonviscous fluid. These limitations of w h a t happens to a propeller operating in a vis'~
will .now be modified. T h e weakness in the ap- cous fluid. T h e effect is an increase in torque and
plication of the lifting-line theory b y itself is t h a t a decrease in thrust as shown in Fig. 8. This
the replacement of the blade b y a lifting line de- effect is corrected in the final steps of t h e design
scribes the angularity of the flow b u t gives no b y increasing the pitch a certain a m o u n t at each
information a b o u t its curvature. Propellers de- section. This correction, explained in P a r t 2,
signed from the lifting-line theory alone are known is based on a n u m b e r of published airfoil d a t a
from experience to be underpitched. T h e prob- (11).
lem, then, is to complement the lifting theory In the use of the circulation theory, in general
with lifting-surface theory; t h a t is, to go from a there are two methods of approach : (a) T h e opti-
r An o p t i m u m p r o p e l l e r is one ill w h i c h t h e losses due to n o n v i s c o u s
m u m circulation over the blade radius can be se-
flow are a m i n i m u m for t h e flow c o n d i t i o n s a t e a c h b l a d e section. lected and the pitch distribution calculated. (b)
F o r t h e o p t i m u m f r e e - r u n n i n g p r o p e l l e r t h i s r e s u l t s in e s s e n t i a l l y t h e
s a m e p i t c h a t all r a d i i . The pitch distribution can be assumed and the re-
Symbols
T = Thrus} = D r a g - L i ~ t Ra~io .
D Dra 9
= ~ A n g l e in R a d i a n s
L=Lif ~. = S u b s c r i p t f o e Non V i s c o u s
F = Torque Force
dF ,4
....... dFL- . . . . .
I dT v,
I I
L0F
FIG. 8 FORCE DIAGRAM OF VISCOUS FLOW AT A BLADE SECTION
suiting circulation computed. In the case of the tion can be narrowed down t o more satisfactory
free-running propeller, the o p t i m u m circulation limits than heretofore.
does not always lead to the propeller with the best
cavitation characteristics. A series of model tests 2 DESIGN PROCEDURE
was conducted which resulted in a reduced tip A resume of the theoretical background of the
pitch distribution t h a t delayed tip vortices. The design method proposed in this paper has been
shape of this pitch curve consists of a parabola given in section 1. Now the application of this
with its vertex at the hub joined b y a straight line method with the necessary charts and formulas
at 0.6 radius. This line slopes to the tip in such a will be presented. First, here are the main steps
way t h a t the pitch at the tip is reduced a certain of propeller design:
i~ercentage from the 0.7 radius. I t is desirable to 1 Collection of the necessary design data.
assume such a pitch distribution for the example 9, Determination of the correct h y d r o d y n a m i c
of the free-running propeller in this paper. Pro- pitch angle.
peller model tests indicate t h a t a large variation 3 Determination of the coefficient of lift
in the shape of the pitch line is possible without (CL), blade sections, thickness ratios (t~/l) and
affecting efficiency adversely. camber ratios (m,/1) from cavitation considera-
In .the case of the wake-adapted propeller the tions.
best approach is to assume o p t i m u m circulation 4 Correction to camber from lifting-surface
conditions and compute the pitch. Lerbs has de- theory (2).
veloped a relationship for the tangent of the hy- 5 Correction to pitch from lifting-surface
drodynamic pitch angle Bi, for an o p t i m u m wake- theory (3), from the mean line in ideal flow, and
adapted propeller (4) (Equation [16]). This from viscous flow.
pitch variation depends on the average radial 6 Strength analysis.
effective wake for which each blade section is de- 7 Check of power and of original approxima-
signed. tions.
The assumptions outlined in the foregoing then The first item is of particular concern if no
allow the propeller designer to meet effectively model tests are available. However, with the
the design specifications. At the same time the status of modern naval architecture, it can be as-
puzzling problems of cavitation, noise and vibra- sumed t h a t model power and resistance tests will
A PROPELLER DESIGN METHOD- 555
be run on new ship designs. From these tests and. blade frequency can then be chosen which does
design specifications the necessary data can be ob- not cause resonance at any one speed. Unfor-
tained. For a design it is necessary to know t h e tunately these quantities are not only difficult to
design shaft horsepower at a given rpm, resist- determine, but also they vary with propeller load-
ante of the ship, wake, thrust deduction, diame- ing and ship speed. Any further discussion of
ter, and design speed. The calculations are then vibration in this paper would not be feasible; it
preferably made on the basis of thrust. can be said, however, that vibration should be one
In m a n y instances, where a new propeller is of the main considerations in selecting the num-
designed for an older ship, the model data m a y not b e r o f blades. For further considei'ations see
be available. In such cases, an estimate for ship references (17, 18, 19, 20, 21).
resistance can be made from model series (8, 12, The hub diameter must be set next. Its size de-
13, 14). Generally, however, the shp and rpm pends on the shaft diameter and also m a y depend
will be known; then the wake and thrust deduc- on the number of blades. The hub, which should
tion can be estimated (8, 12, 13), and the hy- be as small as possible, usually will vary between
drodynamic pitch angle calculated on the basis of 15 and 25 per cent of the propeller diameter.
power. Another matter which must be considered in
There are two methods of approach, one on the propeller design is the desirability of rake and
basis of thrust and the other on power.. The skew. Where high rotative speeds are encoun-
calculation on the basis of thrust is preferable,. tered, thought should be given to the additional
however, since the variation of thrust between bending stresses caused by the shift in center of-
nonviseous and viscous flow is from 2 to 6 per. gravity when the blade is raked or skewed. In
cent, while for power it is greater. slow-turning wheels, ~vhere these stresses are low,
One problem t h a t must be considered by the as in merchant ships, rake is desirable to place the
naval architect is that of designing for the opti- leading edge of the blade at a uniform distance
mum diameter-rpm combination. He should from the stern profile. I t follows from Lewis and
first select a diameter that will give a tip clearance Taehmindji t h a t longitudinal clearance is quite
of about 20 per cent of the diameter. From this important, probably more so than radial clear-
diameter the optimum rpm can be calculated, and ance (21).
the machinery designed with the specified horse- The desirability of skew is not understood
power and this rpm. For existing ships the opti- completely. Both Baker (22) and unpublished
mum diameter should be calculated from the shp work at D T M B show that a reasonable a m o u n t of
and rpm. skew has very little effect on the efficiency of a
The calculations for optimum diameter or rpm propeller. I t is quite probable that a skewed
can be made from Tro~)st series (5). A rough propeller excites less vibration than an unskewed
estimate also can be made from Burtner's for- one, especially for single-screw ships. The reason-
mula (15), which is based on Troost four-bladed ing is t h a t in single-screw ships the leading edge
B-series of a skewed propeller blade does not instanta-
neously pass the high wake region behind the
(Ps)'2
D ~- 5 0 ( n ) 0 . 6 ............
[ll stern frame. A propeller with no skew would en-
ter this region with greater shock and hence pro-
where duce larger vibratory forces. Even though there
is no theoretical or experimental confirmation of
D = diameter, ft
_Ps = shaft horsepower, shp the desirability of skew, most merchant ship pro-
n = revolutions per minute, rpm pellers t o d a y are designed with skew.
Once the design data have been assembled, the
I t should be noted that the optimum diameter hydrodynamic pitch angle #~ must be calculated
f obtained from the Troost series should be reduced for each blade section. This procedure follows
approximately 5 per cent for single-screw ships that of the approximate method which is calcu-
and 3 per cent for wing screws (6, 16). This related on the basis of thrust "instead of power.
duction arises both from scale effect and the fact- First the following coefficients must be deter-
t h a t the Troost series is based on open water tests. mined :
Of equal importance with the diameter is the
number of blades. The choice is best made after Va = speed of advance of propeller in knots
analyzing the natural frequencies of hull modes, = V(1 w0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - [21
natural shaft frequencies, and the wake field
variations. If we assume t h a t all of these quan- 101.27 Va
X = advance coefficient - 7rnD . . . . . . [3]
tities are known, within reasonable accuracy, a
.a
30
!
II I
~5
J i-
I I ~
IP J-~-
4Jldi-
- U - - V - 7 ~ - - i m -
>
0~

/
0.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.S 0.6 0.7 "0.8

(7
FIO. 9 INCIPIENT CAVITATION CURVES FOR A SECTION WITH N A C A 6 6 NOSE AND PARABOLIC TAIL WITH a = 0 . 8 M E A N LINE
T e n t r y , E q u a t i o n [9] l e a d s to a c o n s t a n t - p i t c h
CT = t h r u s t coefficient = [4] propeller. H o w e v e r , it m a y be a d v a n t a g e o u s to
p D2
2 4 ~r (1.688Va) 2 m o d i f y t h e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n for c a v i t a t i o n con-
s i d e r a t i o n s , such as r e d u c i n g t h e p i t c h a t t h e t i p
T = propeller thrust = to d e c r e a s e t i p v o r t i c e s a n d a t t h e h u b to d e c r e a s e
325.86P~ R~ r o o t a n d h u b vortices.
- [5]
V(1 - t) cos ~ (1 - t) cos ~. . . . W h e r e t h e p r o p e l l e r is n o n o p t i m u m or w a k e -
where a d a p t e d , K r a m e r ' s c u r v e s n o longer a p p l y ; y e t
t h e y w o r k v e r y well for a first a p p r o x i m a t i o n .
V = ship speed in k n o t s F o r t h e n o n o p t i m u m f r e e - r u n n i n g propeller, t h e
wo = effective w a k e f r a c t i o n a p p r o x i m a t i o n is m a d e t h a t t a n fli, c a l c u l a t e d
n = revolutions per minute f r o m K r a m e r ' s curves, is e q u a l to t h e t a n fii a t
D = d i a m e t e r of p r o p e l l e r in feet
0.7 radius. T h e a r b i t r a r y p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n is
.P, = effective h o r s e p o w e r of t h e ship (ehp)
t = thrust deduction fraction t h e n b a s e d on t h i s v a l u e a t 0.7 radius.
~b = s h a f t angle a t design c o n d i t i o n T h e coeffcient of t h r u s t is t h e n c a l c u l a t e d b y
R, = r e s i s t a n c e of ship t h e following f o r m u l a s :
F o r design p u r p o s e s i t is n e c e s s a r y to c h a n g e t h e . CT~ = 8 xK ~ d x . . . [10]

t h r u s t coefficient i n t o a coefficient for n o n v i s c o u s h
flow :
u_~t = sin/3, sin (/3, -- /3) [11]
Cr ' 2 VA sin/3 .......
Cr, - "-- (1.02 to 1.06)Cr . . . . [61
1 -- 2 & i where K is t h e G o l d s t e i n f u n c t i o n , hi in Figs.
where 1, 2, 3, a n d 4 v a r i e s o v e r t h e r a d i u s for a n o n o p t i -
m u m f r e e - r u n n i n g p r o p e l l e r (M = x tan/31) a n d
Xi = x tan/3~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [7]
e = average drag-lift ratio xh = r / R a t t h e h u b
/3~ = h y d r o d y n a m i c p i t c h angle ut = t a n g e n t i a l i n d u c e d v e l o c i t y
I n c a l c u l a t i n g a p r o p e l l e r t h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n of T h e foregoing f o r m u l a is c a l c u l a t e d for dCTi a t

E q u a t i o n [6] is u s e d for Cri b e c a u s e e a n d t a n a n u m b e r of r a d i i a n d t h e n n u m e r i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d
fli are n o t k n o w n . However, the approximation for C r i . If this v a l u e of Cri does n o t c o r r e s p o n d
should be c h e c k e d a f t e r e a n d t a n Bi a r e c a l c u l a t e d . w i t h t h a t f r o m t h e t h r u s t , E q u a t i o n [6], t h e n
K r a m e r d e v e l o p e d a set of c u r v e s for d e t e r - t a n fli m u s t be c o r r e c t e d a n d t h e c a l c u l a t i o n
m i n i n g t h e i d e a l efficiency of an o p t i m u m p r o - c a r r i e d o u t again. T h e following f o r m u l a a p -
peller in o p e n w a t e r (23) (Fig. 6). Once Cri, X, plied a t 0.7 r a d i u s will give a good a p p r o x i m a t i o n
a n d t h e n u m b e r of b l a d e s a r e k n o w n , t h e i d e a l to t h e n e w t a n Bi:
efficiency is r e a d f r o m t h e s e curves. F u r t h e r (tan/3i) ...... toa ~-. (tan/3i)p,o,,i ....
f r o m Fig. 5 i t can be seen t h a t
I1 +
(CT,),,,,s~rod-
5Tc~)~
(c:,.~)o,,,~,,,,.oa]
j. [121
q
101.27 V,4 _ X [8]

t a n / 3 = - rrnDx x .........
For a wake-adapted propeller only the principle
then of t h e foregoing m e t h o d applies, since t h e w a k e
also v a r i e s w i t h t h e r a d i u s . L e r b s h a s d e v e l o p e d
t a n / 3 , = St.an~ = (/D?sp,~,~ . . . . . . . . [91 t h e following f o r m u l a s for w a k e - a d a p t e d p r o -
r/~ 7rX'
pellers (4), w h e r e w~ is the c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l a v e r a g e
where of t h e w a k e a t each section :
X, = a d v a n c e coefficient b a s e d on ship speed
X~ = X
-- for a f r e e - r u n n i n g o p t i m u m 101.27V
rh - 7rnD . . . [ 1 3 ]
propel!er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ga]
x = nondimensional radius (r/R)
r = r a d i u s of a n y p r o p e l l e r b l a d e - s e c t i o n t a n / 3 = xj (1 -- w~) . . . . . . . . . [14]
/3 = a d v a n c e aflgle x
(P/D), = uncorrected pitch ratio CT~ = ' t h r u s t coefficient b a s e d on ship speed
T h u s for an o p t i m u m p r o p e l l e r in o p e n w a t e r T
= p D~ ... [15]
t h e u n c o r r e c t e d p i t c h c a n be o b t a i n e d easily.
2 4 7r (1.688V) 2
W h e n ' t h i s p r o p e l l e r is d e s i g n e d for shock-free
30
. . . .
I
z5
:_:
>
zo
)
I I
,o22Z2 /

/ U:
/
0
t
t
/
o !
o O.I 0. Z 0.3 0.4 0. S 0.6 0,7 0.8
0-
Fic. 10 I N C I P I E N T C A V I T A T I O N C U R V E S FOR NACA 16 S E C T I O N W I T H (l = 1.0 MEAN L I N E
F o r n o n v i s c o u s flow t h e s e b e c o m e r o u n d i n g fluid a t a n y point, c a v i t a t i o n will occur

at that point2
t a n 5 (1 - w0)~ F r o m p r e v i o u s w o r k on section s h a p e s a n d m e a n
tanfl~ .~- n~ (1 - - w ~ ) ~ - -
lines, i n c i p i e n t c a v i t a t i o n c h a r t s c a n be d e r i v e d
X,(1 -- Wo)~(1 -- w~)~... [16] for t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l flow. T h e c h a r t s in Figs.
xr/~ 9, 10, a n d 11, are b a s e d on shock-free e n t r a n c e so
Cry, ~--- (1.02 to 1.06)Cr . . . . . . . . . . . . [17] t h a t all t h e lift of t h e section is d e v e l o p e d b y
camber. These incipient cavitation charts have
K r a m e r ' s c u r v e s a r e used for a first e s t i m a t e of t h e m i n i m u m c a v i t a t i o n n u m b e r of t h e section as
ni which occurs in E q u a t i o n [16]. T h e t h r u s t t h e a b s c i s s a a n d t h e l i f t - l e n g t h - t h i c k n e s s coeffi-.
coefficient is t h e n c a l c u l a t e d b y i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e c i e n t (cLl/tx) as t h e o r d i n a t e . Once b o t h t h e s e
following f o r m u l a : are k n o w n , t h e c a m b e r r a t i o a n d t h i c k n e s s r a t i o
can be o b t a i n e d for a c a v i t a t i o n free s e c t i o n .
c,..~, = s 1 ,,:,: ~U t ( x~ s ~Ur t/ ' "
~i>/'~:'~ *'. . . . [ t s ] Since t h e inflow m a y be p e r i p h e r a l l y n o n u n i f o r m ,
h i t m i g h t be a d v i s a b l e to d e c r e a s e t h e c a v i t a t i o n
n u m b e r b y an a r b i t r a r y a m o u n t , u p to 20 p e r
u r _ (1 -- w,~) sin 8, sin (B, -- 8) [19] cent, d e p e n d i n g on t h e n o n u n i f o r m i t y of t h e
2V sin 8 ' '' wake.
T h e p r o c e d u r e for a r r i v i n g a t t h e c o r r e c t t a n T h e c a v i t a t i o n n u m b e r of e a c h section of t h e
fli is t h e n t h e s a m e as for t h e f r e e - r u n n i n g non- p r o p e l l e r is c a l c u l a t e d b y t h e following f o r m u l a :
o p t i m u m propeller. 8 F o r f r e e - r u n n i n g p r o p e l l e r s , w i t h a b l a d e in t h e
Once t h e c o r r e c t t a n 8, is c a l c u l a t e d for each vertical position
radius, t h e coefficient of lift CL a n d b l a d e sections - F (p p) sln2 8q
are o b t a i n e d . I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e coefficient of a f (1.688Va)2 k co7/" (B~ Z ~ ) _ ] " " [221
lift a t each r a d i u s t h e following f o r m u l a m u s t be 2
solved :
For free-running propellers For wake-adapted propellers
{7" ~--
t t
XK--
CLl 47r 2 Va
- cos 8~ . . . . . . . . [20] e (1.6ssv)= (1 - ~ - ' T g o s ~ ~ , = 8) ' [231
D z x ut
2
X 2 V,,
where
For wake-adapted propellers
p~ = a t m o s p h e r i c pressure in feet of w a t e r
fA t p = d i s t a n c e c e n t e r of s h a f t is. below w a t e r
cL1 4r xK 2 ~ s u r f a c e m i n u s r a d i u s of section
-- - - cos ~ . . . . . . . [21] 3' = specific w e i g h t of w a t e r
D z x ut
p = d e n s i t y of w a t e r
,X, 2V
N o w t h e l i f t - l e n g t h - t h i c k n e s s coefficient m u s t
w h e r e l is t h e l e n g t h of b l a d e section, a n d z is t h e be c a l c u l a t e d . T h e m a x i m u m t h i c k n e s s G of each
n u m b e r of blades. section m u s t be o b t a i n e d f r o m s t r e n g t h c o n s i d e r a -
T h e s e c t i o n l e n g t h s m a y be a s s u m e d f r o m pre- tions. A n e s t i m a t e of t h e b l a d e - t h i c k n e s s frac-
v i o u s designs. H o w e v e r , t h i s m e t h o d does n o t tion can be m a d e f r o m T a y l o r ' s w o r k (12)
u s u a l l y r e s u l t in a p r o p e l l e r w i t h t h e b e s t c a v i t a -
tion c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t is b e s t to design a pro- to 1 a C, Pb
peller so t h a t t h e r e is no s u r f a c e c a v i t a t i o n on l~he D - D 4.1,7~3o. . . . . . . . . . [241
section. F o r a n y given section w i t h a c e r t a i n where
m e a n line a n d t h i c k n e s s form, a t h e o r e t i c a l pres- to/D = thickness fraction
sure d i s t r i b u t i o n m a y be c a l c u l a t e d . W h e n t h i s C1 = coefficient f r o m Fig. 12
p r e s s u r e r e a c h e s t h e v a p o r p r e s s u r e of t h e sur- P~ = shp p e r b l a d e
Sc = m a x i m u m a l l o w a b l e stress (for m a n -
s A few words should be said a b o u t t h e wake. I t will v a r y b o t h
radially a n d c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l y b e h i n d a ship. L e r b s h a s s h o w n th_at ganese bronze, Sc is a p p r o x i m a t e l y
t h e radially v a r y i n g w a k e is of t h e g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e as far a.s t h e 12,500 psi for ships t h a t s e l d o m oper-
e n e r g y is concerned (24). Therefore, t h e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l a v e r a g e of
t h e w a k e is used. A n y n u m b e r of m e t h o d s c a n be used to m e a s u r e a t e a t full p o w e r a n d 7000 psi for
t h e w a k e ; however, it will be different w i t h a n d w i t h o u t t h e propel-
ler in place. T o c o m p e n s a t e for this difference, an a s s u m p t i o n is m e r c h a n t ships)
m a d e t h a t t h e radially v a r y i n g w a k e (w=) at" 0.7 r a d i u s is equal to
t h e w a k e (w0) o b t a i n e d f r o m a F r o u d e a n a l y s i s of t h e model. T h e 9 T h e r a t i o of t h e g r e a t e s t possible pressure d r o p a t a n y p o i n t on a
radially v a r y i n g w a k e is t h e n corrected b y t h e r a t i o of w0 to w, a t section to t h e s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e of t h e free s t r e a m is k n o w n as t h e
0.7 radius. c a v i t a t i o n n u m b e r (a) of t h a t section.
oo
30
25
>
20
15
~Z
10
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0"
Fro. 11 INCIPIENT CAVITATION CURVES FOR N A C A 16 SECTION ~VITH a = 0.8 MEAN LINE
1900 TABLE 2 NACASEcTIONS AND MEAN LINES

Modified a = 1 a = 0.8
16 66 mean mean
1700
\ xzll
Section
y/t~
Section
y/t~
line
m/m~
line
m/m~
0 0 0 0 0
0.0125 0.1077 0.1155 0.097 0.091
0.025 0.1504 0.1530 0.169 0.159
0.050 0.2091 0.2095 0.287 0.271
1500 0.075 0.2527 0.2540 0.384 0.366
0.10 0.2881 0..2920 0.469 0.448
u-
1300
\ 0.20
0.30
0.40
0.45
0.3887
0.4514
0.4879
0.4002
0.4637
0.4952
0.5000
0.722
0.881
0.971
0.993
0.699
0.863
0.961
0.988
\ 0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.5000
0.4862
0.4391
0.3499
0.4962
0.4653
0.4035
0.3110
1.000
0.971
0.881
0.722
1.000
0.978
0.889
0.703
1100 \ 0.90
0/95
1.00
0.2098
0.1179
0.0100
0.1877
0.1143
0.0333
0.469
0.287
0
0.359
0.171
0
xz = distance along section nose-tail line from nose
900 y = ordinate of section m e a s u r e d perpendicular to
m e a n line
m = ordinate of the m e a n line.
T h e leading-edge radius of the 16 section is 0.4885t~2/1,
and of the modified 66 section is 0.84 t,~/1. The trailing
700 edge of b o t h sections should h a v e a small radius.
o.s o.-7 0.9 ~.~ I.~
PIo al- 0.7 R
When the radial thickness distribution is ob-
FIG. 12 COEFFICIENT FOR ESTIMATING BLADE THICKNESS tained, cL1/G is calculated at each section. The
camber and thickness ratios now can be read from
the incipient cavitation curves; however, the
section and mean line must first be selected.
The radial distribution of maximum thickness M a n y of the N A C A airfoil.thickness forms and
can be calculated from the blade-thickness frac- mean lines (11) have very desirable characteris-
tion with a formula given b y Van Manen and
tics for marine propellers; t h a t is, low drag and
Troost (16)
good cavitation characteristics. Two sections,
the N A C A 16 and the N A C A 66, are considered
here. The 16 section has an elliptic nose while
the 66 section nose is slightly blunter. The 66
where lTip/D is the thickness at tip (and m a y be section, however, has too thin a tail for con-
assumed to be 0.003) and f is a coefficient from struetion purposes. This can be remedied by
Table 1. making the section parabolic from the point of
maximum thickness to the trailing edge. All
TABLE 1 COEFFICIENT FOR RADIAL DISTRIBUTION OF
MAXIMUM THICKNESS OF BLADE ELEMENTS available evidence shows that the elliptic nose is
x / most favorable in uniform flow. I n peripherally
0.2 0.788 nonuniform flow, where changes of the angle of
0.3 0.665 attaek oceur, it follows from theoretical pressure-
0.4 0.551 distribution curves that the elliptic nose is also
0.5 0.443
0.6 0.344 more favorable. Preliminary experimental re-
0.7 0.251 sults, however, have not confirmed the superiority
0.8 0.162
0.9 0.079 of the 16 section in comparison with the 66 sec-
0.95 0.039 tion in peripherally nonuniform flow. Until
more experimental data are available, it is not y e t
Using Romson's data (25), Van Lammeren and possible to say whieh of these sections is most de- .
Van Manen give a more accurate method of esti- sirable. Table 2 gives the ordinates of the N A C A
mating the maximum thickness (6). The ap- 16 section and the N A C A 66 section with e/para-
proach with this method is to make the calcula- bolic tail.
tions at 0.2 radius and at 0.6 radius, then a d a p t The mean lines that will be considered here are
the radial thickness distribution to these two the circular arc, the N A C A a = 1.0 and the N A C A
points and the assumed tip thickness. a = 0.8. T h e a = 1.0 mean line h a s a v e r y d e -
sirable pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d gives a section As was s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y the pitch m u s t also

of m i n i m u m l e n g t h for i n c i p i e n t c a v i t a t i o n . T h e be corrected. T h e r e are three corrections or
a = 0.8 m e a n line has a slightly g r e a t e r s u c t i o n a t a d d i t i o n a l angles of a t t a c k to be considered;
a n e q u a l lift b u t the correction for viscous flow is friction correction, ideal angle of a t t a c k of the
v e r y close to zero. F r o m e x p e r i m e n t a l work a t m e a n line (11), a n d correction from lifting sur-
D T M B it can be concluded t h a t either the a = face effect (3). T h e first two corrections can be
0.S or a = 1.0 m e a n line is b e t t e r t h a n the circu- c o m b i n e d i n t o one a d d i t i o n a l angle of a t t a c k
lar arc m e a n line. T h e a = 0.S m e a n line seems a~, for a given m e a n line. T h i s correction is m a d e
to be more desirable in viscous flow. O r d i n a t e s a t each radius.
for b o t h the a = 1.0 a n d e = 0.8 are given in F o r a circular arc m e a n line
T a b l e 2.
o~1 = 2.86Cc deg . . . . . . . . . . [28a]
Once the t y p e of section a n d m e a n line are de-
t e r m i n e d , the design m a y be c o n t i n u e d . T h e F o r N A C A a = 1.0 m e a n line
c a m b e r r a t i o (m~/l) find thickness r a t i o (t~/l) are
al = 2.35CL deg . . . . . . . . . [28b]
read from the i n c i p i e n t c a v i t a t i o n c h a r t s cor-
r e s p o n d i n g to the selected section a n d m e a n line. F o r N A C A a = 0.8 m e a n line
T h e section l e n g t h s are c a l c u l a t e d from the thick-
al = 1.15cc deg . . . . . '. . . . [28c]
ness ratios, a n d in this w a y the b l a d e o u t l i n e is
d e t e r m i n e d . I t is q u i t e possible t h a t from cavi- T h e correction from lifting-surface effect is the
t a t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s the blade sections will be too one arising from the free a n d b o u n d vortices. T h e
n a r r o w for s t r e n g t h purposes, especially n e a r the values of 1/D a n d f u n c t i o n s of ~ a t 0.7 r a d i u s are
hub. A c o m p a r i s o n of drag-lift ratio of sections used where t h e y occur in the following f o r m u l a s :
of v a r y i n g thickness indicates t h a t it is best to
l i m i t the t h i c k n e s s - r a t i o from 0.18 to 0.22. If
the b l a d e becomes too narrow, a n a r b i t r a r y blade T h i s correction is m a d e in a n u m b e r of steps.
o u t l i n e m u s t be selected. A n o u t l i n e especially T h e first step i n v o l v e s the b o u n d vortices
good for. m e r c h a n t ships can be o b t a i n e d from
sin ~i
T r o o s t 13-series. t3~b - - 2
W h e r e the o u t l i n e is selected a r b i t r a r i l y , the
c a m b e r is calculated from cz. T h e coefficient of
0.7 eosChcosg) f l~ (p/R)3
Gdx 1j
lift is o b t a i n e d from cfl/D since l/D is n o w k n o w n .
-
An example of o b t a i n i n g c a m b e r rn,, or the c a m b e r ..... [29]

ratio rnJl is as follows :
where
F r o m N A C A R e p o r t 824 (11) for a = 0.8 m e a n
line = a n g u l a r position of blade
CL = 1.0 for mffl = 0.0679 . . . . . . .
a n d for cL = 0.5
[26]
(P/R) 3 = [ x '+ + 0.49--
2 (; cos cos ~ - b 0.7 sin ~ ) .x .l .'/'. [30]

m_~ = 0.0679CL = 0.03395
l
G = n o n d i m e n s i o n a l circulation per blade
T h e c a m b e r , as read from the c a v i t a t i o n c h a r t s equal to z2x~ ut for a f r e e - r u n n i n g pro-
- 2--~A
or as calculated, m u s t be corrected as i n d i c a t e d
in the theoretical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of this paper. peller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [31a ]
F r o m Fig. 7 two corrections are read a n d applied and
as follows :
2xK ~tt
~Y/x for a w a k e - a d a p t e d propeller
m-5~
g (corrected) = klk2 ~ ....... [271 z 2V(1 --wx)
................................. [31b]
T h e abscissa is the e x p a n d e d area ratio (AE/Ao) ( E x c e p t for this p i t c h correction, G is defined as

of the propeller. (Ao is t h e disk area of the pro- (2x~/z) (uJ2 V) for a w a k e - a d a p t e d propeller.)
peller a n d AE is the area of the e x p a n d e d b l a d e T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s are m a d e for a b l a d e in t h e 90-
o u t l i n e times the n u m b e r of blades.) T h e c h a r t deg position, a n d the effect of the o t h e r blades is
is a r r i v e d a t b y collecting all n u m e r i c a l results, d e t e r m i n e d on the b o u n d vortex of this blade.
which are a v a i l a b l e in l i t e r a t u r e , on t h e c u r v a - T h u s for a f o u r - b l a d e d propeller, c a l c u l a t i o n s are
t u r e of the propeller flow. m a d e with # e q u a l to 90, 180, 270, a n d 360 deg.
1.8 a0 = angle of zero lift of m e a n line

F o r circular arc m e a n line:
a0 = 0.13CL (radians) . . . . . . . . [35a]
F o r N A C A a = 1 m e a n line
su = 0.12CL (radians) . . . . . . . . [35b]
1.6
For N A C A a = 0.8 m e a n line
s0 = 0.139CL (radians) . . . . . . . [35c]
1.5 This pitch correction is m a d e a t 0.7 radius and
then the same p e r c e n t a g e change applied to the
other radii.
1.4
r" Ap/D tan (/3~ + s~)o.(
1 + P/D - (tan/3,)0.7 . . . . . [36]
1.3
T h e final pitch can now be completed.
P / D = 7rxtan (/3~ + sl) (1 + P/D ]"'[37]

1.2.
T h e design of the propeller is now complete;
however, some checking m u s t be done. Origi-
nally an a s s u m p t i o n was m a d e t h a t CTi was 2 to 6
I.l per cent ~ e a t e r t h a n CT for the free-running pro-
peller. This a s s u m p t i o n m a y be checked by.
m e a n s of the following relation :
I.o J Cr [38 ]
40 50 60 20 50 go Cvt ~- 1 -- 2eXi . . . . . . . . . . .
O
FIG. i3 PITCH CORRECTION COEFFICIENT (h) where
FOR r/R = 0.7
0.008
is a p p r o x i m a t e l y - - . ...... [38a]
CL
T h e additional angle of a t t a c k sb is equal to the T h e foregoing check, m a d e at 0.7 radius, should

sum of the calculations of these four blade posi- be close. A more a c c u r a t e check is m a d e b y
tions. integrating numerically the following equation:
T h e second step is to correct for the effect of the
1 /x u, u, \ 1
free vortices
CT = S J,hx~ 21~7~
A~ (1 =~2VA)~an
--
2 /3,)dx [391
a : - - s, . .... [321
1 + cos-/3,( 2 -- 1) l dCT,
f~n (1 - e tan/3,) dx
where T h e CT from this e q u a t i o n should be within 1 to 2
s, = /3, -- /3, radians per cent of the CT f r o m thrust.
A check also should be m a d e on the power re-
h is from Fig. 13, where q u i r e m e n t s and efficiency of the propeller. T h e
power coefficient Cp can be calculated for ~{ free-
0 = arctan s~ i 3, running propeller f r o m the following equation :
This additional angle of a t t a c k is then given b y Cp = 8 xK ut 1 +
h tan/3 2VA 2Va/
s~ = 57.3
(1 + t~n ~,) dx
[so-}-(s~)(1._Fcos2/32t(h_ !)- 1) - sol
__. f l (tan/3, + ~) dCv~dx . . . . . . . . . . . . . [40]
( d e g ) . . . [34] 3, h tan/3 dx
RADII PITCH CURVE

e/o IN ,~. I/~,
9S lr862 ~' "'" ,'. 9.0d1-

q\
90 ,E 6 5 9 " - - - - ,--~c--z~-:. . N 9.195
f\\
60 24,$9 .L-- - - - ~ ~ - "' " * 10.097--
-/ "., I~. ..
x ...._ I " .." \ .10667
FIG. 14 DRAWINGOF THE FREE-RUNNING MODEL PROPELLER
Power is then gtven by this formula. A more rigorous approach to the

strength analysis is proposed in reference (26)
p~ = ~_~o/2R27r(I.6,SVa)3Ce.,"
. . . . . [41] and a short s u m m a r y is given in Appendix 3.
Sometimes sections m a y become extremely wide
Once Cr and Cp are determined, the propeller from cavitation considerations and cause blades to
efficiency is easily computed. overlap. I t m a y be found from the more rigorous
strength calculation t h a t the section is greatly
Cr understressed. I t is then desirable to recalculate
,7 - Cp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [421
t h e section length ratio (l/D), "camber ratio
For wake-adapted propellers there is a slight ( m J l ) and thickness ratio (G/l) so as not to have
modification to the equations for the coefficients overlapping blades. The best method is to
of thrust and for power. change the section length and obtain a new coeffi-
fl .,(x u,)0 - cient of lift cL from the lift-length coefficient
(cL1/D). The lift - length - thickness coeffi-
c~ = s ~~ ~, 92-v/ e tan fli)d.~
cient (cLl/t~) is then read off the incipient cavita-
. . . . . [4:3] tion charts until the thickness ratio from the
charts gives the foregoing lift coefficient (see
= f x l (1 -- e tan fli) dCr, i Appendix 1). A good approximation of how
h -d--x-" dx much to change the length of the section can be
c,, = ~
,f,i h :r'-'~_~
u* I (t
- w~) + ~9
u~ 1
made by the following semi-empirical formula:
/ " ~ = l'05"[/r~g~""~ 4 m a x stresss ef

ctinjsc
(1 + t a c t i c ) dx" " - [441
..... [461
-1 z dCr, i The formula arises from the fact t h a t decreasing
x (tan/3~ + e) ~ dx
the length causes the stress to be increased ap-
proximately by the fourth power of the ratio of the
P, = 0/9"2 R2rr (1.688V) 3 Ce.,. [45] lengths. I t should be mentioned t h a t a small
550 ' " ............
change in thickness follows from the cavitation
During the foregoing design steps, a simplified charts. This effect on the stress is approximated
formula was used in obtaining the thickness of the b y the factor 1.05.
sections. Neither the shape of the section nor the Finally, in order to save numerical work, it
centrifugal force was taken into consideration b y should be pointed out t h a t for extremely wide
O'IO I
0.081 ~-
/
Y
I /
0.06 , I /
-/
t--.~j
u 0.04
i
!
/
-- RicJorous Method
------ Approxirna'feMei-hod
%
'~
0'01 -
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 O.G 03 O.B o.g 1.0
r/R
FIG. 15 COMPARISON oF cLl/D FOR A FREE-RUNNING PROPELLER
0.20
I
0.16
I
"'-C.'--
:~o z'~

<0.08
Z/ /
Lu,/v,
Rigorous Method ~
- - ------ Apppoxim~fe Method ~
0.04
0
0.2 0.B 0.4 0.5 0.G 0.q 0.8 0.9 1.0
r/R
FIG. 16 COMPARISON OF INDUCED VELOCITY COMPONENTS FOR A FREE-RUNNING PRO-
PELLER DESIGNED BY THE APi~ROXIMATE AND RIGOROUS METHODS
blades the strength analysis should be m a d e be- absorbs 33,800 shp at 300 r p m and produces 210,
fore the pitch correction (see Appendix 1). 500 lb of thrust. The propeller is a free-running
propeller in a constant wake field; it is shown in
3 D I S C U S S I O N OF EXAMPLES Fig. 14.
As the introduction stated, two examples of the This design was checked b y the use of Lerbs'
design method are presented in Appendixes 1 rigorous induction-factor method as well as b y
and 2. The two examples were chosen because model tests, After checking with the rigorous
they represent diverse types commonly encoun- method for equal values of the thrust-loading
tered b y propeller designers. coefficient CTi, it was found t h a t the hydrody-
T h e first example is t h a t of a high-speed 35- namic pitch from the a p p r o x i m a t e method was
knot vessel with twin screws, each of which 1.2 per cent greater than t h a t of the rigorous
/
/
, /
O.OZ /
(.9
//// \
\
,
%
!
O.OI - - RlcJorous Mefhoct
/
------ Approxima#e M e f h o d
0.2 0.3 0.4 o.5 0.6 0.'/ 0.8 0.9 1.0

r/R
FIG. 17 COMPARISON OF CIRCULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR A F R E E - R U N N I N G PROPELLER
DESIGNED BY APPROXIMATE AND RIGOROUS METHODS
R A D I I PITCH CURVE
%6 IN IN ~-.~-'J
1.00---5.212 12.1 9(, /
!
~ /
9~) - 4.951 'D OUTLINE 12.1St, ~L / L - . - - ~
.90~.691 " ~ - - 12.113 - / - ~ ~
8 0 - - 4 . I 70
70--3.648
""" 1-
60--3. 127
00--2.606
40--2.08~
30--1 .$.64
20--1.042 -- IO.P... I ~ ~ - _
I~ ........... ~D...... :
~--2.151 I
FIG. 18 DRAWING OF WAKE-ADAPTED MODEL PROPELLER

1.3
1.2
~" I.o / ~ . L-"l I I I ~ Troos* S~ries~pen Wa%r

?. ~
"- I I
~
I I I
------ Rigorous and ApproximaJr~ Methods
- - - W~geni_ngenWoke-Adapted (Calculc~ted)
0.Z 0.S 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.g 0.9 1.0 I.I
7R
FIG. 19 COMPARISON OF PITCH DISTRIBUTION FOR PROP]ELLER DESIGNED BY SEVERAL
~}VAKE-ADAPTED METHODS AND BY TROOST OPEN-~VATER SERIES
0.20
1 i __L_ L ! I
I
0.16
i '
k I - - ' - - Wasenin9en Wdke- Adapted (Calculated)
i------ ApproxirnafeMe~hod
I-- Rigorous Mefhod
O.IZ
.oj
- ,, I J
u 0.08
b
1
0.04
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 O.S 0.6 0.] 0.8 o.g 1.0 1.1
r/a
FIG. 20 COMPARISON OF CLI/D FOR A ~VAKE-ADAPTED PROPELLER DI~3SIGNED BY T H R E E
DIFFERENT METHODS
L,
method. Comparisons of the other important The final test of the validity of this method lies
values are given in Figs. 15, 16, and 17. These in the results of model tests conducted at D T M B .
curves of The design conditions of CT and X for this pro-
CLI ~lt ~ta peller were well within testing accuracy. For
D' --
2~' 2v~' a n d G equal CT, X was 0.5 per cent low.
show good over-all agreement.. The largest dis- The second example, which is in Appendix 2,
agreement occurs near the hub, where inherent is t h a t of a 21-knot single-screw merchant ship
differences exist between the methods. Differ- which absorbs 17,500 shp at 102 rpm and pro-
ences near the hub lose significance in the final de- duces 237,000 lb. of thrust. For this ship a wake-
sign because of the large fillets required in fairing adapted propeller has been designed to meet the
the blades into the hub. conditions of a typical wake distribution in which
0.24
0.20
Uolv,
~..,.~
=,.~=.,=..==-.-~
0.16
..>
0.12
>
/ut/v
0.08
RicJorous H e f h o d
------ A p p r o x i m a t e Me~hod
0.04
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 05/ 0.8 0.9 1.0

r/R
FIG. 21 COMPARISON OF INDUCED-VELOCITY COMPONENTS FOR A WAKE-ADAPTED PRO-
PELLER DESIGNED BY APPROXIMATE AND RIGOROUS METHODS
the screw is directly behind the stem of the ship.

T h e design is shown in Fig. 18.
0.03
This design, like the previous one, was checked
by the induction-factor method and model tests;
in addition, Van NIanen's method and Troost's
curves were used as a comparison.
Z J/ rFi ,~--i
Starting with a basis of equal thrust loading !l !x~!
coefficient, as with the free-running example, a 0.02 I ~ I l P I I I ',,J~T-
difference of only 0.2 per cent in pitch resulted be-
tween the rigorous and approximate methods. LD
This is well within the accuracy of the methods. 1 I t I i ~ i I I
The pitch obtained using Troost's open water pro- i llilp itl~rl
peller curves and the radial wake distribution 0,01 I I I i 1 I i t i I I i%
show t h a t the design b y Lerbs' approximate
method is correct at the 0.7 radius (Fig. 19).
i!iJk[! !i!~
The pitch difference between Van NIanen's
rllP P r [ ]~
methods and this method, it is felt, is due to the
il ~1 I I II
fact t h a t a pitch correction for lifting surface I i I i
effect is not considered in Van M a n e n ' s method. 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 O.S 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 LO
Turning now to the other curves, Figs. 20, r'/R
21, and 22, the differences in
FIG. 22 COMPARISON OF C I R C U L A T I O N D I S T R I B U T I O N FOR '
CL[ IAt .Ua A WAKE-ADAPTED PROPELLER DESIGNED BY APPROXI-
--,--,--, and G MATE AND RIGOROUS METHODS
D 2V 2V
closely resemble those in the free-running ex-
ample. T h e small difference between the cLl/D pellers do not indicate the sufficiency of their de-
curves for the a p p r o x i m a t e method and Van sign, self-propulsion tests were conducted on a
M a n e n ' s method substantiates the conclusion ship model. T h e design conditions of Cr and X
t h a t lifting-surface theory accounts for the differ- were within testing accuracy. Not considering
ence in pitch ratios. testing accuracy, the pitch of this propeller
Since open water tests for wake-adapted pro'- would be less t h a n 1 per cent high.
A PROPELLER DESIGN M E T H O D 547
CONCLUSIO NS thank M r s . M a r t h a Peabody for her untiring

All propeller designers are interested in pro- efforts at preparing the manuscript and its many
viding the most efficient propulsion for their ships. tables.
We believe t h a t the method presented in this pa- B I B L I O G R A P H Y
per has several advantages that will ease the de-
signer's problems. Let us summarize the points 1 " T h e Design of' Propellers," by J. G.
as follows : Hill, Trans. S N A M E , vol. 57, 1949, pp. 143-170.
1 The method is well based on hydrodynamic 2 "On the T h e o r y o f Screws with Wide
principles. Blades," b y H. Ludwieg and I. Ginzel, Aerody-
2 It has shortened the laborious part of namische Versuchsanstalt, Goettingen, Germany,
Lerbs' rigorous method without affecting ad- Rep. 44/A/08, 1944.
versely the accuracy of the results. B y so doing, 3 "Propeller Pitch Correction Arising from
it'has reduced the amount of time and effort re- Lifting Surface Effect," by H. W. Lerbs, David
quired in the first part of the design procedure. T a y l o r Model Basin, Washington, D.C., Report
3 I t is a method t h a t has wide application for 942, 1955.
merchant vessels and warships. 4 "Moderately Loaded Propellers with a
4 I t provides the missing link, deficiency of Finite Number of Blades and an Arbitrary Dis-
pitch, which has plagued the successful applica- tribution of Circulation," b y H. W. Lerbs, Trans.
tion of theory to propeller design for years. S N A M E , vol. 60, 1952, pp. 73-117.
5 The method has been proven successful not 5 "Open Water Test Series wit& Modern
only by a comparison with other methods but Propeller Forms," by L. Troost, Trans. North
with the results of m a n y model tests over the last East Coast Institution of Engineers and Ship-
two years. builders, vol. 67, 19.52.
Although this method represents a practical 6 " T h e Design of Wake-Adapted Screws and
solution to the propeller design problem, there re- Their Behavior Behind the Ship," by J. D. Van
main some aspects of the theory that require more Manen and W. P. Van Lammeren, Trans. Institu-
research. One involves a rigorous determination tion of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland,
of the-change of curvature of flow over each blade vol. 98, part 6, 1955.
section, which would necessitate the development 7 "An Introduction to the Vortex T h e o r y of
of a rigorous lifting-surface theory. Other related Propellers," by K. H. W. Thomas, Trans. In-
studies are needed to determine the relation of stitute of Marine Engineers, vol. 60, no. 7, 1948.
blade deflection and skew effect on blade strength. 8 "Principles of Naval Architecture," edited
The list is long, and only the foregoing examples by H. E. Rossell and L. B. Chapman, THE SO-
are given to indicate the considerable amount of CIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE EN-
work still to be done. GINEERS, New York, N.Y., "Propulsion and
Propellers," by K. E. Schoenherr, vol. 2, 1939.
9 " O n - t h e Vortex T h e o r y of Screw Pro-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT pellets," by S. Goldstein, Proceedings of the
This paper would not have been possible with- Royal Society of London, series A. vol., 63, 1929.
out the assistance of m a n y members of the David 10 " T h e Lift Distribution of Swept-Back
Taylor Model Basin staff and the permission of Wings," by J. Weissinger, ZWB, Forschungsber-
the Director, Capt. W. H. Leahy, USN. The icht No. 1553, 1942, translation in NACA T M
authors wish to express their sincerest apprecia- 1120, 1947.
tion to Dr. H. W. Lerbs for the opportunity of 11 " S u m m a r y of'Airfoil D a t a , " by I. H.
working with him in developing the design Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff, and L. S. Stivers,
method. This paper would not have been possi- Jr., NACA Report No. 824, 1945.
ble without his technical guidance. T h e y also 12 " T h e Speed and Power of Ships," by D.
appreciate the encouragement of Capt. H. E. W. Taylor, 3rd ed., U.S. Government Printing
Saunders, USN (Ret.), Dr. F. H. Todd, Mr. J. B. Office, Washington, D.C., 1943.
Hadler and Commander E. R. Meyer, USN. 13 "Resistance, Propulsion, and Steering of
The assistance of the propeller Branch, espe- Ships," by W. P. A. Van Lammeren, L. Troost,
cially Mr. A. J. Tachmindji and Mr. W. H. Norley, and J. G. Koning, H. Stare, Haarlem, Holland,
were of utmost importance in the preparation of 1948.
this paper. We also wish to acknowledge the 14 "A Reanalysis of the Original Test D a t a
efforts of Mr. G. R. Stun'tz and members of the for the Taylor Standard Series," by M. Gertler,
Surface Powering Branch in testing and analyzing U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
the wake-adapted propeller. Lastly, we wish to D.C., 1954.
548 A PROPELLER DESIGN. METHOD
15 "A Relationship for Preliminary Propeller C~ --coefficient for estimating blade thick-
D i a m e t e r , " b y E. Burtner, Journal of the Ameri- ness
can Society of Naval Engineers, Inc., vol. 65, no. 3, Ce - - p o w e r coefficient
1953. C~i --nonviscous power coefficient
16 " T h e Design of Ship Screws of O p t i m u m Cvs - - p o w e r coefficient based on ship speed
Diameter for an Unequal'Velocity Field," by J. D. Cr - - t h r u s t coefficient
Van M a n e n and L. Troost, Trans. S N A M E , vol. Cr~ --nonviscous t h r u s t coefficient
60, 1952, pp. 442-460. Crs - - t h r u s t coefficient based on ship speed
17 "Longitudinal Vibrations of Marine Pro- Crs, --nonviscous t h r u s t coefficient based on
pulsion-Shafting Systems," by J. K a n e and R. T. ship speed
MeGoldrick, Trans. S N A M E , vol. 57, 1949, pp. c - - m o m e n t of inertia ([yo) coefficient
193-232. cr - - l i f t coefficient of blade section
18 " H e r M a j e s t y ' s Yacht Britannia," by D - - p r o p e l l e r diameter
Victor Shepheard, Quarterly Transactions of the f --blade-thickness coefficient
Institute of N a v a l Architects, vol. 96, no. 3, 1954. G --nondimensional circulation per blade
19 "Design of the M a r i n e r - T y p e Ship," b y h --pitch-correction coefficient
V. L. Russo and E. K. Sullivan, Trans. S N A M E , k~ --camber-correction coefficient
vol. 61, 1953, pp. 98-166. k2 - - c a m b e r - c o r r e c t i o n coefficient
20 "An Experimental and Theoretical In- I~o,Ivo --blade-section-area moments of inertia "
vestigation, of Propeller Shaft Failures," by N. H. l --blade-section length
Jasper and L. A. Rupp, Trans. S N A M E , vol. 60, AI~o,.Ttlrb,
1952, pp. 314-365. M~o,~Iuo - - b e n d i n g m o m e n t s on blade sections
21 "Propeller Forces Exciting Hull Vibra- m - - o r d i n a t e of mean line
tion," b y F. M. Lewis and A. J. Taehmindji, rn~ - - m a x i m u m camber of mean line
Trans. S N A M E , vol. 62, 1954, pp. 397-417. mJl - - c a m b e r ratio
22 " T h e Design of Screw Propellers with n - - r e v o l u t i o n s per minute, r p m
Special Reference to the Single-Screw Ship," by Po - - p o w e r pei- blade
G. S. Baker, Trans. of the Institute of Naval Pe --effective horsepower, ehp
Architects, vol. 76, 1934. Ps - - s h a f t horsepower, shp
23 " T h e Induced Efficiency of O p t i m u m Pro- P/D - - p i t c h ratio
pellers H a v i n g a Finite N u m b e r of Blades," b y P/Dt - - u n c o r r e c t e d pitch ratio
K. N. K r a m e r (Induzierte Wirkungsgrade yon p - - h y d r o s t a t i c pressure at section in
Best-Luftschrauben endlicher Blattzahl), NACA feet of water
Technical Memorandltm No. 884, 1939. p, - - a t m o s p h e r i c pressure in feet of water
24 " T h e Loss of Energy of a Propeller in a Q " - - p r o p e l l e r torque
Locally Varying Wake Field," b y H. W. Lerbs, R - - m a x i m u m radius
David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D.C., R~ --resistance of ship
R e p o r t 862, 1953. r - - r a d i u s of any propeller blade section
25 "Propeller Strength Calculation," b y J. A. Sc --allowable stress
Romson, dl/[arine Engineer and Naval Architect, T --propeller thrust
vol. 75, 1952. T~ ' - - t h r u s t per blade
26 "An Approximate M e t h o d of Obtaining T~ --nonviscous thrust
Stress in a Propeller Blade," b y W. B. Morgan, t - - t h r u s t - d e d u c t i o n fraction
David T a y l o r Model Basin, Washington, D.C., to - - p r o j e c t e d thickness on axis
R e p o r t 919, 1954. t,~ - - m a x i m u m blade thickness at tip
27 "Stresses in Propeller Blades," by W. G - - m a x i m u m blade thickness
Muckle, The Ship Builder and fllarine Engine u - - i n d u c e d velocity
Builder, vol. 47, no. 388, 1941, pp. 336-341. u~ - - a x i a l component of induced velocity
ut - - t a n g e n t i a l component of induced ve-
NOMENCLATURE locity
V - - s h i p speed
The following nomenclature is used in the paper:
Va - - s p e e d of advance
A - - a r e a of blade section V~ --inflow velocity to blade section
AE/Ao - - e x p a n d e d blade-area ratio Wo --effective wake fraction "
a - - b l a d e section-area coefficient w~ --local wake fraction (circumferential
b - - m o m e n t of inertia (I~o) coefficient average of axial w a k e )
X - - n o n d i m e n s i o n a l r a d i u s (r / R) 13~ - - h y d r o d y n a m i c p i t c h angle
X, --distance along chord - specific w e i g h t
Y - - o r d i n a t e of section m e a s u r e d p e r p e n d i c - --drag-lift ratio
u l a r to m e a n line -- p r o p e l l e r efficiency
g - - n u m b e r of b l a d e s ~ - - i d e a l p r o p e l l e r efficiency
c~0 - - a n g l e of a t t a c k for zero lift --goldstein fanction
ogi - - a n g l e of a t t a c k f r o m friction a n d ideal X - - a d v a n c e coefficient b a s e d on speed of
angle of att'ack advance
o~2 - - a n g l e o f a t t a c k f r o m lifting-surface X~ - - x tan/3~
effect X~ - - a d v a n c e coefficient b a s e d on ship s p e e d
o' b - - a n g l e of a t t a c k for effect of b o u n d p - - d e n s i t y of w a t e r
vortices - - c a v i t a t i o n n u m b e r b a s e d on r e s u l t a n t
c~l- - - a n g l e of a t t a c k for effect of free vor- velocity
tices - - f i n a l p i t c h angle
- - a d v a n c e angle ~b - - s h a f t angle
Appendix 1
FREE-RUNNING NONOPTIMUM T
= = 0.4O4 . . . . [4]
PROPELLER DESIGN FOR A
cT (.~D~~_(1.6SSVa)~
TWIN-ScREW SHIP \5)
, Step I
CT~ ~ . 1.04CT = 0.514 . . . . . . . . . [li]
From model tests
F r o m Fig. 6
V = 35 k n o t s .
n = 300 r p m ~ = 0.825 '-
P~ = 32,600 s h p p e r s h a f t
R, = 200,000 Ib p e r s h a f t Step 3
w0 = 0 (thrust wake) ~T ell
t = O.O5 C a l c u l a t i o n of ~ a a ' G, a n d ~ -
VA = V(1 -- w0) --- V = 35 k n o t s . . . . . . . [2]
F i v e b l a d e s Were chosen for t h i s p r o p e l l e r f r o m A t 0.7 r a d i u s
vibration considerations.
~ki - - - 0.365. . . . . . . . . . . [ga]
F r o m B v - - 6 d i a g r a m s in reference (5) t h e
o p t i m u m d i a m e t e r is e q u a l to 12.88 ft. T h i s
d i a m e t e r was r e d u c e d 3 p e r c e n t to 12.5 f t to ob- X~
tan ~ - - 0.521 .......... [91
t a i n t h e o p t i m u m b e h i n d d i a m e t e r . T h e result-
ing c l e a r a n c e s were a d e q u a t e . T h e h u b d i a m e t e r
was t a k e n as 0.2R (xh - 0.2). . ~o~,~ ( P / D ) ~ = ~r x t a n B, = 1.147 . . . . . . [9]
Step 2
T h e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n is one t h a t h a s been f o u n d
C a l c u l a t i o n of design coefficients d e s i r a b l e for t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n . I t is p a r a b o l i c
from t h e h u b t o 0.6 r a d i u s , t h e n a s t r a i g h t line to
101.27 VA
X = 7rnD - 0.301 . . . . . . . . . [3] t h e tip. T h e p i t c h a t 0.7 r a d i u s is equal to t h a t
o b t a i n e d from E q u a t i o n [9]. T h e t a n N from
t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n is given in c o l u m n 3 of t h e follow-
r = a - ~R~
? = 210,500 lbs.. . . . . . [5] ing t a b l e :
550 A PROPELLER D E S I G N M E T H O D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Esti-
mated Corrected sin ut x
x t a n fl sin t a n 31 dOTe t a n fli sin fli (fli - ~) 2 V~
0.2 1.505 0.833 1.985 0.122 1.972 0.892 0.117 0.125 0.664
0.3 1.003 0.708 1.319 0.315 1.311 0.795 0.132 0.146 0.997
0.4 0.753 0.601 0.979 0.561 0.973 0.697 0.126 0.147 1.329
0.5 0.602 0.516 0.770 0.794 0.765 0.608 0.111 0.131 1.661
0.6 0.502 0.448 0.626 0.949 0.622 0.528 0.0915 0.108 1.993
0.7 0.430 0.395 0.521 0.984 0.518 0.460 0.0718 0.0836 2.326
0.8 0.376 0.352 0.443 0.889 0.440 0.403 0.0548 0.0627 2.657
0.9 0.334 0.317 0.382 0.653 "0.380 0.355 0.0400 0.0448 2.990
1.0 0.301 0.288 0.333 -- 0.331 0.314 0.0272 0.0297 3.322
lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Simp-
son S
X lit 1 X K - - u~ multi-
x X 2 Va K 2 VA dCT, pliers Product cos 3i
0.2 0.539 2.538 1.135 0.0284 0.122 1 0.122 0.452
0.3 0.851 2.545 1.035 0.0453 0.309 4 1.236 0.607
0.4 1.182 2.571 0.988 0.0581 0.550 2 1.100 0.717
0.5 1.530 2.611 0.963 0.0631 0.772 4 3.088 0.794
0.6 1.885 2.681 0.937 0.0607 0.916 2 1.832 0.849
0.7 2.242 2.755 0.900 0.0527 0.945 4 3.780 0.888
0.8 2.594 2.841 0.830 0.0416 0.864 2 1.728 0.915
0.9 2.945 2.924 0.667 0.0269 0.634 4 2.536 0.935
1.0 3.292 3.02l -- -- -- 1 -- 0.949
Z Col 16 = 15.422
CT~ = ~-. X 15.422 = 0.514
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
47r eL1 eLl
- - COS fli
x z G D f t,/D t, P +pa sin 2 fl
0.2 1.136 0.0114 0.0599 0.788 0.0461 1.299 43.75 0.694
0.3 1. 525 0. 0182 0.0812 0.665 0.0394 2.066 43.13 0.502
0.4 1. 802 O. 0232 0.0886 0.551' 0.0331 2.677 42.50 0.362
0.5 1. 995 0. 0251 0.0823 0.443 0.0272 3.026 41.88 0.266
0.6 2. 134 0. 0243 0.0687 0.344 0.0218 3.151 41.25 0.201
0.7 2.232 0.0211 0.0525 0.25I 0.0167 3.143 40.63 0.156
0.8 2.299 0.0166 0.0369 0.162 0.0119 3.108 40.00 0.124
0.9 2. 350 0. 0108 0.0215 0.079 0.0073 2.945 39.38 0.101
1.0 2.385 -- -- 0 0 0030 0 38.75 0.0831
Column 12 Fig. 3
1 E q u a t i o n [8] 13 x X C o l 8 X Col 12
3 E q u a t i o n [9] 14 E q u a t i o n [10], 8 X Col 13 X Col 10
4 By calculating E q u a t i o n s [10] and [11] f r o m trigo-
nometric functionsof/3 and 3i and Kfrom the Goldstein Step 4
function, Fig. 3, dCT, is obtained. W h e n numerically Calculation for cLl
integrated by S i m p s o n ' s rule, this gives CT~ = 0.530. D
T h e c o l u m n s for these steps are omitted b u t would 17 F r o m Col 5
be similar to columns 6 t h r o u g h 16. This second ap- 18 2.513 X Col 17
proximation is necessary because the design Cv~ =
19 E q u a t i o n [31a] = 2 X Col 13
0.514. D
5 E q u a t i o n [12] 20 E q u a t i o n [20], 27r X Col 19 X Col 17/Col 10, faired
7 F r o m 3~ and/3 in C o l u m n s 1 and 5
Col 6 X Col 7 Step 5
8 E q u a t i o n [1l]
Col 2
Calculation to estimate m a x i m u m thickness and to ob-
9 1/Col 1
tain CLl/l:- for use in the incipient cavitation charts:
Column tolD from E q u a t i o n [24]

10 Col 9 - - C o l 8 1 a / C1Pb
I1 F r o m E q u a t i o n [7]
to/D = ~ ~ / 4 . ~ S c 0.0577
A PROPELLER D E S I G N M E T H O D 551
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Simp-
son's
cos 2 multi-
x ( ~ - ~) m~/1 t,/1 cr I/D pliers F(I/D)
0.2 0.986 0.568 0.0148 0.160 0.2078 0.2883 1 0.2883
0.3 0.983 0.406 0.0145 0.105 0.2169 0.3744 4 1,4976
0.4 0.984 0.288 0.0130 0,070 0.1874 0.4728 2 0.9456
0.5 0.988 0.208 0.0102 0.049 0.1483 0.5550 4 2.2200
0.6 0.992 0.154 0.0078 0.036 0.1134 0.6058 2 1.2116
0.7 0.992 0.118 0.0060 0.028 0.0880 0.5966 4 2.3864
0.8 0.997 0.0918 0.0045 0.022 0.0684 0.5395 2 1,0790
0.9 0.998 0.0732 0.0037 0.018 0.0530 0.4057 4 1.6228
1.0 0.999 0.0594 0 0 -- -- 1 --
E Col 33 = 11.251
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Corrected Original Final
x Xl k~ k2 m~/l l 1 G m~
0.2 0.394 0.99 1.36 0.0199 3.604 3.60 0.560 0.056
O. 3 O. 393 O. 99 1.64 0.0235 4.680 4.49 0.449 0.091
0.4" 0.389 0.98 1.93 0.0246 5.910 5.28 0.348 0.112
O. 5 O. 383 O. 98 2.24 0.0224 6.938 5.87 0.258 0.120
0.6 0.373 0.96 2.61 0.0195 7.573 6.10 0.184 0.115
0.7 0.363 0.95 3.05 0.0174 7.458 5.67 0.120 0.100
0.8 ' 0.352 0.94 3.59 0.0152 6.744 4.69 0.070 0.072.
0.9 0.342 0.93 4.25 0.0146 5.071 3.20 .0.041 0.048
1.0 -- - - -- -- -- 0 0.029 0
Sc = 12,500 (see note u n d e r E q u a t i o n [24]) 34 F r o m Col 11

35 Fig. 7, AE/Ao = 1.21 and Xi f r o m Col 34
Now from E q u a t i o n [25]
36 Fig. 7, AE/Ao = 1.21
t = 0.003 + 0.0547f 37 E q u a t i o n 27, Col 28 X Col 35 X Col 36
21 Table 1 38 D X Col 31
22 E q u a t i o n [25]
23 Col 2 0 / C o l 22
Step 8
At this p o i n t the s t r e n g t h calculations s h o w n in Ap-
Step 6 pendix 3 were completed.
Calculation of ~ for use in incipient cavitation charts: 39 Faired values taken f r o m Col 46, Appendix 3, in feet
24 Pa = 33 ft, eenterline of shaft is 12 ft-below surface 40 Faired values from Col 49, Appendix 3, in feet
of water, so p = 12 -- r 41 Faired values from Col 51, Appendix 3, in feet
25 F r o m Col 2
Step 9
26 F r o m 31 and 3 in Col 1 and 5
I n order to complete the design three corrections m u s t
64.4 Col 24 X Col 25
27 E q u a t i o n [22!, X be m a d e to the pitch. Corrections for friction and ideal
1 99 Col 26 angle of a t t a c k are first Made.
- - (35 X 1.688) 2
2
Column
Step 7 42 F r o m Col 5
T h e c a m b e r and thickness ratios m u s t now be obtained. 43 E q u a t i o n [28e] = 1.15 X Col 47 (Appendix 3)
As will be shown, these values of tz/l and mz/l as are oh-" T h e third correction to pitch is for surface lifting effect.
tained in this step gave a v e r y wide blade. This was
46 Col 19
ignored pending the results of the s t r e n g t h calculations.
I n order to calculate (P/R) 3, E q u a t i o n [30] m u s t be
T h e incipient c h a r t s used are those for a thickness form
evaluated for each radius using the values of liD and
with N A C A 66 nose and parabolic tail and with a = 0.8
t31 at 0.7 radius as c o n s t a n t s (liD = 0.454, cos/3, = 0.888,
mean line, Fig. 9.
sin /31 = 0.460).
28 F r o m Fig. 9 using Col 27 and 23
Values for # are taken from the following table:
29 F r o m Fig. 9 using Col 27 and 23
30 Col 23 ) Col 29 Blade
31 Col 2 0 / C o l 30 number t* sin tL cos
33 This column for calculating the expanded area ratio. i 90 1 0
(A~/Ao) is needed in correcting the camber. 2 162 O. 309 --0. 952
3 234 --O. 809 --0. 588
AE/Ao = 2ZTr_f z 1J~l/D dx = 3--1~rZ Col 33 = 1.21 4 306 --0.809 O. 588
5 18 O. 309 O. 952
552 A PROPELLER .DESIGN M E T H O D
42 43 44 45 46 47 48
tan
x fl~ a, fll + al (fl~ + a,) G xs (P/R)*
0.2 63.12 0.24 63.36 1.993 0.0114 0.04 0.308
0.3 52.66 0.26 52.92 1.323 0.0182 0.09 0.221
0.4 44.22 0.24 44.46 0.981 0.0232 0.16 0.161
0,5 37.42 0.20 37.62 0.771 0.0251 0.25 0.122
0.6 31.89 0.16 32.05 0.626 0.0243 0.36 0.101
0.7 27.39 0.13 27.52 0.521 0.0211 0.49 0.094
0.8 23.76 0.11 23.87 0.443 0.0166 0.64 0.101
0.9 20.78 0.05 20.83 0.380 0.0108 0.81 0.122
1.0 18.31 0 18.31 0.331 0 1.0 0.161
53 54 55 56 57 58
Simp-
son's
multi-
X CL e 1 -- e t a n fli dCT pl i e rs F(cT)
0.2 0.208 0.0385 0.924 0.113 1 ,0.113
0.3 0.226 0.0354 0.954 0.295 4 1.180
0.4 0.210 0.0381 0.963 0.530 2 1.060
0.5 0.175 0.0457 0.965 0.745 -4 2.980
0.6 0.141 0.0567 0.965 0.884 2 1.768
0.7 0.116 0.0690 0,964 0,911 4 3.644
0.8 0. 0983 0.0814 0.964 0.833 2 1.666
0.9 0. 0840 0.0952 0.964 0.611 4 2.444
1.0 0
Z Col 58 = 14.855
C~ = I = 0.495 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [39]
F o r t h i s p a p e r ( P / R ) 3, E q u a t i o n [30], a n d ab, E q u a t i o n 59 60 61 62
[29], are shown o n l y for b l a d e no. 1. Simp-
s o n ts
Column multi-
48 E q u a t i o n [30] for b l a d e no. 1, ( P / R ) 3 = [x s -- 1.4x + x t a n 3~ + e dC~ pl i e rs F(Cv)
0.696]~t 0.2 2.011 0.163 1 0.163
0.3 1.346 0.415 4 1.660
49 50 51 52 0.4 1.011 0.738 2 1.476
Simp- 0.5 0.811 1.040 4 4.160
SOn'S 0.6 0.679 1,239 2 2.478
0.7 0.587 1,290 4 5.160
x G/(P/R) 3 pliers P/D 0.8 0.521 1,197 2 2.394
0.9 0.475 0.902 4 3.608
0.2 0.037 1 0.037 1.317 1.0 - - - - I --
0.3 0.082 4 0,328 1.312
0.4 0.144 2 0,288 1.297 E Col 62 = 21.099
0.5 0.206 4 0.824 1.273
0.6 0.241 2 0.482 1.242 Up = 1 E = 0.703 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [401
30
0.7 0.224 4 0.896 1.205
0.8 0.164 2 0.328 1.167
0.9 0.089 4 0.356 1.131
1.0 0 1 0 1.095 20~ i
a/ -- ..................... [32]
Col 51 = 3.539 1 + coast, (2 - 1)
Column a~ = fl~ -- B = 0.0719 r a d i a n for x = 0.7
49 Col 4 6 / C o l 48 h = 1.31 f r o m Fig. 13 for O = 73.4 . . . . . . . [33]
C a l c u l a t i o n of ab
2 X 0.0719
O. 1044 al = = 0.1016 r a d i a n
(Orb)blade 1 -- - - - E Col 51 = 0.01232 . . . . . . . . . [29]
30
ab~ = 0.00200
aba ~ 0 C a l c u l a t i o n of as
ab~ = --0.00163
as = 57.3[ab + a] -- a~ -- a0] . . . . . . . . [34]
~bs = --0.00653
a~ = Zab~ = 0.00616 r a d i a n s a0 = 0.132cc = 0.0153 . . . . . . . . . . . [35c]
C a l c u l a t i o n of a/ as = 57.3[0.00616 + 0.1016 -- 0.0719 -- 0.0153] = 1.18 d eg
APID'~ ( t a n (/3i -{- a2)'~ 55 tan 131 from Col 5

(I+wb-/=~ tT~, /0~ 56 Col 14 X Col 55, Equation [39]
tan (27.39 -1- 1.18) Column
= 1.052... [36[
0.518 59 Col 5 + Col 54
60 Col 59 X Col 14/Col 1, Equation [40]
Column
52 Equation [37]--faired, 1.0527r X x X Col 45 Ps = (0/2) -~R27r(1.688Va)sCp = 32,400 shp . . . [41]
Cr 0.495
- 0.704 . . . . . . . . . . . [42]
S t e p 10 Cp 0.703
Check Cr, and calculate propeller efficiency, Cp and Ps. The final faired values of this propeller design are given
in Col 39, 40, 41, and 52. Thickness and camber distribu-
tion for the section and mean line used are given in Table
Column 2. A drawing of the model propeller is shown in Fig. 14,
53 Col 47 (Appendix 3) of which the blade-area ratio is 0.94 and the full scale
54 Equation [38a], 0.008/Col 53 diameter is 12.5 ft.
Appendix 2
~)ESIGN OF A WAKE-2~DAPTED Cr~ ~ 1.03Cr = 0.882 . . . . . . . . . [6]
PROPELLER FOR A SINGLE-SCREW SHIP
F r o m Fig. 6
From model tests: "
n~ = 0.76
V = 21 k n o t s
Pe = 13,000 e h p For a Wake-adapted propeller the design
wo = 0.20 coefficients a r e b a s e d o n ship speed a n d w a k e a t
t = 0.15 e a c h section.
From design specifications: 101.27 V
X~ = ~rnD 0.316 . . . . . . . . [13]
P s = 17,500 s h p
(Ps)m,~ = 21,000 a t 109 r p m
CT, = T V) 2 = 0.548 . . . . . . [15]
F r o m v i b r a t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o u r b l a d e s were
chosen.
~R 2 ( 1 . 6 8 8
T o h a v e 20 p e r c e n t of t h e d i a m e t e r as t i p
Crs~ -~- 1.03CTs = 0.565 . . . . . . . . . [17]
c l e a r a n c e , t h e d i a m e t e r is r e s t r i c t e d to 21 ft.
T h i s d i a m e t e r is i n c r e a s e d 5 p e r c e n t for c a l c u -
l a t i n g t h e o p t i m u m r p m (see s e c t i o n 2). A check t a n [3 = xXS (1 -- w~) = 0.316 (1 --x w~) . . . [14]
o n t h e o p t i m u m r p m f r o m T r o o s t gives 102 r p m .
From Burtner's formula Xs (1 - - w0)~(1 - - w . ) ~
t a n fl~ ~ -- =
= (50P,,'2"~ 6
rpm \1.05D / = 102 . . . . . . . . [1] 0.372 (1 - wD~... [16]
x
T h e b l a d e was r a k e d 7.5 deg for c l e a r a n c e X~ = x t a n fi, . . . . . . . . . . . . . [7]
reasons.
C a l c u l a t i o n of d e s i g n coefficients for o b t a i n i n g T h e s o l u t i o n for t h e c o r r e c t t a n 8~ a t e a c h see-
t h e first a p p r o x i m a t i o n to t a n fl,: t i o n is g i v e n in t h e following.
Va = V(1 -- w0) = 16,8 k n o t s . . . . . . . . . . [21
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
101.27 VA tan sin tan tan sin
X- rn~ - 0.253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [3] x 1 - w. /7 ~t h h ~
0.2 0.576 0.910 0.673 1.412 1.418 0.817
P. 0.3 0.656 0.691 0.568 1.004 1.008 0.710
T = 325.86 V(1 - t~) = 237,300 lb . . . . [5] 0.4 0.712 0.562 0.490 0.785 0.788 0.619
0.5 0.751 0.475 0.429 0.645 0.648 0.544
0.6 0.779 0.410 0.380 0.547 0.549 0.482
T 0.7 0.800 0.361 0.340 0.475 0.477 0.431
CT = = 0.856 . . . . . . . . . [4] 0.8 0.815 0.322 0.307 0.420 0.422.0.389
R 2 ~ ( I 688 ~ ) 2 0.9 0.826 0.290 0.279 0.376 0.377 0.353
1.0 0.839 0.265 0.256 0.341 0.342 0.323
(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Simp-
SOH~S
sin multi-
x ( ~ -- fl) 1/kl ~ ut/2 V dCr,~ pliers F(Cr,~)
0.2 0.217 3.53 1.080 0.152 0.126 1 0.126
0.3 0.184 3.30 1.005 0.151 0.290 4 1.160
0.4 0.155 3.17 0.971 0.139 0.487 2 0.974
0.5 0.131 3.09 0.946 0.125 0.689 4 2.756
0.6 0.113 3.04 0.916 0.112 0.881 2 1.762
0.7 0.099 3.00 0.866 0.100 1.025 4 4.100
0.8 0.088 2.96 0.775 0.091 1.101 2 2.202
0.9 0.078 2.94 0.604 0.082 0.984 4 3.936
1.0 0.070 -- 0 -- 0 1 0
Z Col 13 = 17.016
0.1
CT,~ = ~ - ~ = 0.567
(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

eLl cJ cos
x cos fl~ D f G/D G p -- Pa (fl~ -- fl)
0.2 0.577 0.124 0.788 0.0440 2.81 57.9 0.976
0.3 0.704 0.126 0.665 0.0376 3.35 56.9 0.983
0.4 0.786 0.118 0.551 0.0317 3.72 55.8 0.988
0.5 0.839 0.107 0.443 0.0260 4.12 54.8 0.991
0.6 0.875 0.095 0.344 0.0209 4.55 53.7 0.994
0.7 0.903 0.081 0.251 0.0161 5.03 52.7 0.995
0.8 0.921 0.067 0.162 0.0114 5.88 51.6 0.996
0.9 0.935 0.048 0.079 0.0071 6.62 50.6 0.997
1.0 0.946 0 0.039 0.0030 -- 49.5 0.998
(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

Column x 0.8a tx/l m./l CL I/D
1 F r o m wake analysis of ship 0.2 4.256 0.20 0.220
2 E q u a t i o n [14] 0.3 2.273
3 F r o m Col 2 0.4 1.391
4 E q u a t i o n [16] 0.5 0.933
0.6 0.664 0.531 0.097 0.030 0.441 0.215
5 F r o m t a n Ch in Co14, Ctsl was found equal to 0.555 b y 0.7 0.493 0.394 0.070 0.024 0.352 0.230
the same m e t h o d as given in Col 5 t h r o u g h 13. The 0.8 0.378 0.302 0.050 0.020 0.294 0.228
t a n /3~ was then corrected b y E q u a t i o n [12]. 0.9 0.298 0.238 0.037 0.017 0.245 0. 196
6 F r o m Col 5 1.0 0.238 . . . . .
(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

(m~fl)
x l/D G/l cL mz/l kl k2 corrected
O. 2 O. 220 O. 200 O. 564 0.0383 0.920 1.00 0.0349
O. 3 O. 249 O. 151 O. 506 0.0344 0.940 1.12 0.0360
0.4 0.271 0.117 0.435 0.0295 0.946 1.31 0.0367
O. 5 O. 284 O. 0915 O. 377 0.0256 0.953 1.52 0.0370
O. 6 O. 289 O. 0723 O. 329 0.0223 0.957 1.71 0.0363
O. 7 O. 284 O. 0567 O. 285 0.0194 0.960 1.85 0.0345
O. 8 O. 260 O. 0438 O. 258 0.0175 0.962 1.90 0.0320
O. 9 O. 209 O. 0340 O. 230 0.0156 0.964 1.90 0.0291
1.0 0 -- --
Column Column
7 From Col2and5 14 From Col5"
8 F r o m E q u a t i o n [7] 15 E q u a t i o n [21]
9 Fig. 2 16 Table 1
10 E q u a t i o n [19] 17 E q u a t i o n [25]
11 E q u a t i o n [18] 18 C o l ' 1 5 / C o l 17
13 Col 11 X Col 12 19 Pressure in feet of w a t e r on section w h e n blade is in
The lift-length coefficient and the thickness distribution vertical position. Distance from w a t e r surface to
m u s t be calculated, center of shaft is 24 ft.
/ 20 F r o m Col 2 and 5
to _ 1 2 / C~Pb - 0.055 . . . . . . . . . [24] The N A C A 66 nose with parabolic tail and a = 0.8
D D ~ ] 4.123nSc mean line will be used in this example.
PITCH CORRECTION
(34) (35) (36) (37) (38)
Blade t~, deg sin U cos/~ (P/R) a K
1 90 1 0 (x ~ -- 1.4x + 0.571)~ 0.0612
2 180 0 --1 (x 2 -t- 0.513x + 0.571)~ 0.1362
3 270 --1 0 (x 2 -}- 1 . 4 x -}- 0.571)8/~ --0.0612
4 360 0 1 (x ~ -- 0 . 5 1 3 x q- 0 . 5 7 1 ) ~ --0.1362
(39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49)
Simp- tan
SOll~S (~i +
G multi-p[- G "] x a~) P/D I/D t./D m~/1
x al G (P/R) 3 (P/R) s pliers-I(P/R)3J 0.2 1. 454 0. 980 0. 220 0. 0418 0. 0349
0.2 0.649 0.0285 0.1900 0.150 1 0.150 0.3 1.029 1.041 0.249 0.0357 0.0360
0.3 0.582 0.0347 0.1180 0.294 4 1.176 0.4 0. 802 1. 082 0. 271 0. 0301 0. 0367
0.4 0.500 0.0379 0.0707 0.536 2 1.072 0.5 0. 659 1.111 0. 284 0. 0248 0. 0370
0.5 0.434 0.0393 0.0421 0.933 4 3. 732 0.6 0. 558 1 . 129 0. 289 0. 0199 0. 0363
0.6 0.378 0.0395 0.0274 1.442 2 2.884. 0.7 0.484 1.143 0.284 0.0153 0.0345
0.7 0.328 0.0379 0.0230 1.648 4 6.592 0.8 0.428 1. 154 0.260 0.0110 0.0320
0.8 0.297 0.0346 0.0274 1. 263 2 2. 526 0.9 0. 383 1 . 162 0. 209 0. 0069 0. 0291
0.9 0.265 0.0270 0.0421 0.641 4 2.564 1.0 -- 1. 170 0 0. 0030
1.0 -- 0 -- 0 1 0
Z Col 44 = 20.696
ab(b,adel) = ~ K Z = 0.0422 41 E q u a t i o n [30], F r o m Col 37 for blade no. 1
o
42 Col 4 0 / C o l 41
C a l c u l a t i o n s f o r ab f o r t h e o t h e r b l a d e s a r e m a d e
Column
by the same procedure as for blade one and then
21 E q u a t i o n [23]
22 a decreased b y 20 per c e n t (see section 2) summed to obtain the correction for the bound
23 F r o m Fig. 9. T h e v a l u e a t t h e h u b (x = 0 . 2 ) c o m e s vortices:
f r o m t h e fact t h a t tx/1 a t t h e h u b s h o u l d n o t be g r e a t e r
t h a n 0.20. ab = 0 . 0 4 2 2 4- 0.0031 -- 0 . 0 0 0 9
24 F r o m Fig. 9
- - 0 . 0 0 7 5 --- 0 . 0 3 6 9 . . . . . . [29]
25 Col 18 )< Col 23
26 Col 1 5 / ' C o l 25
Now Equation [34] m u s t b e s o l v e d
T h e section outline as o b t a i n e d from c a v i t a t i o n consid-
e r a t i o n s would lead to a n u n r e a s o n a b l e shape. F o r t h i s /i - - t3 5.65
r e a s o n T r o o s t B-series outline will" be used. T h e blade - = 0.0986 radian
will h a v e t h e s a m e skew as is u s e d in this series. a~ 57.3 57.3
Column h = 1.20 f r o m F i g . 13 w h e r e 0 = 80 d e g . . . [33]

27 F r o m T r o o s t B-series (5)
a0 = 0.0376 ............................ [35c]
28 Col 1 7 / C o l 27
29 Col 15/ Col 27
a2- 57.3
30 E q u a t i o/ n [26]
31 Fig. 7 ( E x p a n d e d area ratio
1-t-cos 2B~ ~ -- 1
71" h
32 Fig. 7 . . . [34]
33 E q u a t i o n [27] (faired)
= 57.3 [0.0369 4- 0 . 0 2 9 2 -- 0 . 0 3 7 6 ]
Column
-- 1.63 deg
34 A n g u l a r position of blades w h e n blade 1 is in vertical
position AP/D t a n ( 2 5 . 5 0 4- 1.63) = 1.073 [36]
35 Sin of Col 34 1 4- P / D tan 25.50 ""
36 C o s of Col 34
37 E q u a t i o n [30], cos t3i a n d l i D a t 0.7 r a d i u s
Colu.mn
38 F r o m E q u a t i o n [29], K = sin ~3~ [(l/D sin t~
2 45 F r o m Col 5 a n d 39
-- 0.7 cos ~ cos u)] 46 E q u a t i o n [37], faired v a l u e s
47 Faired v a l u e s of Col 27
Column 48 Faired v a l u e s of Col 17 - corrected for h u b - t h i c k n e s s
39 E q u a t i o n [28c] ratio of 0.19
40 E q u a t i o n [31b] 49 Col 33
A check on strength was made by the same mean line used, are given in Table 2. A drawing
method as described in Appendix 3. In addition, of the model propeller is shown in Fig. 18,
the stress caused by centrifugal force on the rake Check on assumption that
and skew was calculated. From consideration of
the stresses, it was found that the blade was under- CTs~ = 1.03CTs
stressed. The thickness was decreased at the
hub to give a thickness ratio of 0.19. This gave CT = 1.02Cv~
CTst (O.O%
satisfactory strength characteristics so the radial 1 - 2\~Z-L/M
thickness distribution was again calculated by
Equation [2.5]. (X~ and Cz at 0.7 radius)
The final faired values of this propeller design
are given in Col 46 through Col 49. Thickness A check on the power required by Equations
and camber distributions, for the section and [44] and [45] gave 17,510 shp.
Appendix 3
STRENGTH ANALYSIS The moment from thrust Mrb, and the m o m e n t
T M B Report 919 gives an approximate method from torque M-Qb, are calculated from the thrust
of obtaining stress in a propeller blade from simple and torque distribution as obtained from the cir-
beam theory. The method is devised to mini- culation theory. Formulas for" these moments
mize the work required for calculating the geo- are
metric properties of the blade section. Only the
necessary formulas for this method will be given
here.
o R 37r (1.688VA)2
Mrb = 2 z f) h
(x x0)
dCT,
Since stress caused by centrifugal force is ade- (1 - e tan 8,) W d x . . . [ 4 9 ]
quately covered elsewhere (12, 25, 27), and is
usually small, only the bending stresses from
thrust and torque will be considered. In order to MQb
-- P R3~r (1.688Va) 2
2 z (x -- Xo)
obtain the bending stresses, the bending moments dCrt

must be calculated. These moments are re- (tan/3, + e) ~ - x dx .... [50]
solved into two components, Af~0 about an axis
parallel to the nose-tail line of the section and the x0 = nondimensional radius of section .being
other, ]1'[~operpendicular to this line. Both of the analyzed.
For wake-adapted propellers the ship speed V,
and the coefficient of thrust based on ship speed
~o Cr,,, are used in Equations [49, 50] instead of Va
f
-'-My o and-Cr,
I f / , 0 and/v0 are the moments of inertia about the
~-Y'3
x0 and y0 axes, the stresses at any blade section are
given by the following relationships:
Xo
ylM~o x#lluo
Stress in leading edge = 1,0 fu0 " " [51]
F'- L . . . . xz. . . . ~.."- xt "~ \Nose-Toil
Yo Cine y2M~o x2Mz, o
Stress in trailing edge = I~0 [y0 . [52 ]
Fro. 23 GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF A BLADE SECTION
Stress on back at point of maximum
axes, x0 and yo, pass through the eentroid of the thickness y3M~o x3Mv . [53 ]
blade section (Fig. 23). When the pitch angle
I~0 I~0
, and the moments due to thrust 21frb, and A positive stress denotes tension and a negative
torque 2~fQ~, are known, the bending moments stress denotes compression. As is shown in Fig.
about the x0 and y0 axis are given as follows: 23, xt, x2, and x3 are abscissas of the nose, tail, and
point of maximum thickness, respectively, and
Mxo = MTb cos ~b + _]l(Qbsin . . . . . [47]
Yl, y~, and y3 are ordinates of the nose, tail, and
Myo = MT~ sin -- 21~rQbcos . . . . . [48] point of maximum thickness.
0.752
0.0442
0.751
0.0438
\
0.750
\
0.0434 \
\
\
/
0.749
~0430
\
0.348
0.0426
0 o.ol O.OZ 0.0:3 0.04 O.OS
0.347 / FIG. 26 COEFFICIENT

mx/'L
FOR fro OF BLADE SECTION (6)
0.746 x, = (0.4838 -- O . 0 2 0 m ~ / l ) l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54b]

o.ol o.oz 0.03 0.04 o.o5
mx/% x2 = xl -- 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54c]
FIG. 24 COEFFICIENT OF B L A D E SECTION A R E A (a) xa = xl -- 0.5l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54d]
O.OIZ
0.010
0.008 i
k
0.006 /-
0.004
/ I
I/
0.002
0
0 0.02 .04 0.06 0.08 0J0 0.12 034 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.Z2
F I c . 25 COEFFICIENT FOR Ix0 OF BLADE SECTION (b)
E q u a t i o n s for t h e g e o m e t r i c p r o p e r t i e s of a Yl = - - ( 0 . 1 1 3 t = / l + 0 . 7 8 2 ) ( m J l ) l ......... [54e]

s e c t i o n h a v e b e e n d e r i v e d for t h e t w o s e c t i o n s c o n -
s i d e r e d i n t h i s p a p e r . T h e s e f o r m u l a s a p p l y to Y~ = yl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54f1
t h e s e s e c t i o n s w i t h a n y of t h e f o l l o w i n g m e a n l i n e s ; y~ = (0.5tx/l + mJ51 + yl ............. [54g]
c i r c u l a r arc, N A C A a = 1.0, or N A C A a = 0.8.
F o r t h e N A C A 16 s e c t i o n t h e e q u a t i o n s for t h e I ~ = 0.9925[b(m~/l) 2 + O . 0 4 4 8 7 ( t J l ) i ] P
geometric properties are (b f r o m Fig. 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54h]
A = a r e a = 0 . 9 8 6 ( a t J l ) ~ (a f r o m Fig. 24). [54a] I~o = 0.946(ct=/l)l 4 (c f r o m Fig. 26) . . . . . . . . [54/]

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

x l G/l rn~/l a A xl x2 x~
O. 2 3. 604 O. 160 0.0199 0.7466 1.494 1.703 --1.901 0.0824
0.3 4. 680 0.105 0.0235 . . . . .
0.4 5.910 0.070 0.0246 0.7468 1.758 2.792 --3.118 0.133
0.5 6. 938 0.049 0.0224 . . . . .
0.6 7. 573 0. 036 0.0195 0.7466 1.484 3.578 --3.995 0.171
0.7 7. 458 0.028 0.0174 . . . . .
0.8 6. 744 "0. 022 0.0152 0.7463 0.747 3.187 --3.557 0.152
0.9 5.071 0.018 0.0146 . . . . .
1.0 -- --
(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

x y,= y~ ~ b ~o c ~o
0.2 --0.0587 0.300 0.0076 0.0298 0.0440 1.084
0.3 . . . . . .
0.4 --0.117 0.232. 0.0028 0.0197 0.0438 3.420
0.5 . . . . . .
0.6 --0.119 0.164 0.0015 0.00828 0.0440 4.756
0.7 . . . . . .
0.8 --0.0822 0.075 0.0008 0.00130 0.0440 1.831
0.9 . . . . . .
1.0 . . . . . .
For the section with NACA 66 n o s e a n d p a r a - (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
bolic tail the equations are dcTi
e tan 1 -- ~ tanfll (1 -- e
X CL e fll t a n fl~ -{- e t a n fli)
A = 0.963(atx/l)P (a f r o m F i g . 24) . . . . . . [55a] 0.2 0.2078 0.0385 0.0759 0.924 2.011 0.113
0.3 0.2169 0.0369 0.0484 0.952 1.680 0.294
xl = ( 0 . 4 7 3 -- O . 0 2 6 m J l ) l .............. [55b] 0.4 0.1874 0.0427 0.0415 0.959 1.016 0.527
0.5 0.1483 0.0539 0.0412 0.959 0.819 0.740
x2 = Xl - I ............................ [55c] 0.6. 0.1134 0.0705 0.0439 0.956 0.693 0.876
0.7 0.0880 0.0909 0.0471 0.953 0.609 0.901
Xa = xl -- 0 . 4 5 l q- O . 1 2 ( m x / 1 ) ( t x / 1 ) l . . . . . . . . [55d] 0.8 0.0684 0.1170 0.0515 0.949 0.557 0.820
0.9 0.0530 0.1510 0.0574 0.943 0.531 0.598
Yt = --(O.115t/l + O.SO)(rnJl)l ........... [55e] 1.0 . . . . . 0
Y2 = Y, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [55f]
Y3 = (0.5t~/1 + 0 . 9 9 r n z / l ) l + y~ . . . . . . . . . . . [55g] 7 E q u a t i o n [55c]
8 E q u a t i o n [55d]
I~0 = 0 . 9 4 5 [ b ( m ~ / l ) 2 + 0 . 0 4 4 8 7 ( t ~ / 1 ) 3]14
(b f r o m Fig. 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [55h] Column
Ivo = 0 . 9 1 4 ( c t x / l ) l 4 (c f r o m Fig. 26) . . . . . . . . [55i] 9 E q u a t i o n s [55e] a n d [55f[
10 E q u a t i o n [55g]
11 Fig. 25
The foregoing equations hold true for values of
12 E q u a t i o n [55h]
the thickness ratios less than 0.21 and camber 13 Fig. 26
ratios less than 0.05. 14 E q u a t i o n [55i]
An example of the use of this strength method is
shown for the case of the free-running propeller. Step 2
C a l c u l a t i o n of b e n d i n g m o m e n t s , /1~[~0 ( E q u a t i o n [47])
Step 1 a n d ]tv0 ( E q u a t i o n [48]), for x = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 a n d 0.8
C a l c u l a t e g e o m e t r i c p r o p e r t i e s of sections a t x = 0.2,
Column
0.4, 0.6, 0.8, u s i n g Fig. 9.
F o r this design a n N A C A 66 Section w i t h a parabolic 15 A p p e n d i x 1, Col 30
tail a n d a = 0.8 m e a n line will be used. 16 E q u a t i o n [38a]
17 Col 5 ( A p p e n d i x 1) X Col 16
Column 20 Col 14 ( A p p e n d i x 1 ) X Col 18
1 Appendix 1 Col 38
2 Appendix 1 Col 29 Col~ m
3 Appendix 1 Col 37 22 Col 20 X Col 21
4 Fig. 24 24 Col 22 X Col 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [49]
5 Equation [55a] 25 Col 19 X Col 21 X Col 14 ( A p p e n d i x 1)
6 Equation [55b] 26 Col 23 X Col 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [50]
F o r Xo = 0.2
(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)
Simp-
son's
(X - - Xo) multi- (X - - Xo)
x x -- Xo (1 -- tan fll)dCTi plier F(~rb) ( t a n Bi + e)dCTi F( MQb)
O.2 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.3 0.1 0.029 4 0.116 0.168 0.672
0.4 0.2 0. 105 2 0.210 0.203 0.406
0.5 0.3 0.222 4 0.888 0.246 0.984
0.6 0.4 0.350 2 0.700 0.277 0.554
0.7 0.5 0.451 4 1.804 0.305 1.220
0.8 0.6 0.492 2 0.984 0.334 0.668
0.9 0.7 0.418 4 1.672 0.372 " 1.488
1.0 0.8 0 1 0 0 0
Col 24 = 6.374 Z Col 26 = 5.992
MTb = ~ R s r V a 2 Z Col 24 J~'/Q, = 17,830 Z Col 26
= 17,830 X 6.37 = 106,800 ft-lb
= 113,600 ft-lb
F o r Xo = 0.4
(21a) (22a) (23a) (24a) (25a) (26a)
Simp-
SOIl'S (x - xo)
multi-
x x -- Xo (1 -- e tan t31)dCrl pliers F(Mrb) (tan ~i + e)dCTi F( MQ~)
0.4 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.5 O. 1 0.0740 4 0.296 0.082 0.328
0.6 0.2 0.175 2 0.350 0.139 0.278
0.7 0.3 0.270 4 1.080 0.183 0.732
0.8 0.4 0.328 2 0.656 0.223 0.446
0.9 0.5 0.299 4 1.196 0.265 1.060
1.0 0.6 0 1 0 0 0
See Col 21 t h r o u g h 26
Col 24a = 3.578 Z Col 26a ~ 2.844

AfTb = 63,800 MQb = 50,700
F o r xo = 0.6
(21b) (22b) (23b) (24b) (25b) (26b)
Simp-
SOn'S
(x -- x0) multi- (x -- x0)
X X - - Xo (1 -- e t a n Bi)dCTi pliers f(~frb) ( t a n ~i + e~dCTi F(M~)
0.6 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.7 " 0.1 O. 090 4 O. 360 O. 061 0.244
0.8 0.2 0. 164 2 0.328 0. 111 0.222
0.9 0.3 0. 179 4 0. 716 0. 159 0.636
1.0 0.4 0 1 0 0 0
See Col 21 t h r o u g h 26
Z Col 24b = 1.404 Z Col-26b = 1.102
Mrb = 25,000 MQb = 19,650
F o r xo = 0.8
(21c) (22c) (23c) (24c) (25c) (26c)
Simp-
son's
(x -- xo) multi- (X - - Xo)
X X - - Xo (1 -- t a n ~i)dCT pliers F( lllrb) (tan ~i + e)dCri F(M~O
0.8 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.9 0.1 0.0598 4 0. 2392 0.0531 0.2124
1.0 0.2 0 1 0 0 0
See Col 21 t h r o u g h 26 Z Col 24c = 0.2392 Z Col 26c = 0.2124
M'rb = 4265 "MQb -~ 3787
(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

Approx.
x tan 3~ t a n ~b cos sin q~ M ~ cos MQbsin M~0
0.2 1.972 2. 071 0. 435 0. 900 49500 96100 145600
0.4 0.973 1. 022 0. 699 0. 715 44600 363O0 80900
O. 6 O. 622 0. 653 0. 837 0. 547 21000 10800 31800
0.8 0.440 0. 462 0. 908 0. 419 3900 1600 5500
(31a) (32a) (33a) Col 7 X Col 33a

41
x 3 f n sin ~ MQb cos ~ Mg0 Col 14
0.2 102300 46500 55800
0.4 45600 35400 10200 42 -- (Col 40) -- (Col 41) psf. " [52]
0.6 13700 16500 --2800
0.8 1800 3500 -- 1700 Step 4
Calculate the new-chord lengths for allowable
Column stress of 12,500 psi
27 Col 1 Col 5 ( A p p e n d i x 1)
Column
28 1.05. X Col 27. A simple a p p r o x i m a t i o n is m a d e
here for t h e correction to pitch. A rigorous p i t c h is 43 M a x i m u m stress from Col 36, 39 a n d 42 in psi. ( +
later c o m p u t e d in step 9 of A p p e n d i x 1. indicates tension, -- c o m p r e s s i o n )
31 Col 29 X MTa
32 Col 30 X MQb 44 E q u a t i o n [46]
33 Col 31 + Col 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [47] (43) (44)
~Maximum stress, p s i - - ~ New
Column x Value Location (l)
31a Col 30 X Mrb 0.2 -- 10210 Maximum thickness 3. 597
0.4 -- 6620 Maximum thickness 5.290
32a Col 29 X :leQb 0.6 -- 4380 Maximum thickness 6. 116
33a Col 31a -- Col 32a 0.8 + 2440 L e a d i n g edge 4. 701
(34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42)

Stress Stress
at at
y3M.o x3Mg0 Stress Yl~f*o xl~f~o leading y~M.o x2gIg0 trailing
x I.o Ivo at& I.o Ivo edge I.o 19o edge
0.2 1466000 4000 -- 1470000 --287000 88000 199000 --287000 --98000 385000
0.4 953000 -- --953000 --480000 5100 474900 --480000 --9000 489000
0.6 630000 -- --630000 --457000 --2100 459100 --457000 2000 455000
0.8 317000 -- --317000 --348000 --2960 351000 --348000 3300 345000
(45~ (46) (.47) (48) (49) (50) '(51)

Corrected
x cLI/D l cL a l./l m./l mz/l
0.2 0. 0599 3.60 0. 208 0.569 0.155 0.015 0.0156
0.3 0. 0812 4.49 0. 226 0.406 0.104 0.0158 0.0199
0.4 0. 0886 5.28 0. 210 0.288 0.0650 0.0141 0.0212
0.5 0. 0823 5.87 0. 175 0.208 0.0432 0.0118 0.0205
0.6 0.0687 6.10 0. 141 0.154 0.0300 0.0095 0.0189
0.7 0. 0525 5.67 0.116 0.118 0.0215 0.0079 0.0176
0.8 0. 0369 4.69 0. 0983 0.0918 0.0184 0.0062 0.0150
0.9 0. 0215 3.20 0. 0840 0.0732 0.0103 0.0059 0.0150
1.0 -- -- -- 0.0594 -- --
Step 3 (52)
Calculate stresses a t t h e p o i n t of m a x i m u m t h i c k n e s s a n d - M a x i m u m Stress-
a t t h e trailing.and, leading edges. x Value Location
Col 10 X Col 33 0.2 -- 11100 Maximum thickness
34 0.4 -- 10700 Maximum thickness
Col 12 O. 6 -- 11600 Maximum thickness
Col 8 X Col 33a 0.8 + 11200 L e a d i n g edge
35
Col 14
36 -- (Col 34) -- (Col 35) psf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [53] Step 5
37
C o l 9 X Col 33 Obtain new mx/l and lJl which correspond to
Col 12 the new faired chord lengths.
Col 6 X Col 33a
38 Column
Col 14
45 Col 20 ( A p p e n d i x 1)
39 -- (Col 37) -- (Col 38) psf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [51]
46 Faired v a l u e s of Col 44
C o l 9 X Col 33 Col 45 X D
40 47 , w h e r e D = 12.5 ft
Col 12 Col 46
48 Col 27 (Appendix 1) 51 Obtain kl and k2 as in Appendix 1 from Fig. 7 and

49, 50 The procedure of obtaining t,/l and mz/l is as fol- calculate the corrected rn,/l.
lows:
1 Enter the applicable incipient cavitation chart (Fig.
9) with e. Step6
2 Arbitrarily choosing three values of G/l for a, read
off and plot CLI/t.versus tx/l. Recheck of strength. Using the new 1, m,/l and t,/1
3 Using the same t~/l calculate CLl/Gwith cL from Col the strength calculation is repeated to ascertain that the
47 and plot on the same chart used for the foregoing curve. final maximum stresses are close to, but less than 12,500
4 Read off the &/l where the two curves intersect. psi.
5 Enter the chart with this tJl and the original a and 52 The results of the second strength calculation are
read off m./l. shown to be satisfactory.
Discussion
PROF. LAURENS TROOST, Member: Lerbs' rig- plying some function of the local wake factor and
orous induction-factor m e t h o d for circulation- neglecting the influence of its counterpart, the
t h e o r y propeller design, reference (4) of the paper, local t h r u s t - d e d u c t i o n factor, respectively intro-
was a g r e a t step forward, b u t difficult to a p p l y in ducing some r a t h e r a r b i t r a r y function 0f the latter,
practice b y designers who have to face a deadline. suffer from oversimplification. T h e present m e t h -
I t gives the m o s t precise solution obtainable at ods of screw design for a. radially inhomogeneous
this time, b u t simpler m e t h o d s had to be worked wake field m a k e use of the Goldstein function Kand
o u t t h a t would.give a solution with good approxi- of the n o r m a l i t y condition. B o t h are related to
m a t i o n to the rigorous m e t h o d . Such a m e t h o d vortex sheets of a true helical shape. Therefore
is presented here in great detail. A l t h o u g h all the question arises if it would be possible to base
the merits of this m e t h o d can only be appreciated the design of the w a k e - a d a p t e d screw on the con-
after application in various designs, there is no dition of c o n s t a n t pitch of the helicoidal vortice
d o u b t t h a t the a u t h o r s have done a v e r y time- lines in the race far behind the propeller disk, this
consuming and ingenious piece of Work in p u t t i n g pitch being independent of radius. This condi-
all the various parts t o g e t h e r to a complete prac- tion implies t h a t at a n y radius the local inflow ve-
tical design method, and t h e y deserve the grati- locity Ve' + the local displacement velocity C'
tude of the profession. m u s t be equal to V, + C, which is the pitch of the
I n the short time available for the preparation helicoidal vortice lines in the race of equivalent
of a discussion, it is impossible to question tech- open water propeller. W e obtain the following
nical details of the method. This discusser there- result:
fore prefers to bring up some questions of more
general character. I t is noted t h a t the deficiency
V, ' + C' = V. + C
in pitcll obtained with existing m e t h o d s is com- C.
pletely traced to the change in flow c u r v a t u r e over
V, + -g
the chord of the section n o t covered b y Ludwieg
and Ginzel's half-way point flow-curvature cor-
rection. T h e r e is a question in the discusser's I.,+ C= 2 ( 1 - - 1) IT,-{-V, = ( ~ - - 1) V,
mind if this deficiency in pitch, respectively in
thrust, should n o t be p a r t l y traced to the pressure
defect in the r o t a t i n g screw race because of cen- Ve' + C' = ( { )-- 1 I / ' , a n d ~~' =
trifugal forces. I t has been shown b y L6sch and
confirmed b y Lerbs t h a t for low propeller loading
the effects of the tangential velocities on the axial
velocity is more or less neutralized b y the effect of
the race contraction. However, the discusser is V,'+ ~ =
c,( 1 .,
1)
2 V~ +
V,'
-if-
b y no means convinced t h a t this condition applies
to higher loading of the propeller and would ap- C'
preciate the a u t h o r s ' opinions on this subject. Ve' + -~ tan 5~
A second r e m a r k refers to the criterion of mini- V,' tan ~3
m u m energy loss as applied b y the authors to the
design of w a k e - a d a p t e d propellers. I t is con- t a n ~3i _ ( 1 ) 1 -w0+ i
ceded t h a t all criteria available at this time im- tan 13 \ ~ 1--w. 2
tan/3l - tan B 1 -- w0 4- %-
1 (1 1 - - w0)
only if the propeller power and ship speed are low,
rh 1 w~ - with the power decreasing as the diameter de-
creases. A t higher powers and higher speeds the
Using this relation for the sections at various radii o p t i m u m diameter should be held, if the efficiency
instead of Lerbs' Equation [16 ], gave rise to a num- is not to be reduced.
ber of well-balanced propeller designs and the dis- The principal shortcoming of propeller-design
cusser would greatly appreciate the reaction of the procedures hitherto published is t h a t they did not
authors to this suggestion. give a solution for the proper or best blade width
for m a x i m u m efficiency, based upon hydrodynamic
CAPT. H. E. SAUNDERS, USN (RET.), tlonorary considerations. The method described by the
Vice-President: I hope t h a t those members of authors does give this solution for propellers work-
the Society not acquainted with the propeller-de- ing in the cavitating range but even so their refer-
sign method outlined here, when they see page" ences to the blade width and blade area are rather
after page of equations, will not feel t h a t the au- scattered throughout the paper. For other pro-
thors slipped up somewhere and wrote up the rig- pellers the authors' method still does not give what
orous instead of the approximate or simplified might be called a h y d r o d y n a m i c answer. After
method. Actually, in spite of its somewhat for- the designer has assured himself that the strength
midable first appearance, the'design method de- at the root is adequate, he is forced to fall back
scribed is straightforward and-continuous, start- upon other designs, previous experience, engineer-
ing with .the initial requirements and ending with ing judgment, and even intuition. Moreover,
a propeller drawing. However, a few features call published design rules for blade outline and skew-
for" comment. back are few and far between.
The first is the statement b y the authors in foot- The design method for a wake-adapted pro-
note 5 t h a t the operating conditions for a free- peller, discussed briefly in the body of the paper
running propeller which has undisturbed water but illustrated in detail b y the example of Appen-
ahead of it, as for an open-water test in a model dix 2, is marred b y the complete absence of the
basin, are "closely approximated in the case of basic wake data. I t contains only the briefest
multiscrew ships in which the shafts are supported mention of the method b y which these d a t a were
by struts and the propeller is well clear of the hull analyzed, p r e p a r a t o r y to working out the example.
and appendages." Actually, no wing propeller on The paper would have been more useful had the
a ship is well clear of the appendages which drive authors included a three-dimensional wake-sur-
and carry it. No such propeller is far enough from vey diagram of the t y p e t h a t is prepared b y the
the hull, on a normal design of vessel, to be free of David T a y l o r Model Basin. This could have
undisturbed water. Certainly the flow to it is not been either real or theoretical.
axial. T h e wake fraction for a propeller of a twin- The nomenclature lists w~ as the "local wake
screw ship with a normal form of stern and accept- fraction (circumferential average of axial 4rake)."
able tip clearance m a y be expected to v a r y from The notation applying to Column 1 of the, Appen-
--0.2 to -t-0.20 or more across the propeller disk. dix 2 calculation, on pages 353 and 354, says simply
While this c o m m e n t is somewhat foreign to the de- t h a t the values of (1 -- w~) for the nine nondimen-
sign of a screw propeller as such it does apply to sional radii were derived " f r o m wake analysis of
the setting up of the conditions and requirements ship." Graphs or calculations giving details of
prior to starting such a design. the analysis would have shown the reader and user
M y second c o m m e n t has to do with the ship- just how to proceed.
and-propeller design procedure leading to a selec- Since the details of an analysis method approved
tion of the propeller diameter, briefly mentioned by Dr. Lerbs are being included in C h a p t e r 70 of
by the a u t h o r s . . I n s t e a d of picking a propeller the new book " H y d r o d y n a m i c s in Ship Design,"
diameter to give a certain tip or aperture clearance (in process of publication by T h e Society of
alongside the hull, the propeller dimensions should N a v a l Architects and Marine Engineers) where
be determined from an early estimate of the power a propeller is designed b y the so-called Lerbs'
and the probable characteristics of the propelling short method, similar to the one presented b y the
machinery. The ship should then be designed authors, these details are not presented here.
around the propeller, on the basis t h a t efficient The authors are to be complimented for work-
propulsion is desired. ing through both examples b y the Lerbs' rigorous
A caution is necessary with respect to the reduc- method and showing the variations to be expected
tion in o p t i m u m diameter mentioned in several between the results of the approximate and rigor-
recent papers and indicated b y the authors. H. ous methods.
Edstrand shows, TM t h a t this reduction is indicated 10 R e p o r t 22 of the Swedish S t a t e E x p e r i m e n t a l T a n k , pp. 24-27.
MR. A. J. TACHMINDJI,Associate 2]Iember: Im- 71" ~ am

provements of the circulation theory of propellers --4 Z2~=o=4n 2 (2m + 1) 2 (2m + 1) I~'(Vuo)
, - L(Vuo)
and simplifications in its method of calculation are
indeed looked upon with great interest. The au- K~n' (pnm) } = 2n Kp,J (pn~o)
thors have presented a paper which gives a good -- 2n Kpn(p,m) K~n(pnuo)
comparison of the results obtained from the theo-
ries of lightly and moderately loaded propellers.
Up to now the circulation theory was primarily
m=0 (2m + 1)214n 2 -- (2rn + 1) 2]
based on Betz's and Goldstein's work which is de- m = 1,2,3 ....
rived for lightly loaded propellers and where the
condition of normality of the induced velocity is and where the primes denote differentiation with
assumed to hold true. The validity of theory for respect to the argument. Goldstein showed that
moderately loaded screws was unknown until for large values of m, the coefficients am are approxi-
Lerbs (reference 4 of the paper) was able to deduce mately given by the coefficients Am of the arc-sine
through the use of induction factors, the circula- expansion. In the limit, as ~0 tends to zero, it can
tion distribution for propellers not operating on be shown that ~ tends to infinity when the coef-
the optimum coridition. Through the use of nu- ficients Am are used. I t is, therefore, necessary to
merical comparisons, the authors have found t h a t determine the error introduced when using this ap-
the condition of normality can be applicable to proximation for large pitch ratios.
moderately loaded screws without loss of accuracy Solution of this system of linear equations re-
in the final result. This is the first time that such vealed that the use of Am in place of am leads to
a comparison has been made and strengthens the errors in the calculated circulation that are unac-
view, which existed b u t had not been proved, t h a t ceptably large when ~0 is less than 2. This error
Betz's condition has a flat optimum which allows decreases with increasing number of blades b u t
some departure from it, without appreciable loss even for a five-bladed propeller an error of about
in hydrodynamic efficiency. 5 per cent is introduced for sections close to the tip.
Up to the present the computation of Gold- Table 3 of this discussion shows a comparison be-
stein factors as performed by Goldstein and tween the approximate and corrected Goldstein
Kramer were considered accurate enough, par-. factors for a three-bladed propeller and l/X, = 1.5.
ticularly since the error introduced by their use
TABLE 3 GOLDSTEIN FACTORS FOR THREE-BLADED
for moderately loaded propellers was not known. PROPELLER
In view, however, of the proof that the condition K(approx. K(accurate
of normality can be used without loss of accuracy, value value
it was deemed necessary at the Model Basin to re- based on based on
x A m) am)
examine the accuracy b y which the values of the
0.2 1.4268 1.4034
Goldstein factors were obtained. 0.3 1.0972 1.0756
In his formulation of the screw-propeller theory 0.4 0.9163 0.8945
Goldstein (9) derives the expression for the circu- 0.5 0.7964 0.7731
0.6 0.7016 0.6760
lation F of a propeller having a finite number of 0.7 0.6123 0.5837
blades, p. The factor K, defined as the ratio of 0.8 0.5124 0.4808
0.85 0.4516 0.4191
this circulation to the circulation for an infinite 0.90 0.3766 0.3442
number of blades can be written as 0.95 0.2723 0.2428
0.975 0.1932 0.1678
~" = (2m + 1) 2 However, even the use of such corrected values

of Kfor propellers designed to operate in uniform
+ ~-~ a.m L(vu) } inflow leads to a deficiency in pitch. After intro-
.... o Io (vuo) ducing the boundary conditions for the lifting-
surface effect, the curvature correction of the mid-
where
point of the chord can be determined for a uniform
x 1
# -- X~' ~ o - X~'" v = p ( m + ~ 1) distribution of circulation along the chord length
(reference 2). This curvature is dependent on the
radial distribution of circulation and it is, there-
The.function T is a combination of a Lommel fore, realized t h a t the two-dimensional cascade
function and a modified Bessel function of the characteristics which are sometimes used are not
second kind, and where am satisfy the following applicable to the problem of propeller-blade inter-
infinite system of linear equations ference. The authors also have used the results
of the work of Lerbs by introducing an additional The paper assumes this normality to exist at the
angle of attack a2 which corresponds to the change plane of the propeller, as shown in Fig. 5 of the
in curvature over the chord length. paper. However, this normality relationship
I t should be noted, however, that the entire de- exists only for the free-running, optimum propel-
sign procedure is based on propellers having sec- ler in the ultimate wake of the propeller where the
tions operating at shockless entry. The ideal induced velocities have reached their full' values.
angle of attack al and the no-lift angle a0 are ob- Thus, to relate ut and ua, it is suggested that u in-
viously dependent only on the type of camber line stead of u/2 be used in Fig. 5.
and the amount of camber. For the case of a pro- The theory of wide-bladed propellers as de-
peller which is designed to produce lift both from veloped by Ginzel and Ludwieg in reference (2) of
angle of attack and camber,-Equations [28], [34]. the paper, was intended, to the approximation of
and [35] of the paper have to be modified accord- the theory, to account for the difference between
ingly. In this case the value of lift coefficient the wide blade and its lifting-line approximation.
used in Equations [28] and [35] is related to the Similarly, Weissinger's L method is itself an ap-
amount of lift developed from camber alone. Sim- proximate lifting-surface theory. To employ
ilarly a2 will have to be corrected by the amount both of these corrections appears to be a duplica-
of the designed angle of attack. tion. We also have found that the camber cor-
For the case of wake-adapted propellers it rections described by Ginzel and Ludwieg's theory
should be noted t h a t the mean wake w0 is based are insufficient and that an additional correction
only on the axial wake distribution and neglects to the effective pitch is needed to obtain the thrust
the presence of the tangential component. The and power predicted from the lifting-line relation-
value of the wake at 0.7R is then corrected accord- ships. However, it is felt that, although some of
ing to the wake obtained from propulsion tests. this discrepancy can be attributed to the approxi-
I t should be emphasized that this correction must .mations in the-Ginzel and Ludwieg theory, a
be based on the thrust rather than the torque iden- major portion of it results from neglecting the con-
tity if the propeller is designed to develop a cer- tinuity of the flow through the constricted pas-
tain thrust. sages between the blades due to the finite thick-
ness of the-blades. For propellers of high solidity,
PROF. B. W. McCORMICK, u Visitor: I t was we have found such a correction to the pitch angle
with considerable interest that I studied this fine to amount to as much as 6 or 7 deg towards the
contribution to the problem of designing marine hub.
propellers. Having been associated for m a n y Possibly not as serious in the case of a ship pro-
years with a research project on torpedo propellers peller is the effect of a finite hub on Goldstein's
at the Ordnance Research Laboratory, I can ap- functions. H o w e v e r , it might be well for the
preciate the attention which the authors have given authors to investigate, for their examples, what
to the m a n y details involved in the design of wide- differences would be caused by the presence of the
bladed propellers. The design methods presented hub. I t has been shown m that, dependent upon
in the paper are similar in m a n y respects to those the number of blades and the advance ratio at
which have been developed at the Laboratory for which the propeller operated, the effect of the hub
the design of torpedo propellers. We have found, can increase Goldstein's function by as high as 30
for example, as did the authors, that the use of or 40 per cent. In this connection, since the radial
Goldstein's function for wake-adapted propellers" gradient of the bound circulation is a measure of
appears to describe satisfactorily the performance the velocity discontinuity across the shed vortex
of a wake-adapted propeller even though, in his sheet and since a velocity cannot exist normal to
derivation, Goldstein assumed the existence of a the hub at its boundary, it follows that the circula-
rigid helical vortex sheet. tion distributions shown in Figs. 17 and 22 of the
There are a few points in the paper with which I paper must be modified to approach the hub with
take exception, and I would like to discuss these a zero slope.
briefly. While the tangential component of in- The authors consider two types of cavitation;
duced velocity can be obtained directly from the namely, suction-face a n d tip-vortex. A third
desired distribution of bound circulation, the axial type, which we have fou.nd often to be critical, is
component must be gotten from an assumed geo- hub-vortex cavitation. When a finite amount of
metric relationship of normality between the re- bound circulation is maintained at the hub, such
sultant velocity and the resultant induced velocity. as shown in Figs. 17 and 22, the combined circula-
11 Associate Professor of E n g i n e e r i n g Research, Ordnance Re- ~ " T h e Effect of a F i n i t e H u b on t h e O p t i m u m P r o p e l l e r , " by

search L a b o r a t o r y , T h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , U n i v e r s i t y ]3. W. M c C o r m i c k , Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, vol. 22,
Park, Pa. September, 1955.
tion from all of the blades can produce a fairly in hollow-faced sections over the outer p a r t of the
strong hub vortex Which has two effects. First, it blade which are not considered desirable.
can produce cavitation, as lust mentioned, and T h e subject of correction factors no doubt will
secondly, the low pressure in the core of the vor- remain controversial until means are developed to
tex acting over the after face of the hub can de- measure the lift developed b y each blade section of
tract appreciably from the thrust produced b y the an actual propeller independently. I t should be
blades. In one instance of a torpedo propeller noted, however, t h a t the magnitude of the correc-
used in our research studies which was loaded tion ( a factor as high as 4 in the example given)
quite heavily inboard and which had a hub radius makes the use of the term "rigorous" in connec-
equal to 0.368 of the propeller radius, the hub vor- tion with propeller design merely a figure of speech.
tex was found to reduee the thrust produced by I t is noted t h a t the authors base their considera-
the blades b y close to :30 per cent at the design- tion of cavitation resistance on the condition of
advance ratio. This reduction of the thrust and zero angle of attack although a small angle of at-
the occurrence of hub-vortex cavitation could, of tack was introduced as p a r t of the correction. I t
course, not be detected in an experimental setup is doubtful whether the 20 per cent reduction of
where the propeller is driven b y a shaft from the the cavitation index is sufficient to prove a margin
rear. against cavitation in view of the extreme wake
Despite the objections to the paper which I have variation occurring behind a single-screw stern.
discussed, the authors are to be congratulated on I t is believed t h a t a detailed consideration of the
a very worth-while contribution to the design of blade at the positions of m a x i m u m and m i n i m u m
marine propellers; one which presents a much wake is desirable to determine the range of condi-
better insight into the physical action of marine tions to be encountered. I t is noted t h a t even on
propellers, particularly, wake-adapted propellers destroyer-type vessels the flow appi-oaches--the
than can be obtained through the use of series data. propeller at an angle as great as 10 deg from the
shaft line. T h e angles of a t t a c k at any. radius
MR. J. G. HIiJL, ~-fember: T h e propeller-de- therefore v a r y appreciably from point to point.
sign method described in this paper is interesting In view of the m a n y points which are subject to
in several respects. P r o b a b l y the most i m p o r t a n t question, the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the-design method
of these is the acceptance, b y the authors, as a under discussion has the advantage t h a t it requires"
practical working procedure, the assumption t h a t a minimum of previous knowledge, experience, and
the condition of normality is applicable regardless intuition is open to considerable doubt. Further-
of the distribution of circulation. This same con- more, the following of a n y design method which
clusion .had_been reached b y others in the past is not understood b y the user can hardly be con-
and for several years has been the basis on which sidered an acceptable engineering practice.
most propellers for American N a v a l vessels have However, the authors are to be congratulated
been designed. for having presented this interesting and stimulat-
Starting from the lifting-line theory and the ing paper and it is hoped t h a t the Model Basin
condition of n o r m a l i t y / t h e principal point of dif- will continue to investigate the m a n y propeller
ference between the design method presented here problems t h a t still remain to be solved.
and earlier presentations is in the m a t t e r of correc-
tions to be applied to the theory. I t is noted t h a t DR. S. F. HOERNER, Member: As far as I am
the authors introduce a pitch-angle correction informed, the theoretical method presented is a
from lifting-surface effect in addition to a curva- linear one. In low-aspect-ratio wings, there is a
ture correction for the same purpose based on the second nonlinear lift component, however, which
work of Ludwieg and Ginzel: . T h e camber cor- is i m p o r t a n t at higher lift coefficients. In pro-
rections given in Fig. 7 of the paper appear to be pellers, the linear theory,--therefore, should be ex-
independent of the blade width at each section al- pected to give satisfactory answers at higher ad-
though from physical reasoning it would seem t h a t vance ratios (where C~ is small); and the method
the correction should bear some relation to the will be applicable at the design speed of-marine
local blade width. I t also is noted t h a t the cor- propellers. However, at lower speeds of advance,
rectionfactors increasetoward the tip, in contrast where the h y d r o d y n a m i c loading (blade-lift co-
to the corrections presented in the authors' refer- efficient) is higher, the nonlinear t e r m is expected
ence (1), which decrease toward t h e t i p . Use of to be of increasing magnitude. As an example,
the corrections given in reference (1) have resulted lift coefficients are plotted in .the graph, Fig. 27 of
in the design of uniformly satisfactory propellers this discussion, for the extreme condition of static
over a wide range of conditions. In the first ex- thrust. I t is seen t h a t the linear t e r m only gives
ample given, the high correction at the tip results a fraction of the total lift or thrust; and t h a t the
S ~ p a r ~-~'lo n estimated roughly, so t h a t extreme refinements in

the calculation is equivalent to carrying five deci-
0.6 mals when the data are good to only three signifi-
cant figures.
In m y own design practice, in recent years, I
d
O,4 f r
have used a combination of the well-known chart
method and Theodorsen's theoretical method
published in his book and various reports of the
National Advisory C o m m i t t e e for Aeronautics.
o/S//e!ond Term / . j This method is rapid, straightforward and pro-
0.2 / duces excellent results. In its application, only
/ 1.J'- one factor need be read from a curve and the
/ formulas are not overly complicated; variable
'/ LinearTerm I wake can be introduced readily.
i GLADE ANGLE As I use this method, the solution of the prob-
0o i0 o .?_0o 30 40 lem is first obtained b y means of the design charts
and the methods described in Volume I I of "Prin-
FIG. 27 BLADE-LIFT COEFFICIENTS OF A FAMILY OF ciples of N a v a l Architecture." Theodorsen's
PROPELLERS (WAGENINGEN B.3.50) IN GTATIC CONDITION method is then applied to obtain the lift-grading
curve; next, blade area, blade width, and blade
thickness distribution are chosen so as to keep the
propeller out of cavitation, to m e e t the strength
second lift term cannot be neglected any longer. requirements of the classification society, and to
Therefore, the method as presented still has limi- give good thickness-to-chord length ratios. Lift-
tations; additional efforts will be necessary in the coeffcient curves for the sections are then calcu-
prediction of thrust and pitch at low advance lated (if not already available) by a method given
ratios. in Professor Burrill's paper read before the North-
East Coast Institution of Engineers and Ship-
PROF. K. E. SCHOENHERR, Member: The appli- builders in 1944. Finally, the angle of attack is
cation of the circulation theory to propeller de- read from the lift-coefficient curves and the final
sign was first presented to this Society in 1934 in pitch distribution is obtained b y smoothing out the
m y paper entitled " R e c e n t Developments in Pro- calculated results. Comparing the effective pitch
peller Design." The present paper is similar to obtained from the calculations with the pitch ob-
t h a t paper in t h a t it endeavors to a d a p t the cir- tained from the chart gives a good check on the
culation theory to the practical problem of design- accuracy of the procedure.
ing a propeller. Since 1934 m a n y advances in These brief remarks indicate that, just as there
propeller theory have been made; hence a paper are m a n y roads leading to Rome, there are m a n y
of this nature was due and the authors are to be design procedures which will yield good results.
congratulated for having undertaken t h e labori- T h e y were made not to belittle the great contribu-
ous task of bringing together the results of m a n y tion made b y the authors but to spur t h e m and
detailed and highly m a t h e m a t i c a l investigations. others on to efforts to develop an accurate, flexible
M y impression after studying the paper was yet simple design procedure. I n conclusion, I
t h a t the authors have succeeded in presenting a should like to congratulate the authors again on
usable method of design, but t h a t their method is their very fine contribution to the literature of
too cumbersome, time-consuming and lacking in propeller design.
clarity to m e e t the exigencies of everyday practice.
Few designers have the time and inclination to CAPT. E. A. WRIGHT, USN, Member: Analyti-
make such lengthy and laborious calculations and cal work has done much to increase our understand-
to make corrections on corrections, particularly ing of propeller action and interaction, and the
not when there is scant promise t h a t the return in authors have presented a comprehensive approach
improved propeller efficiency is worth the effort. growing out of this knowledge. T h e proposed
All our present knowledge indicates t h a t when a procedure is logical and covers either through
propeller is well designed according to modern formula, curve, or reference each of the critical
practice, minor variations in pitch distribution, characteristics in developing a sound propeller
blade area or section shape have little influence on design.
the efficiency of operation. Very often the actual Effects of free surface, of wake distribution,
flow conditions around the propeller can only be both radially and circumferentially, and of tran-
~_VA
"\ -U~T
J
Tofal Veloclfy U=_UA+ URoT=UAOOY.J'L

FIG. 28 SKETCH OF PROPELLER SLIPSTREAM
sient cavitation in regions of nonuniform wake will I recall a destroyer propeller design via the con-
always superimpose influences difficult to analyze ventional circulation theory which embodied all
b u t unwise to neglect. For these interactions of the correction factors except the new lifting-
therefore, it would seem t h a t the complete pro- surface (curvature) correction. The calculations
peller design method will, for the foreseeable fu- were checked and double checked. T h e R P M of
ture, involve a close interlock of calculation and- this propeller design was 11 per cent too high when
experiment to insure the o p t i m u m working design. producing the required thrust. At the design con-
The authors are to be highly commended for dition, the thrust was some 22 per cent deficient
their technical skill shown in the development of and the power absorbed was some 35 per cent too
this paper and for their considerable contribution low.
to the profession. In view of the persistent discrepancy in the prod-
uct of the currently established circulation
MR. N. J. BRAZELL, ~[ember: T h e writer con- theory, let us reexamine the basic t h e o r y - - b y the
curs with Doctor Schoenherr regarding the exces- method of vector analysis. We shall use the vec-
sive time required to carry out a propeller-design tor notation devised b y Josiah Willard Gibbs
calculation using the current circulation technique. while he was professor of m a t h e m a t i c a l physics at
For m y part, I only use the circulation theory to Vale University around the turn of this century.
modify the pitch or camber ratio slightly at a Fig. 28 of this discussion is a sketch of the pro-
localized propeller-blade section. I do believe peller slipstream. Remember, the propeller is a
t h a t the method proposed in this paper is the sim- reaction-thrust instrument. In the vernacular of
plest, the most practical and the m o s t straight- the old-time propeller designer "no slip--no
forward procedure t h a t has been presented to date. thrust."
I do hope t h a t this discussion will provide an- Propeller action causes an increase in the water
other missing link. velocity aft of the propeller disk. Spiraling ve-
I t is evident t h a t much effort is consumed in locities also are involved. Let us resolve the spiral
evaluating the correction factors. This paper velocity into axial and rotating components.
stresses the new curvature correction factor termed Thus we need consider only the axial velocity UA
the lifting-surface theory. and the angular or rotating velocity U~OT. (The
The perplexing fact a b o u t all these correction small radial veloeit)r, due to the contraction of the
factors is t h a t they m u s t be added to and not sub- slipstream does not produce a thrust force and
tracted from the result obtained from the compu- hence will be deleted from this study).
tation via the ideal condition. I do not know of a T h e problem, of course, is to integrate numeri-
similar situation in the entire field of science. I cally the circulation; i.e., fUdr and obtain the pro-
submit t h a t this peculiar condition is a conse- peller dimensions. Further, the task consists of
quence of carrying over the products of the mo- (a) summing-up the velocity components in the
m e n t u m theory into the circulation theory. The slipstream (a volume integration) and obtaining
two theories do not mix. Happily, the adjust- an appropriate surface integral; (b) changing the
m e n t is simple. I propose to show t h a t the appli- surface integral into a line integral; i.e., fUdr.
cation of the circulation theory requires doubling We can find the essential tools for this computa-
the value of Equation [31a]. When this adjust- tion in m o s t any m a t h e m a t i c a l handbook. T h e
m e n t is made, then the correction factors will be divergence theorem will change a volume integral
properly negative, not positive as at present. into a surface integral, i.e.
f---~2 /
J J / "-
\\
\ \
i ""
\,\,\
\.
\
i/
0.2R 0.5 R 03 R Tip
Radial Thrust Curve and Evolufe
FIG, 9,9 RADIAL T H R U S T C U R V E AND EVOLUTE
the curl of the velocity components in the slip-

stream we have
x - ~ = ~ x 0 a + v x~xe...[60]
. # , v O d z = .f, ~ Otis . . . . . . . . . [56l The axially disposed velocity components Ua
are constant in the field. Hence, the cross prod-
Stokes' theorem will change a surface integral into uct of the differential operator V yields zero.
a line integral, i.e., Here is the Achilles heel of the circulation theory.
The vanishing of the axial-velocity components
f nV X Ods= f Od? . . . . . . . . [57]
means that there is no justification for using any
I t will be observed that the last term in Equation part of the momentum theory in applying the cir-
[57] identifies the circulation G. culation theory--which has been done universally.
Let us try taking the curl of the velocity vector Herein lies the current necessity for using so m a n y
embodied in the divergence theorem by applying correction factors in order to reconcile the circula-
the del cross (V N) operator to Equation [56]. tion theory with physical facts.
Then we have The exclusion of the axial velocity in applying
the circulation theory is so important that I feel
F.v(vx)0dz = ~(vX)0ds . . . . . [ss] we should blast it out of the picture again (and
I t is evident that the last term of Equation [58] good). We have made X7 a vector; i.e., V. The
corresponds with the first term of Equation [57]. operator yields a tangent vector which is parallel
Hence, it is manifest that we can express the en- to the line vector C7A. The vector or cross prod-
tire substance of the circulation theory in the uct of two parallel vectors is always zero. So,
following equation : when we apply the V X o p e r a t o r t o the axially dis-
posed velocity vector 0A, then U~ vanishes.
', v (v x ) adz = ~ ~ (v x ) Od~ -~ I Ode. [59 ] Now to evaluate the second term in Equation
[60]. Since V has been made a vector, we can ex-
Let us try once again upon the velocity compo-
tract from any handbook the formula for expand-
nents Ua and ~ X e in the slipstream, Fig. 28.
ing a triple vector product as follows:
This time we shall make the differential operator
del a vector'; we shall put a bar under V. Taking X 5 X e = &(~.e) -- f(~&) . . . . [61]
Since Vr = 3 the first t e r m on the right side of overdone. Experience teaches t h a t suffcient un-
Equation [61] reduces to 3*5. loading m a y be accomplished b y reducing the
The second term, r(V*5), m a y appear, at first, to camber ratio at the tip to zero magnitude. This
be ambiguous since V cannot differentiate *5. zero-camber method applies for inhibiting propel-
However, we have made del a vector and therefore ler-excited noise as well as cavitation. I have not
it can act upon any vector without regard to posi- reduced the geometric pitch of the blade sections
tion. Mathematically speaking, the vector opera- near the tip for a n y propeller designed during the
tor V is associative, distributive, and c o m m u t a - past 15 years. T h e propellers for DDS28 em-
tive. So let us have V operate upon the radius body only zero camber at the t i p - - n o pitch reduc-
vector ~. When we transpose the vectors in the tion. Each propeller for DDS2S absorbs 50,000
order (*sV--)rthe scalar product then reduces to *5. shp at 350 rpm. As a m a t t e r of fact, the m o s t
Since 3,5 -- *5 = 2*5, Equation [60] reduces to 2*5. silent propeller now known to be operating is a
I t is a well-established fact t h a t the curl of any little over 18 ft. in diameter and absorbs 40,000
velocity vector yields twice the angular velocity shp. No pitch reduction at the tip was embodied
in magnitude and direction. In other words, in the d e s i g n - - I m e r e l y reduced the 66 Series
when designing a propeller b y the circulation a = I camber to zero at the tip.
theory we should use twice the circulation--not Recapitulating m y discussion, it has been shown
just once as is the case in this paper. This means t h a t our trouble lies in carrying over the results of
that the values shown in columns 13 and 19 in Ap- the old m o m e n t u m theory into the new circulation
pendix 1 should actually be multiplied b y the num- theory. T h e r e b y our procedure is deficient b y
ber 2. T h e quantities in columns 40, 42 and 44.in one whole unit of angular velocity which is termed
Appendix 2 also should be doubled. omega (co).
In order to facilitate the mathematical compu-
tations it has heretofore been customary to con- COMDR. L. H. RODDIS,JR., USN, ~[ember: T h e
sider the flow in the slipstream to be derived from writer was coauthor, together with C o m m a n d e r
a potential . This postulate does not appear to D. Furlong, USN, of the thesis entitled " R e c e n t
be acceptable. T h e reason is this : Any function Developments in Aerodynamics Applied to Ma-
derived from the derivatives of a potential yields rine Propeller Design," and as such can well ap-
a conservative system. I t is well known t h a t a preciate the excellent job which the authors have
conservative system has no curl (VX). We now done in preparing and presenting this paper.
submit: " N o s l i p I n o thrust; no c u r l - - n o circu- T h e authors' pitch correction coefficients appear
lation." to have added enough empirical correction to cor-
I t appears t h a t an example of the utility of the rect the pitch-deficiency problem which has posed
curl operator m a y be in order. Physically the the most difficulty in most attempts, .including
curl (V M) m a y be considered to analyze a variable ours, to apply straight theoretical design to wide-
function b y means of normals to the tangents of bladed marine p r o p e l l e r s . . I suspect t h a t the re-
the curve. The conventional method of analysis maining major problem, the variations in curva-
is to take the derivatives of the function and there- ture of flow, will probably also have to be handled
by determine, the slope of the tangents. Equally for semi-empirical corrections. I hope t h a t the
logical, and often more instructive, is an analysis authors' efforts will be continued for it appears
by means of the normals to the curve. Fig. 29 important to have available a propeller-design
of this discussion graphically depicts this method method which will enable an application to be
applied to the radial thrust curve of a heavily made of the extensive information theoretically
loaded propeller. T h e envelope of the normals and empirically developed in airfoil design for
yields the evolute of the thrust curve which is aircraft.
shown by the dashed line. (Actually the evolute
by the VX operator is positioned in a plane nor- DR. H. W. LERBS, Member: This paper repre-
mal to the paper. We can consider Fig. 29 to be sents the application of modern propeller theory
a periscope view.) to practical design problems. T h e authors have
In effect, the VX evolute to the thrust curve is endeavored to simplify the rigorous theory and
a quasi Hamilton hodograph and the intercepts on have shown b y comparison of numerical results
the evolute are a measure of the relative accelera- t h a t the simplified theory is sufficiently accurate
tions of the water flow over the hydrofoil sections for a practical purpose. In addition, the a m o u n t
of the propeller blade. This study confirms the of time necessary for numerical work is consider-
propriety of the authors' recommendation to un- ably reduced. I t seems to me, therefore, t h a t the
load the outer sections of the propeller blade. authors have succeeded in proposing a theoretical
However, unloading the propeller tips is generally scheme which is useful as a design tool.
o
I personally have been much interested in the" a m a t t e r of convenience of approach since a pre-
application of some ideas I had expressed formerly scribed circulation leads to a particular pitch dis-
to estimate approximately the lifting-surface effect tribution and vice versa. IVioreover some latitude
of propellers. The rigorous calculation of this is reasonable in view of the authors' remarks, which
effect requires an excessive a m o u n t of work so are endorsed b y the writer to the effect t h a t large
t h a t approximations m u s t be introduced. I t ap- changes in pitch grading can be accepted without
pears from the model tests t h a t the proposed ap- adversely influencing efficiency.
proximations are sufficient. At the same time, T h e paper brings out clearly the comparison be-
it follows t h a t the "missing pitch" of propeller tween the " a p p r o x i m a t e " and the "rigorous"
theory, of which m a n y speculations are found in method in the various stages of the design and
literature, is explained b y an effect of the lifting shows t h a t each leads to very much the same re-
surface. sult. Another instructive comparison would be
between the performance of the model propellers
]DR. R. W. L. GAWN, 13 Visitor: T h e authors including efficiency and t h a t predicted b y the au-
have presented a complicated subject with com- thors' method. Comparable figures from method-
mendable skill, thoroughness and clarity. ical series alternatives also would be useful. The
While the principles of propeller action have point here is that, until our knowledge of the com-
been long understood, it is only in the last decade plications of propeller performance is more precise,
or two t h a t advances in the involved detail of the any method of approach should be regarded as a
theory have been sufficiently promising to en- guide, and the final design of the propeller as sub-
courage m a n y designers to apply the developments ject to a d j u s t m e n t to a greater or less extent in the
to propellers. The reason for greater attention to light of experience, including tunnel tests if cavita-
this lies in the circumstances t h a t the various cor- tion is likely to influence the performance. The
rections involved, for blade width, number of information mentioned will be helpful in assessing
blades and other variables have been established the value of the alternative approaches which have
with some approach to conviction. A good deal of been suggested.
analytical work is entailed but the authors have Scale effect is one objection to methodical series
greatly reduced the effort, thanks to their valuable propeller results as mentioned b y the authors b u t
recalculation of the Goldstein functions in the light this can be very largely discounted if reliance is
of the latest and more rigorous m a t h e m a t i c a l placed on high-duty tests, such as those in the
treatment. As regards K r a m e r ' s thrust coeffi- paper b y the writer on page 1;57 of the 1953 Trans-
cient curves in Fig. 6 of the paiier, it should be actions of the Institution of N a v a l Architects.
pointed out t h a t they were calculated for two- Figs. 15 and 21 of t h a t paper among other dia-
bladed propellers and are progressively liable to grams are instructive in this respect. I t also
error if applied to propellers with more blades. I t should not be overlooked t h a t the characteristics
would be most helpful .if the authors could supply of aerofoils embodied in the authors' calculations
additional d i a g r a m s in the light of the revised are not free from objection on the score of scale
Goldstein functions as given for greater nmnbers effect.
of blades. T h e preference expressed for a camber line de-
The approach to design b y selection of the cir- fined b y a = 0.8 over what seems the more prom-
culation has much to commend it in principle and ising line a = 1.0 appears to be largely a m a t t e r
this is favored b y the authors for the "wake- of opinion. Perhaps the authors would c o m m e n t
adapted propeller." On the other hand they on this and as to whether the consequential cam-
claim t h a t more satisfactory results are obtained ber of the propeller can be guaranteed within the
for the "free-running propeller" b y first selecting narrow limits implied, having regard to the stand-
pitch and then accepting the consequential circu- ard of propeller manufacture.
lation. I t would be of interest if the authors The authors are to be congratulated on a m o s t
would give their views as to the distinction in- valuable paper, which will be the more appreci-
volved and its implications. Is it, for example, be- ated b y propeller designers because the extensive
tween a propeller liable to cavitation and one free calculating effort is effectively reduced.
from this pitfall or is some other factor involved,
such as propeller slip. Perhaps they also would ]DR. FRITZ I-tORN,t4 Visitor: After having read
remark as to whether their research has been suffi- this very i m p o r t a n t and interesting paper con-
ciently wide -to justify a more general recom- cerning the development of modern theory and de-
mendation on the point. The issue m a y be rather sign of propellers, the writer feels induced to think
t3 A d m i r a l t y E x p e r i m e n t Works, Haslar, Gosport, H a n t s , England. 14 Berlin-Zehlendorf, G e r m a n y .

back to a time about 30 years ago when the treat- I t is noted that the chart is based on published
ise of Th. Bienen and Th. yon K~rm~n on the work, but the application of some of these data re-
theory of air screws published in "Zeitschrift des sults in correction factors which vary with num-
Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure" 1924, made him, ber of blades arid are applicable to circular-arc
for the first time, acquainted with the application camber. In this paper it is interesting to note
of the aerofoil theory of screw propellers, then as that the same correction is applied irrespective .of
an engineer at the Deutsche Werft, Hamburg, he number of blades and type of camber line.
was soon able to find an opportunity to apply this The cavitation charts (Figs. 9-11) for the N A C A
theory to the actual design and construction of sections form a useful addition to the data given
screws for new vessels. This case which was, to by Lerbs 15 for K - T sections. A comparison of
his knowledge, the first such application to ship both sets of charts on a basis of constant camber
screws, related to four twin-screw vessels of the ratio shows that for the K - T sections the lift in-
British Prince Line which were built by the creases with thickness ratio, but in the case of the
Deutsche Werft and delivered in 1926. A fifth N A C A sections the lift remains constant. Re.-
ship was fitted with conventional screws. Cent tests on N A C A sections with a = 1.0 mean
In this a t t e m p t the writer in a certain system- line, which have been carried out for B S R A at
atic way tried to avoid cavitation. A compre- NPL, 16 show that for high Reynolds number (R,+
hensive report of the application was given in a = 5.6 X 106) the lift diminishes with increase in
paper presented at a meeting of the Schiffbautech- thickness. The authors' comments on these
nische Gesellschaft in 1926 (published in Year- basic aspects of the work would be appreciated.
book 1927). The design was fairly successful. These charts are strictly applicable to the shock-
The writer was then simple-minded enough to be- free entry condition, but it is suggested that their
lieve that the matter of theory and design of ship use could be extended to include moderate inci-
screws according to the circulation theory was not dence sections by the addition of incidence correc-
very far from being s e t t l e d - - n o t e t h a t at t h a t tion factors.
time he was still more engineer than scientist. Some information on the derivation of the com-
Only later did he become aware of the enormous bined friction/ideal incidence correction (Equa-
work which still had to be done in developing a tions [28a, b, c] of the paper) would be appre-
reliable theory and design method which were ciated. The factor corresponding to the a = 0.8
based on sound hydrodynamic principles, includx line which has positive ideal incidence is consider-
ing cavitation, and at the same time adapted to ably less than the factors for the circular-arc and
practical application. a -- 1.0 lines which have zero ideal incidence.
From this point of view, the approximate Presumably such variations are due to differences
method referred to by the authors is very wel- between theoretical calculations and experiments
come. However it must be kept in mind t h a t the on sections. Perhaps the authors also could give
rigorous method which previously had been devel- some details of the DT2v[B comparative experi-
oped by Dr. Lerbs could not be overlooked, since ments on N A C A sections. Recent experiments at
only through its existence is it possible to judge by N P L 17 have indicated that the a = 1.0 mean line
comparison whether the approximate method compares favorably with the circular-arc line.
proves to be sufficiently reliable. Fortunately, in In the case of the twin-screw example a non-
the writer's opinion, it does. optimum loading was obtained b y specifying a
radial variation in pitch. With heavily loaded
MR. T. P. O'BRIEN, Foreign A~liate Associate screws the maintenance of the optimum loading
Member: In this paper the authors have pre- at the outer sections requires large chord values
sented a simplified version of the circulation and this results in wide blade tips. By unloading
theory in a convenient form which can be used for the outer sections it is possible to adopt a blade
practical design purposes. The comparisons of outline with narrow tips, and one of the problems
approximate and rigorous design methods are of facing the designer is to decide to what extent the
particular interest. loading can be modified without undue loss in effi-
The camber correction chart is given in a com- ciency. Perhaps the authors can give some com-
pact form in Fig. 7, and the base of expanded area parative efficiency figures for such cases. I t is
ration (A+/Ao) provides a more convenient param-
eter than the widely used developed-area ratio. 16 " A n A p p r o x i m a t e T h e o r y of H e a v i l y L o a d e d , F r e e - R u n n i n g
Propellers in t h e O p t i m u m C o n d i t i o n , " b y H . W. L e r b s , T r a n s .
The former ratio, which is directly related to the S N A M E , vol. 58, 1950, pp. 137-171.
section chords, can be evaluated readily by Simp- t6 " E x p e r i m e n t s on M a r i n e Propeller Blade S e c t i o n s , " P a r t I I ,
B S R A R e p o r t 142, 1954.
son's rule, while the latter is not so simply defined 1~ " S o m e Effects of Blade-Section S h a p e on M o d e l S c r e w P e r -
f o r m a n c e , " b y A. Silverleaf and T. P. O ' B r i e n , T r a n s . N E C I E S ,
and is subject to errors in the vicinity of the boss. 1955.
372 A PROPELLER,DESIGN METHOD
noted that standard series data (reference 5 of the approximately the same results. Our calcula-
paper) were used to determine the diameter. tions show that there is a 4 per cent difference at
Since the optimum diameter varies with blade the hub, 1 per cent at the 0.4 radius, and no dif-
area, and the screw under consideration is com- ference at 0.7 radius, between the two methods
pletely outside the range of the standard series, it for the@rsL..appr9x~mation,: to+ the tangent of the
is debatable whether this procedure is justified. hydrodynamic pitch angle. This small difference
I t would be interesting to know whether the au- is certainly within the accuracy with which the
thors have considered the use of preliminary de- wake distribution can be measured.
sign calculations over a range of diameter as a pos- In answer to Captain Saunders' comment about
sible method for selecting the optimum diameter. the propeller behind a multiscrew ship, our intent
Some recent work at N P L has shown that for was not to imply that the propeller runs in open
wake-adapted designs it is advisable t o d e p a r t water, , b u t t h a t it is approximated by a propeller
from the shock-free entry condition at the inner running in open water. When the wake is taken
sections and design for positive incidence (say a into consideration, on most multiscrew ships the
= 3 deg at root, reducing towards the tip). This radial distribution of the circumferential average
procedure lessens the possibility of the inner sec- of the wake will be approximately constant.
tions operating in the varying wake under adverse In regard to Captain Saunders' second com-
conditions at negative incidence. ment, we must agree. The desire of any propel-
ler designer is to have the ship designed for the
LT. C D R . E C K H A R D T AND ~ { R . MORGAN: We most favorable flow possible to the propeller.
would like to thank all the discussers for their in- The optimum diameter of a propeller behind the
teresting comments on our paper, and for their ship is in question, because of lack of experimen-
many observations concerning it. tal data especially at high powers and speeds.
Professor Tro0st's comments on two items, the The optimum diameter in the behind condition is
neglect of contraction of the slipstream and the not reduced ......I n the_ ,literature; a s indicated i n ,
relationship between t h e hydrodynamic pitch this paper, experimental evidence has shown that
angle and the wake distribution, are o f great in- when Troost's open-water series was used for
terest. determining this optimum diameter, some reduc-
The discusser seems to be of the opinion that, tion of this diameter m a y be necessary to obtain
for lightly or moderately loaded propellers, the in- the "behind-the-ship optimum." The report
fluence of contraction and of the radial pressure that Captain Saunders refers to should have been
gradient in the slipstream can be neglected, but included in this paper.
that for more heavily loaded propellers, this can- In order to concentrate on the details of the de-
not be done. The authors are of the same opin- sign method, and to keep the paper of reasonable
ion. The obvious question now is when and how length certain very important aspects were not
should this additional correction be taken into discussed. One of these is the calculation of the
consideration? Dr. Lerbs' paper on heavily wake distribution from the wake survey. Fig. 11
loaded propellers, is contains a diagram (Fig. 13) of reference (21) shows a typical wake survey dia-
relating the ratio of the ideal efficiencies of a gram for a single-screw s h i p as obtained with a
heavily loaded and lightly loaded propeller to the pitot tube at the David Taylor Model Basin.
thrust coefficient. I t is our opinion that the in- The longitudinal wake components from such a
fluence of contraction and of the radial pressure diagram are averaged at the given radii, since the
gradient can be approximated from Dr. Lerbs' average of the tangential wake will be zero for a
diagram. single-screw ship. A plot is then made of the cir-
In regard to the second remark, the relation- cumferential, average of the longitudinal wake
ship used to calculate the hydrodynamic pitch versus propeller radius and this plot gives the
angle for a wake-adapted propeller is certainly nominal wake distribution. The effective wake is
somewhat oversimplified out of necessity. The the wake obtained from a propulsion test of the
effect of the local thrust deduction is unknown due model ship tested with a stock propeller. The
to lack of data, but its effect is believed to be of a nominal wake distribution at 0.7 radius is cor-
secondary nature. The equation which Professor rected to the value of the effective wake and then
Troost develops is another method of approx- corrected proportionally at the other radii.
imating this relationship. For most wake- Mr. Tachmindji's comments are greatly ap-
adapted propellers either relationship will give preciated by the authors because of the manner in
which he has spot-lighted and amplified some of
t8 "An Approximate Theory of Heavily Loaded, Free-Running the main points of the method. His remarks
Propellers in the Optimum Condition," by Dr. H. W. Lerbs, Trans.
SNAME, vol. 58, 1950, pp. 137-183. particularly on the subject of Goldstein's function
are most interesting and valuable, since the function has been shown heretofore. This was shown
tions as given in this paper are a result of his work. in this paper b y a comparison with Lerb's induc-
Dr. McCormick mentions four points in his tion-factor method, which does not assume nor-
comments: The assumption of normality at the mality. For a comparison of the results of Lud-
plane of the propeller in Fig. 5; the correction to wieg and Ginzel's work, and t h a t of Weissinger,
account for t h e difference between a wide-bladed we would like to refer lXir. Hill to our answer to
propeller and its lifting-line approximation; the Dr. McCormick's discussion.
effect of finite hub on the Goldstein function; In relation to the effect of local blade width on
and hub-vortex cavitation. the camber correction, Fig. 7, it is felt that for rea-
One of the objectives of this paper was to show sonably shaped blades this effect is negligible.
that the assumption of normality at the plane of These curves are a compilation of m a n y data in
the propeller for moderately loaded nonoptimum which the section length was considered.
propellers was valid. Fig. 5 is based on this as- The camber-correction coefficients as given in
sumption. this paper are those necessary for each section to
In reference to the lifting-surface approxima- operate at shockless entry. This m a y result in
tion, Ludwieg and Ginzel considered the curva- hollow sections near the tip. I n Mr. Hill's work,
ture of flow which arises from the fact t h a t pro- part of the theoretical lift is obtained by angle of
peller flow is curved over the chord length of a attack. There is no reason why part of the theo-
section. This theory takes into account the cur- retical lift cannot be obtained by angle of attack
vature of propeller flow at the midCiS0int of the in this method also, if it is so desired.
section, b u t does not take into account the varia- I t should be pointed out to Mr. Hill that the
tion of curvature over the chord length. Weis- term "rigorous" in connection with this paper was
singer, on the other hand, considered a wing of used to describe one of the methods of obtaining
finite span, in a flow arising from the free-stream the induced-velocity components, and not the en-
velocity and from the bound and free vortex tire design method. I t should be noted, as Mr.
sheets. Lerbs was able to approxiniate, using Hill mentions, that the incipient cavitation curves
Weissinger's theory, the effect of the variation of as given in the paper were directly derived from
curvature over the chord length. Ludwieg and airfoil data at zero angle of attack. In this paper
Ginzel's correction and Lerb's correction as given it was considered that all the lift was developed
here in this paper are, therefore, both necessary by camber, and these curves are based on this as-
until a more rigorous lifting-surface theory is de- sumption. The small angle of attack that M r .
veloped. Hill speaks of results from Dr. Lerbs' pitch cor-
There is, of course, some effect of the hub on the rection and does not mean that the section was de-
Goldstein function as gi(ren in this paper. How- signed with an angle of attack.
ever, our investigation Shows that the boundary We appreciate Dr. Hoerner's comments on the
condition at the hub is such t h a t the potential is linearity of the lift coefficient. For a propeller
zero. This results in the circulation being zero design the second nonlinear lift component would
at the hub. The reasoning is that there must be not normally enter into consideration regardless
a continuous drop to zero of the bound circulation of the advance ratio. Where it should be consid-
at t h e hub. This is" supported 'by experimental- ered is in calculating the performance of an ex-
results in A.R.C. (British) R. and M. No. 2270. isting propeller operating considerably off the
Dr. McCormick is quite right in saying that original design condition.
hub-vortex cavitation should not be forgotten in In reply to Dr. Schoenherr's comments, we
propeller design. The chance of this type of would like to say that the purpose of this paper
cavitation can be lessened by unloading the blades was not to replace shorter methods of propeller
near the hub. However, we have found tip design, based on series work, but to give a method
vortex and face cavitation to be of much more con- based on theoretical considerations applicable to
cern. We have noticed no effect of the hub vor- regions where the shorter methods do not give the
tex on propeller thrust. The difference in our ob- best results. These regions generally speaking,
set-cations and Dr. McCormick's might be attrib- are where x{arying pitch distributions are desir-
uted to three items: Our relatively smaller hub able and where cavitation is of prime importance.
diameters;-.the shape of the fairwater; and his Refinements in propeller design also give a much
better facility for investigating hub vortices. better insight into the operation of propellers
As Mr. Hill points out in his discussion, the con- than the more simplified methods. The over-all
dition of normality has been used in propeller de- effect is to enable one to be able to design pro-
sign for a number of years. The authors, how- pellers for a wide range of conditions.
ever, do not believe the validity of this assump- As Captain Wright has indicated, the problem
of p r o p e l l e r design is c o m p l i c a t e d b y t h e m a n y t h e p r o p e l l e r w i t h a s l i g h t l y modified c i r c u l a t i o n
v a r i a b l e s in t h e flow c o n d i t i o n s a r o u n d t h e p r o - to give a r e a s o n a b l e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n . F o r this
peller. O n l y b y c o n t i n u a l effort in b o t h t h e r e a s o n we h a v e f o u n d it m o r e c o n v e n i e n t to select
t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p r a c t i c a l a v e n u e s of a n a l y s i s will t h e p i t c h first.
we r e a c h a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of propeller ac- Dr. G a w n is c o r r e c t in s a y i n g t h a t t h e prefer-
tion a n d a m o r e c o m p l e t e a n d e x a c t design ence for t h e a = 0.8 o v e r t h e a = 1.0 m e a n line is
method. l a r g e l y a m a t t e r of opinion. W e do n o t h a v e
R e g a r d i n g M r . B r a z e l l ' s c o m m e n t s it should be e n o u g h e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a to d a t e to j u s t i f y pref-
n o t e d t h a t t h e m e t h o d used here is in e x a c t con- erence for one or t h e other. I n r e g a r d to m a n -
f o r m i t y w i t h airfoil t h e o r y . S o m e confusion m a y u f a c t u r i n g tolerances, we feel t h a t t h e difference
arise f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t we c a l c u l a t e a design sec- b e t w e e n t h e a = 0.8 a n d a = 1.0 m e a n lines c a n be
tion lift coefficient a n d t h e n c o r r e c t t h e c a m b e r of achieved.
t h e section a n d a d d an angle of a t t a c k to o b t a i n D r . H o r n h a s given an i n t e r e s t i n g r~sum6 of
this lift coefficient. T h e reverse of this a p p r o a c h s o m e of his experiences w i t h original use of t h e air-
is to d e t e r m i n e t h e lift coefficient f r o m a given foil t h e o r y . H e also h a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t Dr.
section b y a p p l y i n g correction f a c t o r s to t h e theo- L e r b s ' rigorous m e t h o d should still be k e p t in
retical lift coefficient. I n t h e first case t h e cor- m i n d . W e feel t h a t w h e n e v e r t h e a p p r o x i m a t e
rection is a d d i t i v e while in t h e second it is sub- m e t h o d is b e i n g used for a new a p p l i c a t i o n , a
t r a c t i v e . W h i c h t y p e of c o r r e c t i o n y o u use de- check a l w a y s should be m a d e w i t h t h e r i g o r o u s
p e n d s on w h e t h e r y o u w a n t to o b t a i n a given lift method.
or w a n t t o c a l c u l a t e w h a t t h e lift will be. l-VIr. O ' B r i e n c o m m e n t s on t h e effect of R e y n -
T h e c i r c u l a t i o n !V[r. Brazell discusses is n o t t h e olds n u m b e r a n d t h i c k n e s s on t h e lift of different
c i r c u l a t i o n a b o u t a b l a d e as used in this p a p e r . I t airfoils. T h i s effect d e p e n d s on t h e t y p e of m e a n
is n o t o b v i o u s h o w his d e r i v a t i o n can be used to line a n d section used. M a n y of t h e N A C A sec-
d e t e r m i n e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each b l a d e sec- t i o n s as well as t h e K - T sections h a v e a v a r y i n g
tion. lift w i t h a v a r y i n g thickness. F o r t h e sections
C o m m a n d e r R o d d i s p o i n t s o u t t h e need for a a n d m e a n lines for w h i c h t h e c h a r t s a r e p r e p a r e d ,
m e t h o d to a p p l y k n o w n airfoil d a t a t o p r o p e l l e r however, t h e lift r e m a i n s p r a c t i c a l l y c o n s t a n t with
design. M a n y t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p r a c t i c a l r e s u l t s varying thickness and Reynolds number. There
a r e a v a i l a b l e to t h e designer f r o m these d a t a . I t is s o m e d i s c r e p a n c y a t t h e g r e a t e r thicknesses, as
is h o p e d t h a t this m e t h o d will e n a b l e t h e airfoil M r . O ' B r i e n h a s n o t e d , b u t t h e s e will h a v e negli-
results to be of m o r e use to t h e p r o p e l l e r designer. gible effect when considering t h e t o t a l lift of a p r o -
Dr. L e r b s ' c o m m e n t s v e r y a b l y s t a t e t h e m a i n peller b l a d e w i t h a n o r m a l t h i c k n e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n .
p o i n t s of this p a p e r . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t I n r e g a r d to i n c i p i e n t c a v i t a t i o n c h a r t s w i t h small
m a n y d e t a i l s of t h i s m e t h o d are a d i r e c t r e s u l t of angles of a t t a c k , i t is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t e i t h e r cor-
his work. T h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n of t h e lifting sur- rection f a c t o r s or new c h a r t s will be p r e p a r e d .
face, as he h a s s t a t e d , seems to give r e a s o n a b l e E q u a t i o n s [28a, b, c] are a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e
results; h o w e v e r , for a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of friction c o r r e c t i o n a n d t h e ideal angle of a t t a c k .
propeller a c t i o n a m o r e r i g o r o u s a p p r o a c h is B o t h these come f r o m t h e r e s u l t s of a v a i l a b l e air-
needed. foil d a t a . T h e friction c o r r e c t i o n is d e r i v e d from
I n r e g a r d to Dr. G a w n ' s c o m m e n t s on t h e need t h e r a t i o of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l angle of zero l i f t to
of c a l c u l a t i n g K r a m e r ' s thrust-coefficient curves, t h e t h e o r e t i c a l angle of zero lift. T h i s r a t i o is a p -
i t should be n o t e d t h a t in t h i s design m e t h o d K r a - p r o x i m a t e l y 0.74 for t h e a = 1.0 m e a n line a n d
m e r ' s c u r v e s are used o n l y t o give t h e first esti- 1.05 for t h e a = 0.8 m e a n line. A s an e x a m p l e
m a t e of t a n fl~. T h e a c c u r a c y of K r a m e r ' s curves,
therefore, do n o t affect t h e p r o p e l l e r design. R e - al = 57.3 (1 -- 0.74) CL
2
c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e s e c u r v e s is i m p o r t a n t for de-
creasing t h e n u m b e r of a p p r o x i m a t i o n s necessary. for t h e a = 1.0 m e a n line. I n r e g a r d to c o m p a r a -
T h e N e t h e r l a n d s S h i p l'YIodel B a s i n h a s some w o r k t i v e t e s t s w i t h different N A C A sections, v e r y little
in p r o g r e s s for t h e i r r e c a l c u l a t i o n (6). can b e a d d e d a t this t i m e to w h a t was said in t h e
Dr. G a w n wishes to k n o w t h e p u r p o s e of cal- paper.
c u l a t i n g t h e " f r e e - r u n n i n g p r o p e l l e r " f r o m a given T h e v a l i d i t y of t h e m e t h o d b y w h i c h t h e op-
pitch rather than circulation distribution. We t i m u m d i a m e t e r was d e t e r m i n e d for t h e wide-
h a v e f o u n d t h a t when s t a r t i n g f r o m a given cir- b l a d e d p r o p e l l e r is d e b a t a b l e . D e s i g n calcula-
c u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e r e s u l t i n g p i t c h will o f t e n t i o n s o v e r a r a n g e of d i a m e t e r s is a p o s s i b l e a l t e r -
b e v e r y unfair. T h i s n e c e s s i t a t e s r e c a l c u l a t i n g native.

Propeller Design

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Propeller Design

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TIP FACE B^cg

TYPES OF PROPELLER CAVITATION

A Propeller Design Method

FIG 1 GOLDSTEIN FUNCTIONS (K) FOR THREE-BLADED PROPELLERS

FIG. 2 GOLDSTEIN FUNCTIONS (K) FOR FOUR-BLADED PROPELLERS

Fro. 3 GOLDSTI~IN F U N C T I O N S (K) FOR F I v E - B L A D E D P R O P E L L E R S

pared to the inflow velocities for a moderately

FIG. 7 CAMBER CORRECTION COEFFICIENTS

FIG. 8 FORCE DIAGRAM OF VISCOUS FLOW AT A BLADE SECTION

0.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.S 0.6 0.7 "0.8

F o r design p u r p o s e s i t is n e c e s s a r y to c h a n g e t h e . CT~ = 8 xK ~ d x . . . [10]

I n c a l c u l a t i n g a p r o p e l l e r t h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n of T h e foregoing f o r m u l a is c a l c u l a t e d for dCTi a t

101.27 V,4 _ X [8]

F o r n o n v i s c o u s flow t h e s e b e c o m e r o u n d i n g fluid a t a n y point, c a v i t a t i o n will occur

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

1900 TABLE 2 NACASEcTIONS AND MEAN LINES

sirable pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d gives a section As was s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y the pitch m u s t also

An example of o b t a i n i n g c a m b e r rn,, or the c a m b e r ..... [29]

2 (; cos cos ~ - b 0.7 sin ~ ) .x .l .'/'. [30]

T h e abscissa is the e x p a n d e d area ratio (AE/Ao) ( E x c e p t for this p i t c h correction, G is defined as

1.8 a0 = angle of zero lift of m e a n line

P / D = 7rxtan (/3~ + sl) (1 + P/D ]"'[37]

T h e additional angle of a t t a c k sb is equal to the T h e foregoing check, m a d e at 0.7 radius, should

RADII PITCH CURVE

9S lr862 ~' "'" ,'. 9.0d1-

x ...._ I " .." \ .10667

FIG. 14 DRAWINGOF THE FREE-RUNNING MODEL PROPELLER

Power is then gtven by this formula. A more rigorous approach to the

/ " ~ = l'05"[/r~g~""~ 4 m a x stresss ef

0.2 0.3 0.4 o.5 0.6 0.'/ 0.8 0.9 1.0

FIG. 18 DRAWING OF WAKE-ADAPTED MODEL PROPELLER

~" I.o / ~ . L-"l I I I ~ Troos* S~ries~pen Wa%r

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 05/ 0.8 0.9 1.0

the screw is directly behind the stem of the ship.

CONCLUSIO NS thank M r s . M a r t h a Peabody for her untiring

Column tolD from E q u a t i o n [24]

Sc = 12,500 (see note u n d e r E q u a t i o n [24]) 34 F r o m Col 11

APID'~ ( t a n (/3i -{- a2)'~ 55 tan 131 from Col 5

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

Column h = 1.20 f r o m F i g . 13 w h e r e 0 = 80 d e g . . . [33]

obtain the bending stresses, the bending moments dCrt

0.347 / FIG. 26 COEFFICIENT

0.746 x, = (0.4838 -- O . 0 2 0 m ~ / l ) l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54b]

FIG. 24 COEFFICIENT OF B L A D E SECTION A R E A (a) xa = xl -- 0.5l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [54d]

F I c . 25 COEFFICIENT FOR Ix0 OF BLADE SECTION (b)

E q u a t i o n s for t h e g e o m e t r i c p r o p e r t i e s of a Yl = - - ( 0 . 1 1 3 t = / l + 0 . 7 8 2 ) ( m J l ) l ......... [54e]

A = a r e a = 0 . 9 8 6 ( a t J l ) ~ (a f r o m Fig. 24). [54a] I~o = 0.946(ct=/l)l 4 (c f r o m Fig. 26) . . . . . . . . [54/]

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Col 24a = 3.578 Z Col 26a ~ 2.844

(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)

(31a) (32a) (33a) Col 7 X Col 33a

(34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42)

(45~ (46) (.47) (48) (49) (50) '(51)

48 Col 27 (Appendix 1) 51 Obtain kl and k2 as in Appendix 1 from Fig. 7 and

MR. A. J. TACHMINDJI,Associate 2]Iember: Im- 71" ~ am

~" = (2m + 1) 2 However, even the use of such corrected values

11 Associate Professor of E n g i n e e r i n g Research, Ordnance Re- ~ " T h e Effect of a F i n i t e H u b on t h e O p t i m u m P r o p e l l e r , " by

S ~ p a r ~-~'lo n estimated roughly, so t h a t extreme refinements in

Tofal Veloclfy U=_UA+ URoT=UAOOY.J'L

FIG, 9,9 RADIAL T H R U S T C U R V E AND EVOLUTE