Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
Propulsion Committee
Final Report and Recommendations to the 28th ITTC
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Membership and Meetings
The members of the Propulsion Committee
of the 28th International Towing Tank Confer-
ence are as follows:
 Moon Chan Kim (Chairman), Pusan Na-
tional University, Korea
 Nikolaj Lemb Larsen (Secretary), FORCE,
Denmark
 Ramon Quereda, INTA-CEHIPAR, Spain
 Steven Ceccio, University of Michigan,
USA
 Aleksey Yakovlev, Krylov State Research
Centre, Russia
 Rainer Grabert, Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt
GmbH, Germany
 Takuya Ohmori, Japan Marine United
Corporation, Japan
 Chen-Jun Yang, Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni-
versity, China
Five Committee meetings were held as fol-
lows:
 Pusan National University, Korea, 17-19
December 2014
 Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt, Germany, 21-
22 October 2015
 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, 16-
17 May 2016
 University of Michigan, USA, 14-15 No-
vember 2016
 INTA-CEHIPAR, Spain, 6-7 April 2017
1.2 Recommendations of the 27th ITTC
The 27th ITTC recommended the following
tasks for the 28th ITTC Propulsion Committee:
1. Update the state-of-the-art for predict-
ing the propulsive performance of ships,
emphasizing developments since the 2014
ITTC Conference, The committee report
should include sections on:
a. The potential impact of new technolog-
ical developments on the ITTC including
new types of propulsors (e.g. hybrid propul-
sors), azimuthing thrusters, cycloidal propel-
lers and propulsors with flexible blades
b. New experimental techniques and ex-
trapolation
c. New benchmark data
d. The practical applications of computa-
tional methods to the propulsion systems
predictions and scaling
e. New developments of experimental
and computational methods applicable to the
prediction of cavitation
f. The need for R&D for improving meth-
ods of model experiments, numerical model-
ling and full-scale measurements
g. Monitoring the developments regard-
ing high-speed marine vehicles
 Propulsion Committee
2
2. During the first year, review ITTC
Recommended Procedures relevant to pro-
pulsion and cavitation, including CFD pro-
cedures, and
a. Identify any requirements for changes
in the light of current practice and, if ap-
proved by the AC, update them.
b. Identify the need for new procedures
and outline the purpose and contents of these.
3. Cooperate and exchange information
with the Specialist Committee on Energy
Saving Methods on subjects of common in-
terest.
4. Cooperate and exchange information
with the Specialist Committee on Perfor-
mance of Ships in Service regarding conse-
quences of EEDI, especially with respect to
ITTC Recommended Procedure 7.5-02-03-
01.4, 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction
Method, with special emphasis on the pro-
posed value of the propeller roughness (too
high), ΔCF and CA, also for different draft
conditions. Include the evaluation method of
the Load Variation Test in Procedures 7.5-
02-03-01.4, 1978 ITTC Performance Predic-
tion Method. Supplement a more detailed
description of the load variation test in the
ITTC Recommended Procedure 7.5-02-03-
01.1, Propulsion/Bollard Pull Test. Harmo-
nize the formulae in ITTC Recommended
Procedures 7.5-02-03-01.4 and 7.5-02-03-
01.2(Uncertainty Analysis, Example for
Propulsion Test).
5. Develop an extension of the existing
procedure 7.5-02-03-01.4, 1978 ITTC Per-
formance Prediction Method for triple shaft
vessels.
6. Develop new roughness correction
methods for both hull and propeller.
7. Continue with the monitoring of exist-
ing full scale data for podded propulsion. If
there is available data, refine the existing
procedure.
8. Review and update guideline 7.5-02-
03-01.6, Hybrid Contra-Rotating Shaft Pro-
pulsors Model Test.
9. Review and update, if required, Rec-
ommended Procedure 7.5-02-05-03.2 Water-
jet System Performance.
10. Continue the given task9 from the for-
mer period (Examine the possibilities of
CFD methods regarding scaling of uncon-
ventional propeller open water data. Initiate
a comparative CFD calculation project).
11. Examine methods of target wake simu-
lation with the support of CFD (smart dum-
my).
12. Monitor the use of and, if possible, de-
velop guidelines for quasi-steady open water
propeller and propulsion model tests.
1.3 General Remarks
All the tasks outlined in the terms of refer-
ence were taken in charge by the present com-
mittee. The procedure for load variation test
(LVT) has been added to the performance pre-
diction procedure and the procedure for a triple
shaft vessel has been developed. The validation
is expected to be conducted in the near future.
The roughness for the extrapolation of the per-
formance of a model propeller and a model
ship has been investigated. It was very difficult
to change the standard roughness due to the
lack of full-scale correlation data, although the
present standard value appears to be somewhat
high. There is some argument regarding the use
of the standard CA value because, in reality,
there are almost no institutes using the ITTC
standard CA value. In spite of the perception of
the PSS Committee regarding the non-usability
of CA, the Propulsion Committee decided to
retain the standard value in the procedure. The
committee collaborated with the Specialist
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
3
Committee on Energy Saving Methods and
Performance of Ships in Service with respect to
Task3 and Task4 in the third meeting. New ex-
trapolation methods for unconventional devices
with regard to the LVT procedure have been
proposed to the ESM Committee and these,
along with the CA values according to the dif-
ferent drafts, were discussed with the PSS
Committee. There was a limited amount of re-
cent material available in the public domain
containing works that provide full-scale data
for podded propulsion. This has limited the
work of the Committee for Task7. The use of
the CFD bench mark test has been continued
for the comparison of the accuracy of the data
for each institute, and it has been extended to
cover the unconventional tip rake propeller.
2. STATE OF THE ART UPDATE
Many major international conferences were
held since the 27th ITTC conference in 2014:
 ISOPE 2014 International Ocean and Po-
lar Engineering Conference: 24nd interna-
tional Ocean and Polar Engineering, 15-20
June 2014, Korea.
 The 11th International Conference on
Hydrodynamics (ICHD 2014), 19-24 Oc-
tober, Singapore
 International Conference on Maritime
Technology (ICMT 2014), 7-9 July 2014,
Glasgow, UK
 30th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynam-
ics, 2-7 November 2014, RACV/RACT
Hobart Apartment Hotel, Hobart
 OMAE, June 8-13 2014, San Francisco,
CA
 6th. European Conference on Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics, 20-25 July 2014,
Barcelona, Spain
 4th Symposium on Marine Propulsors &
2nd Workshop on Cavitating propeller
Performance, May 31 – June 4 2015, Aus-
tin, Texas, USA
 11th International Symposium on Particle
Image Velocimetry, 14-16 September
2015, Santa Barbara, CA USA
 Naval Future Force S&T EXPO, 4-5 Feb-
ruary 2015, Washington D.C., USA
 ISOPE 2015 International Ocean and Po-
lar Engineering Conference: 25nd interna-
tional Ocean and Polar Engineering, 21-26
June 2015, Kona, Big Island, Hawaii,
USA
 MARIN 2015 VI International Confer-
ence on Computational Methods in Marine
Engineering, 15-17 June 2015, Rome, Ita-
ly
 OMAE May 31 – June 5 2015, St. John`s,
NL, Canada
 ICAH 2015: XIII International Confer-
ence on Aerodynamics and Hydrodynam-
ics, 16-17 February 2015, London, United
Kingdom
 ISOPE 2016, June 26 – July 1, Rhodes
 OMAE 2016, The 35th International Con-
ference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, 19-25 June 2016, Busan,
South Korea
 NSN`2015, 2-3 July 2015, St. Petersburg,
Russia
 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynam-
ics, 11-16 September 2016, Monterey,
California
 ICAH 2016: International Conference on
Arts and Humanities, Singapore, SG
 The 12th International Conference on
Hydrodynamics 18-23 September 2016,
Delft, The Netherlands
 2016 2nd International Conference on
Marine, Ocean and Environmental Scienc-
es and Technologies (MAROCENET), 15-
17 March 2016
 PRADS in Copenhagen, 4-8 September
2016
 Fifth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors 12-15 June 2017, Helsinki,
Finland
The most relevant papers from these con-
ferences and from other technical journals and
conferences were reviewed and reported.
 Propulsion Committee
4

2.1 New technological developments efficiency at positive flap angle becomes high-
er than that at zero flap angle when J≥0.6. Us-
ing metal and carbon fibre/epoxy laminate as
2.1.1 New types of propulsors blade material respectively the structural re-
sponses to hydrodynamic loading are simulated
Six new types of propulsor are introduced. via FE analysis, and found to be the same as
One is the morphing composite propeller that each other.
has movable flaps on the blades. Being pub-
lished in Feb. 2017, it is currently in the design
stage. If further research is done, it has a high
potential for development. The other is a duct-
shaped water wheel without rotating blades.
This water wheel has vanes with screw surfac-
es arranged on the duct inner surface and the
rotating boss with protuberances. Although the
efficiency is low compared to the conventional
propulsors the improvement seems to continue.
The third one is a multi-component design of
the rotor-stator-nozzle (RSN) propulsor fitted
on the AZIPODs which shows the improve-
ment with ESD for the POD propulsor and the
final one is for the cyclic pitch propeller which Figure 1 Schematic of MCP (a) conventional
has been analyzed by CFD works. There was propeller (b) simplification of MCP (c) cavi-
some limitation in the potential analysis be- ties of MCP (d) ultimate design
cause of its unsteadiness and the secondary ef-
fect due to the rotating of pitch. The last two Kazuo Suzuki, et al. (2015) presented a
papers deal analysis of the oscillating foil pro- proposal of the duct-shaped water wheel with-
pulsor, which is a promising concept due to out rotating blades along with the results of
high efficiency. fundamental experiments. An example of the
model of proposed new water wheel is shown
Fanling Chen, et al. (2017) presented a in Figure 2. An incident uniform flow into the
study on the morphing composite propeller duct is curved spirally along the vanes lying on
(MCP) for marine vehicles. The working con- screw surfaces. This spiral flow can induce a
dition of MCP is very complicated; increases in rotational motion of the boss with protuberanc-
propeller thrust and efficiency would be bene- es. From this rotational motion, energy for
ficial at off-design operating conditions such as generation of electricity can be obtained. The
crash-back or rapid reversing. Due to these rea- new type duct-shaped water wheel`s perfor-
sons an integrated geometry reconfiguration mance is evaluated by fundamental experi-
technique such as morphing composite propel- ments. Trial models based on the proposed
ler seems to be capable of improving the effi- basic ideas and their revised models are tested.
ciency significantly. As illustrated in Figure 1, As an example, the maximum efficiency is im-
the proposed MCP has Active Rotatable Flaps proved from 1.9% to 7.7% by revised designs
(ARFs) installed flush with blade trailing edges of shapes based on the experiments.
and driven by a piezo-stack actuator system to
adjust the flap angle. According to RANS sim-
ulation results of the open water performance
over a range of advance coefficient and flap
angle, the thrust and torque of MCP both in-
crease as the flap angle increases; while the
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
5
Figure 2 Proposed new duct-shaped water
wheel without rotating blades
Nikolay V. et al. (2017) presented a multi-
component design of the rotor-stator-nozzle
(RSN) propulsor fitted on the AZIPODs. A
numerical design method has been developed
for the RSN propulsor which is fitted on the
AZIPODs with post-swirl stators. The design
problem is formulated as the nonlinear optimi-
zation of an objective functional with re-
strictions over a field of infinite dimensions,
which is reduced to finite dimensions in the
numerical solution of this problem. The shape
of internal and external nozzle surfaces and the
distributions of pitch, camber, width and thick-
ness of rotor and stator blade sections are un-
known functions in the RSN propulsor design.
The accuracy of the design method is investi-
gated through CFD-aided calculation of de-
signed propulsors. The AZIPOD XL propulsor
concept has been developed by using the pre-
sent method.
Figure 3 RSN propulsor (View of designed
unite)
Arno Dubois, et al. (2017) presented the
development of a numerical model for the hy-
drodynamic performance analysis of a collec-
tive and cyclic pitch propeller. Recent studies
identified the need for additional research into
the CCPP`s (collective and Cyclic Pitch Pro-
peller) unsteady flow behaviour and force gen-
eration capabilities before the technology can
become an usable propulsion and manoeuvring
system for AUVs. This paper aims to provide a
first look into the developed numerical model`s
capabilities in simulating and evaluating the
CCPP`s hydrodynamic performance and flow
behaviour. The numerical results showed the
capability of the CCPP to generate an effective
manoeuvring force by applying cyclic pitch at
zero collective and a zero forward velocity.
The research established the importance of the
blade rake in the control of both the manoeu-
vring force`s effectiveness, orientation, and the
generated thrust force. Through extended nu-
merical analysis of the CCPP, the research
aims to generate knowledge on operational and
design improvements aspiring to increase the
CCPP`s working principle.
Figure 4 CCPP by Humphrey (2005)
Sanchez-Caja, et al. (2017) investigated in-
to the strong dependency of hydrodynamic ef-
ficiency on foil chord length for two types of
oscillating foil propulsors by means of a lifting
line model which incorporates corrections ac-
counting for the added mass, finite span, wake
induced velocity, and fluid viscosity. The po-
tential flow model was shown to be reasonably
accurate through comparisons with experiment
data for the oscillating foil and RANS results
for the trochoidal propeller. Respectively for
the two propulsors, the calculated change in
consumed power was shown when the chord
length was doubled but the thrust coefficient
CT was kept unchanged by modifying the foil`s
motion parameters. In such cases it was found
 Propulsion Committee
6

that the added mass effects were mainly at-

tributable to the deterioration of foil perfor-
mance.

Instead of resorting to the thin foil theory,

another numerical approach based on URANS
simulations was presented by Martio, et al.
(2016) to evaluate the added mass and damping
for a flapping foil undergoing small amplitude
pitching motions. The added mass and damp-
ing coefficients were obtained by means of Figure 5 Ice forces loading scenario 1
first-order harmonic fittings of the computed
forces. The computed thrust and efficiency as
functions of the maximum angle of attack and
the Strouhal number compare reasonably well
with published experimental data. The Reyn-
olds number effects on the added mass and
damping were discussed.

2.1.2 Thrusters

As the need for operation in ice condition

increases the interaction between azimuthing
thruster and ice has been investigated. R. Roe-
men, et al. (2016) studied the oblique ice im-
pact loading of azimuthing propulsion units.
Azimuthing thrusters enhance the operational
capabilities of vessels sailing in ice covered
water. The new operation modes in ice result
also in considerable ice loading on the thruster.
As the propeller driveline and the steering
driveline are physically linked, both systems
are to be included in the model for dynamic
analysis. The presented simulation load cases
show that the blade frequency loading on the
propeller driveline results in blade frequency
load contribution on the steering driveline. The
verification of the correct functioning of the
system in case of ice milling requires a dynam-
ic analysis taking into account all relevant
components of the steering system. The re-
sponse of the system can be simulated and
evaluated with respect to the required use.
Figure 6 Loading scenario 2, seen from below
and ahead
Hubless Rim Driven Thruster (RDT) has
been developed continually in recent years.
Bao-wei Song, et al. (2015) compared the open
water performances of hub-type and hub-less
RDTs based on CFD computations. The RANS
equations were numerically solved by means of
the commercial code CFX 14.0 and the multi-
ple frames of reference (MFR) model. Four
pairs of hub-type and hub-less RDTs driven
thrusters having different hub radius were
computed. The simulation results demonstrate
that the efficiency of hub-less RDT is higher
than that of the hub-type RDT. The difference
in efficiency increases with hub diameter as
well as advance coefficient. For the hub ratio
of 0.25 and advance coefficient of 0.7 (the de-
sign point), the efficiency of hub-less RDT is
2.2% higher than that of the hub-type RDT. To
choose a suitable structure under different con-
ditions, more work should be carried out on
stress distribution, vibration, noise, cavitation,
etc. The influence of the blade deformation
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
7
should also be considered which might limit
the applicable power of the propuslor.
Figure 7 A pair of hub-type and hub-less RDT
(a) Hub-type RDT and (b) hub-less RDT
2.1.3 Flexible propellers
Especially in the last ten years, the list of
papers on the hydro-elastic analysis of flexible
(composite) propellers has been growing,
showing that we are dealing with a challenging
research area. Recent studies have illustrated
the benefits related to the concept of flexible
propellers, therefore it can be expected that the
number of publications will continually grow.
Pieter J. Naljaars, et al. (2015) gives an
overview of the past research on the hydro-
elastic analysis of flexible propellers. A FEM
modelling with solid elements is recommended
for the FSI coupling of flexible propellers. No
comparative studies between different hydro-
dynamic modelling approaches for the FSI
analysis of flexible propellers have been pre-
sented in literature. Therefore, an important
addition to the current investigations would be
such a comparative study in which also the im-
plication of neglecting the fluid viscosity in the
hydrodynamic modelling should be assessed.
With respect to the partitioned and the mono-
lithically coupling approach for FSI calcula-
tions, it can be concluded that the partitioned
approach provides the most opportunities.
Figure 8 Composite model scale propeller
An important question related to the model-
ling of cavitation in flexible propellers is
whether or not the calculation of the cavity ex-
tents has to be included in the iteration loop
between the fluid and structural solver. As for
the optimisation studies, the majority of the
flexible propeller case studies focus on propel-
ler efficiency, resulting in a lot of publications
demonstrating the potential abilities of flexible
propellers with respect to fuel saving. More
numerical studies on vibration, cavitation and
noise properties of flexible propellers are rec-
ommended. As for the experimental research,
an accurate recording of the propeller defor-
mations in uniform and non-uniform flows will
provide possibilities for validation purposes.
But it can be concluded that up to now, nobody
has clearly demonstrated how to measure the
deformations of flexible propellers, even in a
steady flow, in an accurate way.
Figure 9 Contours of change in tip pitch angle
for a flexible (top) and rigid (bottom) propel-
ler in a uniform flow
 Propulsion Committee
8
Figure 10 Efficiency for the flexible (top) and
rigid (bottom) propeller in a uniform flow
Hyungsuk Lee, et al. (2015) also presented
a numerical study on the Hydro-elastic behav-
iour of composite marine propeller. The topic
of this study is the numerical investigation of
hydro-elastic effects on a composite marine
propeller that accounts for the lamination of
fiber material. The BEM/FEM-based FSI algo-
rithm is proposed for the hydro-elastic analysis
and design of a composite marine propeller be-
cause of its computational efficiency and accu-
racy. The usability of reverse engineering with
steady analysis and the possibility of perfor-
mance optimization at off-design conditions is
confirmed by applying the simple ply stack
model to the well-known KP458 benchmark
propeller. A finite element model of acoustic
fluid medium is introduced in order to consider
hydrodynamic damping effects such as the
added mass due to blade vibration in water.
The analyses for orthotropic homogeneous ma-
terial elastomer propellers are compared with
the disclosed test and results of analyses from
previous studies. The accuracy of the present
methodology is evaluated through comparisons
with the steady and unsteady FSI analysis.
Figure 11 Comparison of the structural analy-
sis between the real FE model and simple-
stack model
Figure 12 Comparison of efficiency according
to the combination of ply stack angles and
orientation angles at off-design condition
Hyoungsuk Lee, et al. (2017) also presented
a design concept of composite marine propeller
for long stroke slow speed main engine. In this
study, a composite marine propeller design
concept to improve the propeller performance
at low speed and heavy load condition with op-
timum (large) diameter propeller and LSSS
(Long Stroke and Slow Speed). Application of
LSSS M/E and de-rated engine setting leads to
improve EEDI remarkably by reduction of
SFOC and maximization propeller efficiency.
But these also lead to dissatisfaction of the
minimum propulsion power requirements and
shortage of M/E power margin at low and mid-
dle speed range due to LSSS M/E characteris-
tics. To resolve the problems, a composite ma-
terial propeller is proposed as an alternative
and proposed design concept is applied by
composite lay-up optimization using BEM-
FEM FSI and CFD-FEM FSI analyses.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
9
Figure 13 Difference between target and at-
tained efficiency
Figure 14 Open water efficiency at J=0.2
(heavy load condition)
Pol Muller, et al. (2017) presented the de-
velopment of a fluid structure coupling for
composite tidal turbines and marine propellers.
The recent strong development of composite
blades for propellers and tidal turbines has
been driven both by the reduction of mass
compared to metallic materials and by the im-
pact of the deformation of blades on the im-
provement of their performances. The gain in
performances concerns the efficiency of the
propeller or turbine, the mitigation of the risk
of cavitation and, by extension, the reduction
of noise and vibrations. In order to help the de-
signer to make the appropriate choices during
early design stages, new numerical tools like a
fluid-structure coupling for heavy fluid are
necessary in addition to existing numerical and
experimental methods. In terms of software
development the main target is to provide an
efficient tool which can be integrated in an op-
timisation environment for preliminary to in-
termediate design phases, therefore with low
resource consumption, fast execution time,
easy file setup and fully scripted for an auto-
mated execution in command line.
Figure 15 4498_3 blade deformations at
J=0.600(20Hz) seen from the suction side
(left) and from the leading edge (right), col-
oured by deformation amplitude and magni-
fied x10.
2.1.4 Podded propeller
The pod propulsion system has been firstly
analysed with wave interaction by CFD method.
Patrick Quentey, et al. (2014) presented the
dynamic behaviour of the loads of podded pro-
pellers in waves using experimental and nu-
merical simulation. The aim of the paper was
to confront advanced computational and exper-
imental fluid dynamics methods about the dy-
namic behaviour of the propeller loads for a
podded ship in sailing condition. The simula-
tion of the podded propulsion of a ship advanc-
ing in head wave is quite challenging as it was
the first time such a simulation was conducted
with the considered flow solver. The computed
flow field (both in direction and in intensity)
entering the propeller is considered accurate
enough; and by using advanced CFD one can
get better understanding of flow phenomena
and interactions for design improvements.
 Propulsion Committee
10
Figure 16 Instantaneous free-surface defor-
mation details in the propeller region at four
particular time instants during the last com-
puted encountered period
2.1.5 Cycloidal propeller
Cycloidal propeller is being used because
of its excellent manoeuvrability although the
efficiency is quite low. CFD can also be ap-
plied to this kind of propulsor. Marco Altosole,
et al. (2017) presented marine cycloidal pro-
pulsion modelling for DP applications. This
paper considers the numerical modelling of a
cycloidal propeller in free-running conditions
together with its possible applications. The
model calibration was carried out by compar-
ing simulation results with experimental data of
an existing cycloidal unit.
Figure 17 Thrust and torque coefficients of
the cycloidal thruster
Figure 18 DP capability polar plots for differ-
ent thrust allocation logics
A simulation model for ship cycloidal pro-
pellers has been presented. The simulator has
been calibrated by comparing simulation and
experimental data.
Another paper for the cycloidal propeller by
Atanu Halder, et al. (2017) has been presented
for the unsteady hydrodynamic modeling of a
cycloidal propeller. None of the previous stud-
ies on cycloidal propellers provide information
on the unsteady flow phenomena including dy-
namic virtual camber/incidence and dynamic
stall on the blades. Therefore, the present paper
focuses on the development of a detailed high-
fidelity unsteady hydrodynamic model, which
is capable of predicting not only the time aver-
aged forces, but also the time history of forces
of a cycloidal propeller blade.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
11
Figure 19 Effect of pitch rate on dynamic vir-
tual camber at two extreme azimuthal loca-
tions (0° and 180°)
2.2 New experimental techniques and
extrapolation methods
The minimum Reynolds number (2X105)
for ITTC standard POW test has been issued
because test data are sometimes unreliable
around the minimum Reynolds number. Steph-
an Helma (2015) presented the new extrapola-
tion method for scaling of propellers of any
design. The extrapolation procedures currently
used to scale propeller characteristics tested at
model scale to their full scale performances are
either based on the ITTC 1978 method, Lerbs-
Meyne or the recently developed strip method.
With the emergence of so-called unconven-
tional propellers and different design strategies
associated with them, it has been questioned
whether the assumptions used in these scaling
methods are still universally valid. The equiva-
lent profile which composes the CL, CD and
hydrodynamic inflow angle at each radius has
been used for this new method. Another im-
portant point is scaling of drag coefficient
which is separately scaled by viscous term and
form drag term and also more detailed scaling
is introduced into them. The newly proposed
method shows a superior performance when
compared to other scaling methods although
more complicated analysis is needed.
Figure 20 Differences between the predictions
for the case study based on open-water char-
acteristics scaled according to the ITTC 1978
and the new method.
Figure 20 shows that the two ∆PD~VS
curves obtained from the new method are clos-
er to each other when compared to those from
the ITTC 1978 method. It can be seen that for
the ITTC 1978 method the differences increase
with the ship speed whereas the differences for
the new method cross each other roughly at the
design speed. This new method has the poten-
tial to replace existing methods as shown in the
exemplary results. Although the Reynolds
number dependency clearly disappeared with
the new method, it is expected to be validated
by comparing with full-scale data. It was also
finally shown that the ITTC 1978 recommen-
dation for a minimum Reynolds number of
2X105 might be too low and may need to be
raised.
Stephan Helma, et al. (2017) extended the
presentation of the influence of different scal-
ing procedures on the predicted power. The
procedures examined are the standard ITTC
(1978) procedure, the Meyne (1972), the strip
method (Streckwall et al 2013) and the βi-
method (Helma 2015). The analysis was run by
the Hamburgishche Schiffbau-Versuchasanstalt
(HSVA). Based on HSVA`s databases of per-
formance predictions and sea trials, the inter-
section of both sets was identified. The 25 scal-
ing methods used are summarized in the refer-
ence. Typically, better results can be expected,
if the open water propeller characteristics are
not scaled down to the Reynolds number of the
 Propulsion Committee
12
self-propulsion test. Its cause should be inves-
tigated thoroughly, e.g. by paint tests and
measuring the turbulence of the inflow into the
propeller in open water and behind condition.
Finally, either a Reynolds number for the open
water test should be established, which results
in the same flow pattern as in the self-
propulsion test, or a friction line should be de-
veloped, which takes into account the increased
turbulence of the inflow behind the ship model.
From the propeller scaling methods investigat-
ed, the βi method showed the best results. The
most likely reason is, that this method aligns
the drag forces with the actual hydrodynamic
inflow angle experienced by the propeller blade
and that it does not need to know the sectional
from drag. Finally it must be noted, that un-
conventional propellers, such as end-plate, tip-
raked propellers or propellers with unconven-
tional section shapes, such as the NPT propel-
ler, were not present in the data sets available
to the current investigation.
Figure 21 Mean values CP,λ of the model-ship
power correlation factor for all scaling meth-
ods λ.
Figure 22 Standard deviation S*P,λ of the nor-
malized model-ship power correlation C*P,i for
all scaling methods λ.
Regarding the extrapolation for the CLT
propeller several papers have been published. J.
Gonzalez-adalid, et al. (2014) presented a study
of different scaling methods for the CLT pro-
pellers. Figure 23 and Figure 24 show, respec-
tively, the scaled values of open water efficien-
cy and main engine power obtained from dif-
ferent methods. Scaling of the CLT propellers
from model test results to full scale must be
performed by specific procedures different
from the ITTC 1978 standards. The main dif-
ference can be deduced to the scaling of the
open water model tests results. In particular
Boundary Element methods (BEM) and other
CFD method like the RANS solver FINFLO
show that the flow pattern developed on the
blades of the CLT propellers are quite different
from that on conventional propellers, being this
fact probably the reason why specific scaling
procedures are needed for this kind of propel-
lers. Another paper of Perez-Sobrino, M., et al.
2016 is almost same contents which will be
treated in Section 4. Although the results with
strip method have good correlation with the
others it needs the validation from the other
cases because it is normally inadequte for the
summation of total force of propeller in the
case of large curvature along the radii.
Figure 23 Scaled values of η0 (Open Water
Efficiency) obtained by the different methods
Figure 24 Scaled values of PS at ship scale
obtained by the different methods
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
13

For extrapolation of POD propulsor two

papers treated that problem which is somewhat
similar in the point of using combination of
CFD and model test results.

Hyoung-Gil Park, et al. (2014) presented a

new estimation method of full scale propulsive
performance for the pulling type podded pro-
peller. In order to estimate the drag of pod
housing, a drag velocity ratio, which includes
the effects of podded propeller loading and
Reynolds number, is presented and evaluated
through the comparison of model test and nu- Figure 25 Pressure distribution on the surfaces
merical analysis. Although it is difficult to es- of Azipod®XL podded propulsor at full and
timate the performance of podded propulsors at model scales
early design stage, accurate full scale perfor-
mance estimation is now made possible based
on the open water characteristics of a general
propeller. Also, even without a high-priced pod
dynamometer, performance estimation of pod-
ded propulsor is made possible based on the
results of resistance test for the pod housing
and open water test for the propeller only.

Next paper has been presented by Tomi

Veikonheimo, et al. (2017) especially for a new
type of podded propulsor. The main benefit of
the Azipod®XL is improving hydrodynamic
efficiency and it is achieved by installing a
special nozzle module to a pulling Azipod. At
MARIN the POD-U method has been devel-
oped which takes into account the differences
in the size and shape of the pod housings and
this method leads to scale effect corrections
depending on speed and loading by means of
actuator disk theory and a friction line. For a
reliable prediction of full scale performance of
a complex multi-component propulsor, it is
recommended to perform CFD computation on
at least two conditions at model scale and full
scale with and without propeller action in addi-
tion to model scale measurements.
Figure 26 Comparison between measured and
extrapolated open water characteristics
New experimental techniques have been pre-
sented by two papers. Thanks to the im-
provement of three dimensional image scan-
ning and copy machine the treatment of three
dimensional configurations has been im-
proved dramatically. Gert-Jan Zondervan, et
al. (2017) studied about hydrodynamic design
and model testing techniques for composite
ship propellers. The application of the digital
image correlation (DIC) technique to measure
flexible propellers operating in the wake field
of a ship model is presented. DIC is a full-
field image analysis method able to measure
the displacements and deformations of objects
in three-dimensional space. The blade deflec-
tions were computed through DIC by compar-
ing the 3D shapes of the propeller under load-
ing condition and a reference non-deformed
propeller shape. Figure 27 shows the results
 Propulsion Committee
14

of the bollard pull runs: the picture on the left
is the unloaded propeller and the other pic-
tures are respectively at intermediate and
maximum RPM.
Figure 27 Measured propeller deflection at
increasing RPM for bollard pull condition
Koichiro Shiraishi, et al. (2017) presented
about cavity shape measurement using combi-
nation-line CCD camera measurement method.
They recently developed a new combination-
line charge-coupled device camera-based
method for measuring three-dimensional
shaped that is faster and more accurate than
conventional methods. In this method, a laser
beam is irradiated onto a measurement object
and light scattered from its surface is photo-
graphed using three line CCD cameras. Dimen-
sional surface of the object is reconstructed via
triangulation.
2.3.1 RANS-BEM(QCM) coupling approach
Self-propulsion predictions for Japan Bulk
Carrier without and with duct using the FreS-
Co+ code were presented by Yan Xing-Kaeding,
et al. (2015). A validation benchmark has been
performed with focus on the interaction be-
tween hull, ESD and propeller. The propeller
effect has been taken into account using a
RANS-QCM coupling approach. A grid de-
pendency study was conducted by using suc-
cessively refined unstructured grid sets. Self-
propulsion computations are continued from
the converged resistance computations by acti-
vating the coupling mode. In general, the re-
sistance and propulsion predictions agree rea-
sonably well with the experiment.
Figure 29 Numerical propulsion test scheme
Bram Starke, et al. (2015) presented the
viscous free-surface power predictions using a
hybrid RANS-BEM coupling procedure for the
KCS. The corresponding error estimation re-
sults in terms of uncertainties are less than 1%
for the powering parameters, but this value
may be too optimistic as the grids were not suf-
ficiently fine for the extrapolation procedure.

Figure 28 Photo of measurement system

2.3 New benchmark data

Various CFD programs were used for the

benchmark data. Numerical analysis is a con-
venient method for benchmarking. Most of the
benchmark data came from Tokyo 2015 Work-
shop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
15
Figure 30 Uncertainty of estimation of thrust,
torque and RPM using the results at the three
finest meshes only
The bench mark comparison for cavitation
has been conducted. Guilherme Vaz, et al.
(2015) presented cavitating flow calculations
for the E779A propeller in open water and be-
hind conditions. Both full RANS and RANS-
BEM coupled approaches have been used to
predict wetted and cavitating flows. Propeller
performance characteristics, pressure distribu-
tions, limiting streamlines and cavity volumes
have been analysed. From the results for the
behind condition one can state:
 For wetted flow, the nominal wake was
predicted using steady RANS. However
the unsteady time-averaged nominal wake
was close to the experimental LDV data.
 For cavitating flow, the loads and pressure
distributions on the blade and their varia-
tion with time looked qualitatively similar.
In general, the cavity extents agreed well
with the experimental data though all
codes under-predicted them slightly and
the potential flow code had difficulty
modelling the cavitation at lower radii.
 Although further verification is needed, it
is conjectured that the high levels of fluc-
tuations of pressure in the cavitating flow
case are due to the cavitation model im-
plementation, and that the high-frequency
oscillations are due to numerical accuracy
at the interfaces and/or enough iterative
convergence to achieve accurate results
for very low pressure levels.
Figure 31 Cpn distribution for cavitating flow
in the behind condition
2.3.2 OpenFOAM
Zhirong Shen, et al. (2015) studied numeri-
cal simulation of ship self-propulsion and
manoeuvring using dynamic overset grids in
OpenFOAM for one ship model for which ex-
tensive validation data exists: the Japan Bulk
Carrier (JBC). JBC self-propulsion results in-
clude cases with and without an energy saving
device. Self-propulsion simulations of the JBC
model indicate that the total resistance and
propulsion points are in good agreement with
experimental results. The comparisons demon-
strate that dynamic overset grids work well
with OpenFOAM and greatly simplify marine
and offshore simulations. The grid system used
for the simulations is shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32 Overset grids of JBC, ESD propel-
ler
 Propulsion Committee
16
Yuji Arai, et al. (2015) presented ship flow
computations using OpenFOAM with rotating
propeller for the JBC. Although a good con-
vergence was confirmed for the resistance and
propeller open tests, accuracy of the self-
propulsion computation seems yet to be im-
proved. The tendency of ESD effects on self-
propulsion factors are well estimated by CFD
for 1-w and ηR except for 1-t. As for the wake
field, it is shown that the deceleration of flow
by ESD is correctly predicted by CFD.
Figure 33 Computed and measured wake
fields at x/L=0.9843 w/o ESD
Figure 35 Propagation of tangential velocities
Figure 34 Computed and measured wake fields
at x/L=0.9843 with ESD
Tuomas Turunen, et al. (2014) presented
the open water computations of a marine pro-
peller using OpenFOAM. The flow around a
marine propeller is studied by means of a
RANS-type finite-volume (FV) method. The
performance curve in open-water condition is
generated computationally and compared to
measured data in a cavitation tunnel at Rolls-
Royce in Kristinehamn, Sweden. The most
important findings are listed in the following:
 The simple Foam code predicts forces well
in the case of a single propeller with MRF.
 Mesh discontinuity impairs the stability of
the computations. This is fixed by using
the blended 0.75 interpolation for the con-
vection of momentum.
 Too little iterations within a time step can
impair the solution considerably.
 The required number of iterations per time
step strongly depends on time step size.
 Prediction of the wake field requires more
accurate methods than the force prediction
method.
behind the propeller
2.3.3 Advanced method
More advanced methods than the RANS
approach have been applied to the various
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
17
problems. LES seems to be more popular in the
computation of various kinds of problems
thanks to the increased computing power.
Alireza Mofidi, et al. (2015) performed
self-propulsion simulations for the JBC at ship
point using a dynamic overset technique to ac-
count for direct representation of the rotating
propeller. Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Na-
vier-Stokes (URANS), Detached Eddy Simula-
tion (DES) and Delayed Detached Eddy Simu-
lation (DDES) were used for the case with ESD,
and DDES is used for the case without ESD.
Although DDES results show best agreement
with experimentally measured hull resistance,
propeller rotation speed and thrust and torque
coefficients, further study of grid convergence,
and possibly simulations using finer grids seem
to be necessary. Both RANS and DDES predict
attached flow on the stern of the ship, while
DES predicts separation, and consequently
higher resistance.
Figure 36 View of the stern flow with ESD
with iso-surfaces of Q=20000 colored with
axial velocity for RANS, DES and DDES
simulations
Figure 37 View of the JBC wake at self-
propulsion using DES
The transition models have been applied to
the accurate analysis for the POW case because
the Reynolds number of model is lower than
the fully turbulent case in somewhere. J.
Baltazar, et al. (2017) improved the prediction
of propeller performance at model-scale using
a local correlation transition model. Results are
presented for two marine propellers for which
paint-tests have been conducted and experi-
mental open-water data is available. The nu-
merical results using the к-ω SST turbulence
~
model and the γ- R eθ transition model are
compared with the experiments. In order to dis-
tinguish between numerical and modelling er-
rors in the comparison with experimental re-
sults, a verification study using a range of ge-
ometrically similar grids with different grid
densities is made. From the results presented in
this study the following main conclusions can
be drawn:
 The comparison of paint-tests and limiting
streamlines shows that an improved
agreement of the boundary layer flow can
be obtained when using the transition
model.
 The к-ω SST turbulence model shows a
very limited sensitivity to the turbulence
inlet quantities.
 In general, the transition model at model-
scale Reynolds number predicts a higher
thrust in the order of 2~4% with similar
torque in comparison to the simulations
with the turbulence model.
 Propulsion Committee
18
Figure 38 S6698 propeller paint-tests without
roughness at J=0.87(top). Limiting stream-
lines and skin friction coefficient using the γ-
~
R eθ model(middle) and the к-ω SST mod-
el(bottom).
Figure 39 Propeller S6698 open-water dia-
gram
Moran Guerrero Amadeo, et al. (2017) pre-
sented the open water results comparison for
three propellers with transition model, applying
cross-flow effect, and its comparison with ex-
perimental results. At model scale, convention-
al turbulence models assume turbulent regime
all over the propeller`s blade surface and con-
sequently not enough accurate results are ob-
tained when laminar regions before transition
are not included in the simulation. For this rea-
son, modern CFD, incorporate transition mod-
els that quantitatively improve the accuracy of
the results being now very comparable to ex-
perimental results.
Figure 40 Skin friction contour plot and
streamlines representation over the suc-
tion(left) and pressure(right) sides for the
VP1304 ITTC Benchmark propeller at J=1.2.
2.4 Application of computational methods –
Scale effect
The computational method is mostly used
for the investigation of scale effect because the
experimental work according to the variation of
Reynolds number is difficult to conduct, fur-
thermore the full-scale data is much more diffi-
cult to access for enough validation. If the cor-
relation between the computational data and
sea-trial results could be validated this kind of
works would be more valuable.
The computational method has been applied
to the scale effect for three kinds of different
ducted propellers with the same propeller in
open water by Anirban Bhattacharyya, et al.
(2015). The full scale propeller torque is de-
creased as same as other papers or convention-
al propellers. The duct thrust is increased and
the propeller thrust is decreased in full scale
because the drag of duct decrease and the on-
coming flow to the propeller increase.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
19
Figure 41 Scale effects on duct thrust
A. Sanchez-Caja, et al. (2014) computed
scale effects on tip loaded propeller perfor-
mance using a RANSE solver. The incom-
pressible viscous flow around CLT propellers
with different types of endplates has been sim-
ulated by solving the RANS equations with
various turbulence models using the pressure
correction method. The differences between the
computational results obtained using either ful-
ly turbulent or partially laminar flow at model
scale and their corresponding scaling are indic-
ative of the importance of taking into account
the right type of flow regime in model test ex-
trapolation procedures. Differences found be-
tween model and full scales in ranking alterna-
tive designs make model scale analysis ques-
tionable for some type of modifications when
full-scale performance is sought.
Figure 42 Model test streamlines from paint
tests on the suction (up) and pressure (down)
sides of the blade for an earlier version of the
reference geometry under design condition.
Rough (left) and smooth (right) surfaces
Figure 43 Streamlines from numerical simula-
tion on the suction (up) and pressure (down)
sides of the blade for an earlier version of the
reference geometry under design condition.
Fully turbulent, SST k-ω (left) and partially
laminar, Chien`s k-ε (right) flow. The k-ε
computation was made with low background
turbulence to obtain a pattern similar to that in
paint tests with smooth surfaces
Tsung-Yueh Lin, et al. (2014) computed the
scale effect of thrust deduction in a judicious
self-propulsion procedure for a moderate speed
containership. The scale effect of the thrust de-
duction factor has been investigated by compu-
ting at both of model and full scale. The total
effect of scale for the thrust deduction was up -
5.7% from the model of full-scale for the KCS
container ship`s case because of the J shift ac-
cording to the variation of scale.
Figure 44 Scale effects on thrust and torque
coefficients
Dmitriy Ponkratov, et al. (2015) presented
the validation of a ship scale CFD self-
propulsion simulation by direct comparison
with sea trial results. The ITTC 1978 prediction
method based on the model test results under-
 Propulsion Committee
20
predicted the shaft speed and propeller thrust,
over-predicted the propeller torque, but showed
satisfactory agreement in terms of delivered
power. The agreement of thrust and torque be-
tween CFD calculations and the sea trial meas-
urements was very good, confirming the high
accuracy of the proposed CFD approach whose
results are better than those by the ITTC 1978
method. If the comparison can be extended to
more cases and get validated the model test
might be replaced by the CFD.
Douwe Rijpkema, et al. (2015) presented
viscous flow simulations of propellers in dif-
ferent Reynolds number regimes. In this study
a RANS method is used for prediction of pro-
peller performance prediction and analysis at
Reynolds numbers ranging from 1X104 to
1X107. A comparison with experimental results
showed higher comparison errors for higher
advance ratios and for the S6368 propeller
which has a less pronounced leading edge sep-
aration region. The differences in performance
are likely related to laminar to turbulent flow
transition on the propeller blade, which can
play an important role at these Reynolds num-
bers and is not correctly captured with the ap-
plied turbulence models. Future work was
planned to use the transition model to investi-
gate this influence.
Figure 45 Limiting streamlines of the flow on
the suction side of the E779A propeller at
J=0.3 (top) and J=0.7 (bottom) for different
Reynolds numbers.
Figure 46 Limiting streamlines of the flow on
the suction side of the S6368 propeller at
J=0.3 (top) and J=0.7 (bottom) for different
Reynolds numbers
Vladimir Krasilnikov, et al. (2015) present-
ed the investigation into the influence of Reyn-
olds number on open water characteristics of
pod propulsors. With roughness effects includ-
ed, calculations show that, in the main opera-
tion range, the total thrust of pod propulsor in-
creases by 2-5%, while total propulsor effi-
ciency increases by 1-3% over their values in
model scale, higher values corresponding to
higher speeds. The relative changes in total
thrust and efficiency appear to be less depend-
ent on propeller pitch than the changes in pro-
peller thrust and pod resistance.
Figure 47 Pressure distribution and con-
strained streamlines on the pod in model scale
and full scale. P/D=1.1, J=0.1 (CTH=154).
Upwind side
Pasi Miettinen, et al. (2015) presented an
investigation of the Azipod thruster with nozzle
performance by CFD simulations and experi-
ments. ABB Marine is using CFD simulations
for improving hydrodynamic efficiency of
Azipod thrusters. The open water performance
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
21
of pusher type Azipod thruster with nozzle was
presented. Unsteady simulations were per-
formed at full and model scales and compared
with model test results. At full scale the open
water efficiency is higher as expected due to
Reynolds scaling and as reported by Bulten and
Suijkerbuijk (2013). Nozzle and propeller
thrust are very similar at both scales. Propeller
torque is smaller and pod unit thrust is slightly
larger at full scale. All these findings are simi-
lar to the observations by Bulten and Nijland
(2011). The Reynolds scaling effect influences
the torque and thrust of open propellers, the
torque will decrease and the thrust will increase
at full scale. However, for ducted propellers
lower viscous losses at full scale will increase
the flow rate through the nozzle at full scale
which results in smaller propeller thrust and
torque.
Figure 48 Side and back views of the geome-
try with pod, the nozzle, supports and the pro-
peller
Figure 49 Comparison between full and mod-
el scale CFD
K.W. Shin, et al. (2016) presented a CFD
study on the effective wake of conventional
and tip-modified propellers. Tip-modified pro-
pellers have been developed to improve pro-
pulsive efficiency and to lengthen the lifting-
surface span. The effects of Reynolds number
on higher effective wake fractions of the tip-
modified propeller have been investigated via
open-water simulations on tip-modified and
conventional propellers by varying the propel-
ler speed in a range of 5.0~25.0rps. Based only
on open-water simulation results with varying
propeller speed and effective wake fractions
from integrating total axial velocity fields in
self-propulsion simulations, it can be conclud-
ed that 5~15% higher effective wake fractions
of the tip-modified propeller are caused mainly
by the effects of different Reynolds numbers
between open water and self-propulsion tests.
The propeller induced flow has been estimated
in the open water condition. A more sophisti-
cated way to estimate the propeller induced
flow in non-uniform hull wake needs to be de-
vised to take into account interaction effects.
Figure 50 Blade geometries of tip-modified
and conventional propellers
Figure 51 Vortex flows visualized by iso-
surfaces of Q-criterion Q=30,000 with colors
 Propulsion Committee
22
indicating the vorticity component around the
axial direction
Patrick Schiller, et al. (2017) presented a
flow study on a ducted azimuth thruster. The
numerical investigations include a grid study as
well as an analysis of the simulation results ob-
tained by different isotropic an anisotropic tur-
bulence models, such as k-omega, SST, SAS-
SST, BSL-EARSM and DES. The numerical
simulation results of selected flow conditions
are compared with experimental data. To in-
vestigate scale effects on the open water results
numerical computations are carried out for a
thruster in full and model scale and the calcu-
lated thrust and torque coefficients are com-
pared with model scale simulations and meas-
urements.
Figure 52 Pressure distribution and stream-
lines on the propeller blades and the housing
at J=0.6 and β=0°, comparison model scale vs.
full scale
2.5 Experimental and CFD methods for the
prediction of cavitation
2.5.1 Experimental methods
Some experimental works have been con-
ducted for investigation of the cavitation phe-
nomena. Model cavitation observation was val-
idated by comparison with full-scale results
and the other paper deals with the comparison
of TVC control with three types of attachments
which might be an issue for the noise control of
navy vessels.
R. Sampson, et al. (2015) made a compari-
son of full scale and model scale cavitation for
a Deep-V catamaran research vessel after the
successful observation work performed as part
of the SONIC project. From the results the fol-
lowing conclusions were reached at:
 It is possible to replicate the photographic
set-up between full scale and model scale
cavitation tests with a good level of suc-
cess.
 There was a good correlation between the
full scale and model scale observations in
terms of the types, strength and dynamic
behaviour of the cavitation observed for
the heavily loaded condition.
 The high-speed cameras were sufficiently
sensitive to record a high frame rate of
propeller cavitation and help understand
the full scale cavity dynamics better.
Figure 53 Cavitation Tunnel test of the pro-
peller at equivalent 1200 rpm full scale condi-
tion
Figure 54 1200 rpm full scale
Sang-Il Park, et al. (2014) studied an exper-
imental method on tip vortex cavitation sup-
pression in a marine propeller. Cavitation in-
ception tests were carried out in the cavitation
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
23
tunnel to investigate the effects of a flexible
thread on the occurrence of TVC. Three types
of attachments were affixed at the tip of the
propeller blades, and these cases were experi-
mentally investigated. It was found that the
steel wire and nylon thread did not get sucked
into the centre of the vortex core, whereas the
Dyneema thread was sufficiently flexible to be
sucked into the tip vortex core. The incipient
cavitation number was reduced by approxi-
mately 0.5 with a flexible thread attached at the
propeller tip.
Figure 55 Instantaneous photographs of tip
vortex cavitation (a) without any attachment,
(b) with nylon thread of 0.285mm diameter,
and (c) with Dyneema thread of 0.285mm di-
ameter (J=0.94 and σ=11.0)
Andre Kleinwachter, et al. (2015) studied
about PIV as a novel full-scale measurement
technique in cavitation research. The novel PIV
technique is well suited to recording wake field
velocity data at full scale. A high statistical da-
ta rate, a wide angular range in front of the
propeller, a robust setup and a precise defini-
tion of the measurement volumes allow reliable
measurements and offer great opportunities for
further wake field investigations. Full scale to-
tal wake measurements in front of the control-
lable pitch propeller of the ConRo-ship
“Amandine” had been used for the validation
of viscous flow calculations for the ship with
working propeller. The measuring plane for the
total wake measurements was too close to the
propeller due to the given arrangement of the
portholes in the propeller plane. Further inves-
tigations should be carried out in a plane clear-
ly in front of the propeller. The measurements
close to the propeller complicate the evaluation
of the measured velocities due to their high
sensitivity against uncertainties like small
changes in the propeller pitch and number of
revolutions.
Figure 56 Portholes in the propeller plane of
the ConRoship “Amandine”
Figure 57 Schematic measurement setup / op-
tical access / measurement sector
2.5.2 Computational methods (mainly)
The computational method would be the ef-
ficient and reliable tool for the analysis of cavi-
tation problem. Several papers deals with this
analysis by RANS code (In-house, Commercial
and Open source), and the coupling method of
RANS and potential code. Regarding the simu-
lation of sheet cavitation the above methods are
usefully applied however for the analysis of
complicate phenomena such as bubble cavita-
tion the advanced methods such as LES, DNS,
Euleraian/Lagrangian approach might be nec-
essary.
Chao-Tsung Hsiao, et al. (2015) presented
the simulation results of sheet and tip vortex
cavitation on a rotating propeller using a multi-
scale two-phase flow model. The flow field of
a propeller blade experiencing sheet and tip
vortex cavitation is simulated using a multi-
scale two-phase flow Eulerian/Lagrangian ap-
proach which includes a micro-scale model to
track micro-bubbles, a macro-scale model to
 Propulsion Committee
24
capture large cavities and a transition scheme
to bridge the micro and macro scales. The
complicated phenomena seem to be captured
well; however there is no comparison with ex-
perimental results.
Figure 58 Snapshots showing sheet cavitation
and tip vortex cavitation for a) J=1.1, b) J=1.0,
and c) J=0.9 at the cavitation number σ=1.0.
Keun Woo Shin, et al. (2015) presented the
methods for cavitation prediction on tip-
modified propellers in ship wake fields. Per-
forming realistic cavitation simulations in CFD
requires a technique to reproduce a given wake
field in the propeller plane. The comparison
with experimental results shows that the simu-
lation with the high-Re wake has higher accu-
racy in estimating extents of sheet and cloud
cavitation than simulations using the measured
nominal wake field.
Figure 59 The unsteady cavitation at different
blade angles from a cavitation tunnel test and
CFD simulations
Popular commercial and open source codes
have been comparatively used for predicting
propeller cavitation, Mitja Morgut, et al. (2015).
Numerical predictions of the non-cavitating
and cavitating flows around a marine model
scale propeller, working in a non-uniform in-
flow, are presented. The overall numerical re-
sults compared well with available experi-
mental data and different calibrated mass trans-
fer models ensured similar results. In the case
of marine propeller the cavity evolution was
qualitatively well predicted and no significant
differences were observed between the results
obtained by using the standard turbulence
model and the SAS model. This study suggests
that the combined usage of open source and
commercial codes could represent a proper ap-
proach to speed up the design/validation pro-
cess, according to the available computing re-
sources and desired accuracy. And the present
results suggest that the open source code could
be effectively used in a wider field.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
25
Figure 60 Cavitation patterns for AoA=4° and
σ=0.84
Figure 61 Evolution of cavity during propeller
rotation. Numerical cavitation patterns depict-
ed using iso-surfaces of vapour volume frac-
tion equal to 0.1.
S. Berger, et al. (2016) presented the effi-
cient numerical investigation of propeller cavi-
tation phenomena causing higher-order hull
pressure fluctuations. A hybrid method consist-
ing of the panel code panMARE coupled with a
RANS solver and the in-house code VoCav2D
for the simulation of the tip vortex cavitation
dynamics is presented. The latter needs certain
input parameters such as the initial circulation
of the tip vortex, the radius of the viscous vor-
tex core and the initial cavity radius. These da-
ta are obtained from detailed RANS simula-
tions of the flow near the blade tip. The correct
blade load is an important factor when propel-
ler-induced pressure fluctuations are consid-
ered. Therefore, the effective wake field is ob-
tained by a body force-based coupling between
panMARE and the RANS solver ANSYS CFX.
The obtained results for the cavitating propeller
of a container vessel show satisfactory agree-
ment with experimental data.
Figure 62 Comparison of cavitation extent at
blade angle 30° by the simulation procedure
(top) and experimentally observed (bottom)
Joost Moulijn (2015) presented the applica-
tion of various computational methods to pre-
dict the performance and cavitation of ducted
propellers. The results were compared with
each other and with experiments. The RANS
results are in good agreement with experiments,
both in terms of open water characteristics and
pressure distribution on the duct. Only down-
stream of the propeller on the inside of the duct
there were significant differences that can be
attributed to a mismatch of the strength and
pitch of the gap vortex. The potential codes
MPUF-3A and PROCAL are both in reasona-
ble agreement with the experimental and
RANS results. Particularly the pressures on the
blade and duct of PROCAL agree very well
with the RANS and experimental pressures.
Cavitation predictions of MPUF-3A agree well
 Propulsion Committee
26
with model test observations. Based on the re-
sults it can be concluded that potential flow
codes are a useful supplement to RANS simu-
lations for the efficient design of ducted pro-
pellers if the cavitation is not complicated like
bubble type.
Figure 63 Example of the cavity at the tip of a
ducted propeller
Thomas Lloyd, et al. (2017) presented the
computational fluid dynamics prediction of
marine propeller cavitation including solution
verification. In this study the effect of grid den-
sity and topology on cavitating propeller flow
predictions was investigated. Using steady
RANS computations on geometrically similar
structured grids, an uncertainty analysis of cav-
itating propeller CFD was made for the first
time. Furthermore the use of adaptive grid re-
finement to locally improve the resolution of
tip vortex cavitation was also investigated. For
the adapted grids, the much finer cells inside
the tip vortex lead to significant increases in
eddy viscosity when using RANS, which even
lead to reduction of the predicted cavity extent
compared to DDES. This leads to the conclu-
sion that RANS is not suitable for TVC predic-
tion, especially when the focus is on dynamics.
Figure 64 Views of adapted grid. The helix
shown represents cells refined during the third
refinement stage.
2.5.3 Experimental and Computational
methods
Some difficult phenomena related to cavita-
tion have been investigated by means of com-
putational as well as by the experimental meth-
ods.
Jin-Keun Choi, et al. (2015) presented the
experimental and numerical study of cavitation
erosion resistance of a polyuria coating layer.
Cavitation erosion tests were conducted on
polyuria coatings of two different compositions
and various thicknesses using cavitating jets.
The polyuria coating eroded relatively fast at
cavitating jet pressures higher than 700 psi.
The damage was in the form of a crater with
the material pushed out forming a ridge around
the crater with strong evidence of plastic flow.
Stefano Gaggero, et al. (2014) studied on
the numerical prediction of propeller`s cavitat-
ing tip vortex and compared the results with
experiments. The cavitating phenomena at the
tip for conventional and ducted propellers have
been experimentally observed and numerically
studied to assess the capability of a multiphase
RANS code to predict their salient features. In
the case of the conventional propeller, the in-
ception was captured rather correctly with the
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
27
setup adopted, and was slightly anticipated in
the case of the finest meshes.
Figure 65 Conventional propeller cavitation at
the design thrust. Cavitation indexes of 96%
and 120%, of the design point.
Figure 66 Ducted propeller A cavitation on at
the design thrust. Cavitation indexes of 80%,
100%, 120% and 140% of the design point.
2.6 The need for R&D
There is still a need for continued R & D to
aid in the improvement of model experiments,
numerical modeling and full-scale measure-
ments. Specific areas in need of Research and
Development are the following:
 Although the harmonization and align-
ment of CA, ΔCF and CP are difficult due
to each model basin’s correlation for the
prediction of full-scale performance, the
correlation factor between model and full-
scale is expected to be standardized ac-
cording to the variation of such parameters
which is also very important for the EEDI
problem.
 Full-scale measurements of propulsors for
the validation of CFD results especially
for the cases of various Energy Saving
Devices
 More reliable extrapolation method for
the propeller open water test; conventional
and unconventional propulsor (Stephan
Helma, 2015, 2017)
 Model test scaling and extrapolation
method for composite propeller to predict
the full-scale performance (Pieter J.
Naljaars, et al. 2015)
 The validation of the prediction for the
complicate cavitation phenomena includ-
ing erosion is necessary with the advanced
method such as LES, DNS etc. by the
comparison with full-scale measurements.
 Application to a full-scale triple shaft ves-
sel by the established procedure (Proce-
dure 7.5-02-03-01.7 Performance Predic-
tion Method for Triple Shaft Vessels)
 Investigation into the minimum Reynolds
number for the POW and self-propulsion
tests
2.7 High speed marine vehicles
There were not so many papers dealing
with high speed vessels during the present term.
Waterjet systems have been continuously in-
vestigated for the application to high speed
vessels.
Stefano Gaggero, et al. (2017) presented the
application of multi-objective optimization
based design to high-speed craft propellers. By
combining a fast and reliable Boundary Ele-
ments Method, a viscous flow solver based on
the RANSE approximation, a parametric 3D
description of the blade and genetic algorithm,
the new propeller shape was designed to im-
prove the propulsive efficiency. As a result of
the redistribution of load induced by the differ-
ent rake distribution and the simultaneous max-
imization of the boat speed and propeller effi-
ciency (that on the basis of BEM calculations
increased up to 1.5% and 2% respectively), the
suction peak at on blade sections close to root
 Propulsion Committee
28
is higher with a consequent increased risk of
sheet cavitation. Model scale experiments
largely confirmed the reliability of the design
tools for what regards both the prediction of
propeller characteristics and the estimation of
cavitation as well: efficiency is higher and cav-
itation sensibly reduced.
Figure 67 Comparison of the “inception
areas” at the design cavitation index σN
=0.8463. Reference propeller (top) and ID
17242 (bottom) J=0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and 0.9 pressure
side.
Figure 68 Measurements, BEM and
RANSE calculations in open water conditions
for the ID_17242 propeller. Comparison with
measured thrust and torque of the reference
propeller
Xiongjun Wu, et al. (2015) presented the
effect of nozzle type on the performance of
bubble augmented waterjet propulsion. In this
paper, they studied the experimental and nu-
merical results for the two types of nozzles and
discussed geometry effects on nozzle perfor-
mance. Distinct vertical structures were ob-
served after the divergent-convergent nozzle
exit, while only wavy structure development
was observed from the jet exiting the conver-
gent-divergent nozzle. A well-designed flow
nozzle of either type could provide significant
performance improvement, with a thrust in-
crease index ξW of more than 160% at an exit
void fraction of 60%. The thrust increase index
was similar for both types of nozzles. The in-
dex for a convergent-divergent nozzle is about
20% higher than for the divergent-convergent
nozzle.
Figure 69 Sketch of the location of the pres-
sure ports relative to the nozzle exit location
and the beginning of the convergent section
Figure 70 Normalized waterjet thrust augmen-
tation, ξW, vs. exit void fraction
Lin Lu, et al. (2016) presented the CFD
prediction and simulation of a pumpjet propul-
sor. The computed propulsor efficiency corre-
lates reasonably well with experimental data.
The thrust of rotor is much larger than that of
stator, which indicates that the rotor provides
the main thrust of pumpjet propulsor. There is
basically no difference between the torque of
rotor and stator, the errors are less than 8%,
which demonstrates that the torque balance of
the pumpjet propulsor is generally satisfactory.
The velocity distribution of the pumpjet pro-
pulsor indicates that the flow has been obvious-
ly accelerated after it goes through the rotor
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
29
and stator blades, which demonstrates that the
stator increase the thrust of propulsor and then
accelerates the incoming flow.
Figure 71 Velocity distribution of the axial
cross section of the pumpjet propulsor
Figure 72 Pumpjet propulsor efficiency curves
with different advance ratio
Lin Lu, et al. (2016) also studied the nu-
merical simulation of tip clearance impact on a
pumpjet propulsor. In this study the improved
Schnerr and Sauer cavitation model and the
SST к-ω turbulence model based on RANS
method were adopted to numerically simulate
the tip clearance cavitation flow of the pumpjet
propulsor. The influence of rotational speed
and tip clearance size on tip clearance cavita-
tion was analysed.
Figure 73 Structure of the tip leakage vortex
3. REVIEW ITTC RECOMMENDED
PROCEDURES
The committee was given a task to review
the procedures relevant to propulsion. In view
of this the following procedures were subjected
for reviewing:
 7.5-02-03-01.1 Propulsion&Bollard Pull
Test
 7.5-02-03-01.2 Propulsion, Performance
Uncertainty Analysis, Example for Pro-
pulsion Test
 7.5-02-03-01.4 ITTC 1978 Performance
Prediction Method
 7.5-02-03-01.6 Hybrid Contra-Rotating
Shaft Pod Propulsors Model Test
All procedures are divided into separate
tasks except for 7.5-02-03-01.1. So, in this sec-
tion, we will only briefly mention the changes
for the procedures and refer to the details of
each task.
Concerning the 7.5-02-03-01.1 Propul-
sion&Bollard Pull Test, the modified procedure
was submitted to Advisory Council (AC) about
revised of FD. The FD value is revised as fol-
lows:
1
FD   M VM S M [CFM  (CFS  CF  C A )]
2
(1)
2
Additionally, the equation including form fac-
tor (1+κ) and/or scale effect factor β can be
written as:
1
FD  MVM SM [(1)(CFM  CFS)  CF  CA)] (2)
2
2
 (RTMA RTM )
CA is optionally included. And propulsion
committee discussed about the inclusion of fac-
tor of sea margin in FD value. But it`s prema-
ture to put sea margin at this stage because of
disagreement. Additionally, propulsion com-
mittee proposes the new definition of FC
(Compensation force for the self-propulsion
model test) as follows in order to simplify the
previous formula.
 Propulsion Committee
30
1 (3)
FC  MVM SM (CTM  CTS )
2 4.
2 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY SAVING
Factor of sea margin and introduction of
compensation force are needed to be discussed
in the next phase. Also section 3.2.7 in the pro-
cedure needs to be discussed in the next phase
with resistance committee.
The content is measuring of the water
temperature. Propulsion committee refers that
the minimum point might be reasonable if cir-
culating system is available. Measuring tem-
perature at the many points in the towing tank
would be better however it is difficult to define
specifically.
Concerning the 7.5-02-03-01.2 Propulsion,
Performance Uncertainty Analysis, Example
for Propulsion Test, It was harmonized the
formula with ITTC recommended procedures
7.5-02-03-01.4. It will be mentioned in the sec-
tion 5 in more details.
Concerning the 7.5-02-03-01.4 1978 ITTC
Performance Prediction Method, the committee
include the evaluation method of the load vari-
ation test. And as mentioned in the above para-
graph, it was harmonized the formula with the
procedure 7.5-02-03-01.2. This will be dis-
cussed in detail in section 5. Also the commit-
tee develop for triple shaft vessels, but it did
not included in 7.5-02-03-01.4 because of a lot
of contents. The committee makes the new
draft of 7.5-02-03-01.7 Performance Prediction
Method for Triple Shaft vessels separated from
7.5-02-03-01.4.
Concerning the 7.5-02-03-01.6 Hybrid
Contra-Rotating Shaft Propulsors Model Test,
there are some minor corrections however there
is no application data for the present guideline
to improve. The full scale application data is
being monitored as well as the evaluation data
of model test results for validation.
LIAISON WITH THE SPECIALIST
METHODS
The committee had a joint meeting with the
ESM committee and the PSS committee at its
third meeting in Shanghai. The committee
provided two materials for the ESM commit-
tee. One is the new extrapolation method for
pre-swirl stator and pre-swirl duct based on
the ITTC 1999 method. The other is the pro-
cedure for the model test extrapolation for un-
conventional propulsors.
First, a new extrapolation method is pro-
posed for the analysis of self-propulsion test
with the pre-swirl device. The pre-swirl stator
and pre-swirl duct are more popularly used.
However, the ITTC 1978 method is not ade-
quate for the prediction of performance of the
pre-swirl device because the counter swirl
component is not a viscous but a potential term.
The ITTC 1999 method has also not been vali-
dated for the pre-swirl device. The new extrap-
olation method has been proposed based on the
CFD computation which can extract the tan-
gential velocity component from the total ve-
locity. The new extrapolation method to full
scale was expected to be studied not only for
the confirmation of the efficiency gain but also
for matching the speed of revolution to full
scale.
The wake fraction of a full-scale ship with a
pre-swirl device based on the ITTC 1999
method is given by:
C C
wS  (tMO  0.04)  (wMO  tMO  0.04) FS A (4)
CFM
 (wMS  wMO)
The wake fraction of a full-scale ship with a
pre-swirl device based on the new extrapola-
tion method (Moon Chan Kim et al. 2017) is
given by:
C C
wSS  (tMS  0.04)  (wMSAXIALtMS 0.04) FS A (5)
CFM
 wMSTANGENTI
AL
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
31
w MSTANGENTI AL  w MO  ( w MS  w MO )
 f TANGENTIAL
w MSAXIAL  w MO  ( w MS  w MO )  f AXIAL
Second, from the strip method (Streckwall,
H., et al. 2013) the extrapolation method for
CLT propeller has been developed and as men-
tioned in section 2.2 Mariano Perez-Sobrino, et
al. (2016) recently reported a new performance
prediction procedure for propellers with un-
conventional tip shapes. In this paper, a new
procedure based on the strip method applicable
to conventional and unconventional propellers
is presented by applying adequate expressions
of the friction line more in accordance with the
expected type of flow in each section of the
propeller blade, depending on the section
Reynolds number. The detailed results of the
two propellers, one of which was the conven-
tional type used for benchmarking in the 27th
ITTC and the other was the unconventional
CLT type, are presented for conceptually and
numerically highlighting the differences from
ITTC 1978-RPM. The validation might be nec-
essary to adopt as a standard method because
there is almost no applications except develop-
ers.
Figure 74 VP1304(Conventional propeller),
Comparison of KT, 10KQ and ETAO values
by both methods
(6)
(7)
Figure 75 CLT-SE13.005(Unconventional
propeller), Comparison of KT, 10KQ and ET-
AO values by both methods
The CA value according to the draft condi-
tion was computed using CFD by the PSS
committee. The results show no difference in
the CA value according to the different drafts.
The PSS committee has also developed the
Load Variation Test Procedure, and it was dis-
cussed and reviewed by the Propulsion Com-
mittee.
5. LIAISON WITH THE SPECIALIST
COMMITTEE ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF SHIPS IN
SERVICE COMMITTEE
The IMO developed an Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI) which expressed the ratio
of the total CO2 emission from the combustion
of fuel, including that in propulsion and auxil-
iary engines and boilers, taking into account
the carbon content of the fuels in question, to
the transportation effort, calculated by multi-
plying the ship`s designed capacity (dwt), with
the ship`s design speed measured at the maxi-
mum design load condition and at 75 percent of
the rated installed shaft power. A simplified
version of the EEDI formula is as follows:
( nj1 f j )(i 1 PMEi  CFMEi  SFCMEi)  (PAE  CFAE  SFCAE )
nME
fi  fc  Capacity f w Vref
where
fj : Correction factor for the ship
specific design elements of the
ship
 Propulsion Committee
32
fi : Capacity factor
fc : Cubic capacity factor
fw : Weather factor
PMEi : Power of the ith main engine
CFMEi : Conversion factor to convert
from power to CO2 for fuel of the
ith main engine
SCFMEi : Specific fuel consumption of ith
main engine
PAE : Power of the auxiliary engine
CFAE : Conversion factor to convert
from power to CO2 for fuel of the
auxiliary engine
SFCAE : Specific fuel consumption of
the auxiliary engine
Capacity : Measure of the carrying power,
e.g., deadweight for tankers
Vref : Design speed of the ship
The proposal to place special emphasis on
the proposed values of the propeller roughness,
ΔCF and CA, and on the different draft condi-
tions was discussed in the joint meeting with
the PSS committee. The propeller roughness is
discussed in section 7, and ΔCF and CA are dis-
cussed in detail in the final report of the PSS
committee. Briefly, the committee recommends
that the new criterion for propeller roughness
should be lower than 30X10-6 m. The prelimi-
nary conclusion regarding the correlation factor
is that the CA value is not sensitive to the dif-
ferent drafts based on CFD computation. Re-
garding the unification of CA and CP as one
value, it might be nearly impossible to align CA
and CP within the characteristics specific to
each institute. The committee considered the
removal of the formula for CA. Although most
institutes use and maintain their own CA value,
the CA formula should not be removed from the
procedures because the procedures will be in-
complete without the CA calculation formula.
An update of the ITTC CA should be consid-
ered by the next committee during which
draught dependency should also be considered
in collaboration with the Resistance committee.
There were some differences between the
formulae in ITTC recommended procedures
7.5-02-03-01.2 and 7.5-02-03-01.4. The com-
mittee synchronized both formulae by modify-
ing the formula in the 7.5-02-03-01.2 proce-
dure through comparison with the formula in
the 7.5-02-03-01.4 procedure.
The evaluation method for the load varia-
tion test in the procedure 7.5-02-03-01.4 was
included in section 2.5. Load variation test is
conducted to determine the variation in per-
formance such as the efficiency, speed of revo-
lution, propeller torque and thrust according to
the variation in load on ship resistance. This
test would be more important for the EEOI
(Energy Efficiency Operation Index) as well as
EEDI for the real-time performance on an actu-
al rough sea. A load variation test is performed
at the selected draught and at minimum speed.
This speed shall be one of the speeds tested in
the normal self-propulsion test. The load varia-
tion test includes at least four self-propulsion
test runs, each one at a different rate of revolu-
tion while keeping the speed constant. The
added resistance in the load variation test has to
be accounted for during post processing. The
measured data is processed according to the
ITTC Recommended Procedures and Guide-
lines 7.5-02-03-01.4 1978 ITTC Performance
Prediction Method from section 2.4.3 onwards.
Details regarding the dependency on propul-
sion efficiency and shaft rate can be found in
the procedure 7.5-02-03-01.4. However, further
validation for full-scale data is needed.
6. DEVELOPMENT AN EXTENSION OF
THE PERFORMANCE PREDICTION
METHOD FOR TRIPLE SHAFT
VESSELS
A new procedure 7.5-02-03-01.7 Perfor-
mance Prediction Method for Triple Shaft Ves-
sels has been developed as an appendix of 7.5-
02-03-01.4 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction
Method. In the case of triple shaft vessels, the
operating conditions of the center propeller and
two side propellers are different with respect to
the wake distribution and rudder position.
Therefore, the load ratio for the center propel-
ler and side propellers should be considered
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
33
and load variation tests are required. Three se-
ries of load variation tests are required to draw
a thrust combination curve for a particular ship
speed. A self-propulsion point should be in-
cluded within the measured range of each se-
ries.
In the case of LVT for all propellers, the
power ratio is to be decided first, and then the
power variation of each shaft can be set to the
same percentage as that of the maximum power
of each shaft. In addition, tests can be per-
formed with the optimum power distribution
for each speed, which has to be determined
through separate tests. The LVT for the center
propeller alone or for side propellers alone can
also be performed, while other propellers are
set to the constant condition. Figure 76 is a
schematic sketch of the test planning example.
The diagram is based on the power characteris-
tics considering that the thrust is not actually a
test parameter.
Figure 76 Schematic sketch of LVT planning
Self-propulsion point and factors for each
shaft are obtained afterwards by interpolation.
Thrust deduction factor of each shaft is re-
quired in wake scaling calculation. The load
fraction for each propeller is derived from LVT
for each propeller and is used to determine the
resistance fraction which each propeller to
overcome. Then the load fraction of each pro-
peller at a certain load condition is derived.
The total thrust deduction factor is also derived
from the thrust deduction factor of each propel-
ler. The details are described in the new proce-
dure.
The new procedure includes the scaling
method based on the original ITTC 1978 meth-
od with consideration to the different wake
scaling for center and side propellers. However
the scaling method is not yet validated because
the full scale trial data was not found in public.
Validation is still left as a future work.
7. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
ROUGHNESS CORRECTION
METHODS FOR BOTH HULL AND
PROPELLER
The standard roughness recommended in
the procedures was determined a long time
ago; therefore, the present standard roughness
of the ship hull (150X10-6m) and the propeller
(30X10-6m) should be reviewed. As the paint
and the surface treatment have been improved
recently, there might be a possibility of reduc-
ing the current standard roughness. The ISO
standard has been applied to the criterion for
the propeller made by most manufacturers
(Germany, Japan, and Korea), which is, on av-
erage, 6X10-6m lesser than the standard value.
The ISO standard regulation is as follows:
 Propeller Diameter over 2.5m: ISO 484/1
 Propeller Diameter under 2.5m: ISO 484/2
 ISO 484/1 regulations according to class
- 3 from the hub for propeller of
class S
- 6 from the radius 0.3R for pro-
pellers of class I
- 12 from the radius 0.3R for pro-
pellers of class II
- 25 from the radius 0.3R for pro-
pellers of class III
Table 1. ISO 484/1 regulations according to
class
 Propulsion Committee
34

turer accuracy if slight aging effect and gradual

change are considered, as mentioned before. If
we adopt that value as the standard value the
torque coefficient and efficiency would de-
crease by 0.9% and increase by 0.8% respec-
tively, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison according to propeller

roughness (vs 30〮10-6m)
KT 10KQ ETAO
30〮10 -
0.198 0.325 0.628
Figure 77 The propeller dimension for ISO 6
m
regulations Diff.(%) - - -
20〮10 -
0.198 0.322 0.633
It is very difficult to measure and average 6
m
the hull roughness because there is no standard Diff.(%) 0.0 -0.9 0.8
method for measuring the full-scale hull sur- 15〮10- 0.198 0.321 0.637
face. Recently Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine 6
m
Engineering (DSME) was successful in meas- Diff.(%) 0.0 -1.2 1.4
uring the hull surface, but the measurement da- 10〮10- 0.198 0.319 0.641
ta has not been published yet however unoffi- 6
m
cially the average roughness of hull surface is Diff.(%) 0.0 -1.8 2.1
around 100X10-6m which is somewhat lower 6〮10 m -6
0.198 0.317 0.646
than the standard value. The published data is Diff.(%) 0.0 -2.5 2.9
needed for changing the standard value.
Table 3. Comparison according to hull
Additionally, the committee compared the roughness (vs 150〮10-6m)
full scale performance according to roughness.
EHP(PS)
Comparisons were made using the model test
150〮10-6m 31306
results from PNU, Korea. The target ship was
Diff.(%) -
KCS (3600TEU KRISO Container Ship) and
the target speed was 24knots. The results are as 130〮10 m -6
30771
shown in Table 2 and Table 3. The roughness Diff.(%) -1.7
is very closely related with the correlation fac- 100〮10 m -6
29855
tors such as the CP (trial correction for deliv- Diff.(%) -4.6
ered power) value. Moreover, the surface
roughness becomes worse with aging effect Another extrapolation method for the open
although the measured value becomes a little water test results has been proposed by Helma,
rough at sea trial. It is very difficult to decide 2015, 2017 as mentioned before. The equiva-
the value due to these reasons. It is essential to lent section has been used for the application of
validate the results using the new roughness. If the hydrodynamic angle βi. The advantage of
the sea trial data are not available the CFD this method is that it is almost independent of
might be indirectly used for validation. the scale effect by decomposing the torque co-
efficients into the lift and drag coefficients,
Although there are no sufficiently specific which are aligned with the hydrodynamic in-
data taken just before the sea trial test, the flow and not the nose-tail pitch line. It also
committee proposes the review of adopting the does not assume any special circulation distri-
size of the standard propeller as 20X10-6m, bution or a form drag of the cross-section, but
which is still higher than the actual manufac- it still works under the assumption of an equiv-
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
35
alent profile. The propeller appears to be built
up of circumferential sections stacked on top of
each other and each section experiences a lift
and drag coefficient cd and cl. These coeffi-
cients are aligned with the hydrodynamic in-
flow angle βi. The thrust and torque coeffi-
cients for this method and drag coefficient are
as follows:
 2 Z cl cos  i  cd sin  i c 1  xh 3
KT 
4 cos  D 3
[ ]2
cos(  i   )
 2 Z cl sin  i  cd sin  i c 1  xh 4
KQ 
8 cos  D 3
[ ]2
cos(  i   )
cd  2c f  cd , 2 d
t t
cd , 2 d  1  2  60( ) 4
c c
0.04 5 with two further papers published elsewhere on
cf  1
 2
Rn 6 Rn 3
The power prediction using this method is
less affected by the Reynolds number than the
method recommended in ITTC 1978 men-
tioned before. Although this method is insensi-
tive to the Reynolds number effect the mini-
mum criterion of the Reynolds number should
be used in model test to obtain reliable data.
Helma suggested that the criterion of a stand-
ard ITTC value of 2X105 appears to be low for
reliable results. He also compared the extrapo-
lated results obtained by his method with that
obtained by the ITTC standard method with the
roughness of 20X10-6m which is the same as
our previously proposed value. When this
method has been validated and the procedures
are set-up the roughness correction value will
be no longer used. Further validations are ex-
pected to be conducted for the unconventional
propellers as well as for the conventional ones.
8. MONITORING OF EXISTING FULL-
SCALE DATA FOR PODDED
PROPULSION
The committee contacted ABB for the full
scale data relating to podded propulsion. Ac-
cording to the reply from ABB the measure-
ment of full scale data for podded propellers
was not successfully performed recently due to
a problem in the measuring system. Therefore,
it needs to contact other related institutions to
get the full-scale data for podded propulsion.
There is a possibility that Royal Caribbean
Cruise lines and Siemens have the full-scale
data. It must be required to continue the search
for the full-scale propulsion data in the next
term.
J. S. Carlton (2008) presented some results
for the full-scale podded propulsors which have
not been referred in the ITTC reports although
the research has been done prior to the current
term. This paper was prepared in conjunction
the hydrodynamics of podded propulsors and
on the method of developing the rule formula-
tions for ships driven by podded propellers.
The forces and moments in the three Cartesian
directions need to be quantitatively estimated
as accurately as possible, either by model tests
or by calculation for the full range of different
operating conditions, because the reactive loads
on the bearings cannot be properly estimated
without such an assessment. Figure 78, by way
of example, illustrates a typical variation in
thrust generated at different azimuth angles as
a propeller rotates through one revolution. This
should be contrasted with the nearly constant
thrust and torque signature produced at a zero
azimuth angle.
 Propulsion Committee
36
Figure 78 Typical propeller blade induced
thrust fluctuations for different pod azimuth-
ing angles
9. REVIEW OF GUIDELINE 7.5-02-03-
01.6 HYBRID CONTRA-ROTATING
SHAFT PROPULSORS MODEL TEST
The committee reviewed the guideline 7.5-
02-03-01.6 Hybrid Contra-Rotating Shaft Pro-
pulsors (HCRSP) Model test and several minor
update has been made. The most important is-
sue remaining is the scaling method to predict
full scale performance. Generally the scaling
method for podded propulsion system can be
applied for HCRSP however validation by full
scale trial is indispensable to establish the scal-
ing method. The committee have tried to seek
for full scale data, however no available data
were found within 28th period because there is
almost no building record so far after set-up the
HCRSP procedure.
Quereda et al. (2017) proposed an extrapo-
lation procedure based on the ITTC 1978
method. The pod housing resistance is scaled
according to the skin friction coefficient. As for
the scaling of wake fraction, they assumed that
rudder effect can be neglected. However that
should be discussed further since the pod strut
may act like a rudder. Regarding the housing
resistance extrapolation method by using CFD
proposed by Hyoung-Gil Park, et al. (2014)
might be used in this HCRSP.
10. REVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDED
PROCEDURE 7.5-02-05-03.2
WATERJET SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
The developed ITTC 1996 method so called
momentum flux method has been popularly
used for the evaluation of waterjet performance
by most model basins. The Committee want to
know if there is necessary to modify the pre-
sent method. Before that it has to be clarified
how much exactly the standard procedure is
followed by the various model basins because
the procedure is rather complicate compared to
the conventional propeller case. The committee
made the questionnaires about waterjet test.
The questionnaires are survey of organizations
on application of ITTC procedure 7.5-02-05-
03.2 Waterjet system performance. The ques-
tionnaires were distributed for multiple institu-
tions.
10.1 The main findings
Some of the organizations studying waterjet
propulsors do use this procedure. However,
these organizations are few as compared to the
overall number of member organizations. The
questionnaire was sent to 14 organizations. On-
ly 7 responses were received, with two of them
(from INSEAN and KRISO) indicating that
those organizations does not use the procedure
at question. Main sections of the procedures are
in use, however, with a number of sections
some issues exist. The following sections of the
procedure were indicated as “in use” only by
two or three of the organizations:
 3.1.3 Pump loop test installation
 3.1.4 Inlet duct test installation
 3.7.1 Scale effects
 3.7.2 Conversion of model data to full
scale
Along with it, all the organizations indicat-
ed at least one of the sections as “in use. It`s on
Table 4. According to the respondents, the pro-
cedure is used not only for waterjets. However,
its application to pumpjet is not obvious (PNU
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
37

and MARIC – Yes, KSRC, KRISO and tests, a set of further downstream static
CSSRC – No) pressure taps are placed as a means of ne-
gating the effects of swirl in the stator
bowl/nozzle otherwise increases static
pressures.

Waterjet studies performed in KSRC and

CSSRC heavily rely on CFD calculations that
may frequently substitute the experiment (in
particular, for the test in the tunnel and the flow
studies in the nozzle and the reversing bucket).
However, INSEAN does not use CFD calcula-
tions. On the whole, CFD calculations are only
Figure 79 Applicability of procedures for slightly less popular than experimental studies.
pump-jet Frequently, both types of studies are combined.

The studies envisaged by this procedure

are mainly performed in cavitation tunnels,
however, other test facilities and devices are
also in wide use.

Figure 81 Performing methods for waterjet

studies

The parameters to be measured during the

Figure 80 Test facilities and devices experiment as per this procedure (Item 3.3) are
mainly measured by all the respondents (if they
The majority of respondents (except perform these experimental studies). However,
KRISO and PNU) study, numerically or exper- it is doubtful that measurements of a number of
imentally, the flow in the nozzle (including the parameters must be compulsory: Head rise
one with reversing bucket). However, the across the pump, energy flux, Inlet duct loss.
methods of the studies differ considerably: MARIC believes that items 3.2 Measurements
 KSRC – Perform study of nozzle and re- and 3.4.2 Head rise across the pump and Inlet
versing bucket in a wake of impeller. duct loss should be updated.
Study performs on the special facility.
 CSSRC – By CFD
 INSEAN – Take a video of the flow dur-
ing bollard tests and, by synchronizing it
with the thrust signal. Some LDV meas-
urement has been performed developing a
special optical setup to study the velocity
distribution at the nozzle exit.
 DTMB – Station 6 pressures and velocities Figure 82 The parameters to be measured dur-
are studied. Also, sometimes in pump loop ing the experiment as per this procedure
 Propulsion Committee
38
Different organizations apply different
methods of pressure measurements in the
waterjet channel, but on the whole these studies
do take place. Most frequently, pressures are
measured on the surface of the waterjet channel
walls. However, KSRC deems it necessary to
measure velocities and pressures at several ra-
dii upstream and downstream of the impeller.
Along with it, analytical studies of pressure
distribution are performed, too.
Figure 83 The methods of pressure measure-
ments
Additional requirements concerning the
equipment have been seconded by the respond-
ents. Boundary layer at the inlet of the water
scoop is determined by INSEAN, KRISO and
DTMB. KSRC considers this layer in extrapo-
lation of model test data to the full scale. PNU
perform boundary layer analytically. Harmoni-
zation of various waterjet tests, including those
including self-propulsion testing, remains an
open issue. Here, all the respondents have their
own ways:
 KSRC ensures equality of torque coeffi-
cients;
 CSSRC ensures equality of flow rates;
 DTMB based on the velocity ratio and
flow rates too.
 INSEAN ensures equality of RPM.
 KRISO adjust flow speed in tunnel.
 MARIC ensure equal thrust coefficients of
impellers/ equal flow rates.
Scale effect is not taken into account by
majority of the participants, and the respond-
ents have not come to any agreement upon this
issue. DTMB believes it will be needed update
the corresponding sections of ITTC procedure.
10.2 Conclusions
The procedure is not too popular, but is
used by a number of organizations having their
own developments in this field, too. In view of
this, there is no urgent necessity to update this
procedure.
The survey identified a number of places in
this procedure that can be updated. As a result,
the procedure will more accurately reflect the
practice of studies. In particular, the following
can be recommended:
 Assessment of a number of parameters as
per model test data shall be desirable but
not compulsory (see Items 3.2, 3.3, 3.4);
 It shall be indicated that nozzle and revers-
ing bucket tests are desirable but not com-
pulsory (see Items 3.2, 3.3);
 The requirements to the equipment for
cavitation tunnel studies (see Item 9
above) shall be added to Item 3.5 of the
procedure;
The monitoring of situation with applica-
tion of this procedure and its separate provi-
sions shall be continued further, especially in
what concerns taking into account scale effect
and presence of boundary layer at the inlet of
the water scoop, as well as the types of test fa-
cilities envisaged by this procedure and harmo-
nization of the test data obtained on these facil-
ities. Additional questionnaire would be sent to
the DTMB and MARIC to clarify the updating.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
39

Table 4. The sections as “in use” by the organizations

Section KSRC CSSRC INSEAN DTMB KRISO PNU MARIC
3.1 Model and installation
3.1.1 Pump and inlet duct + + - + + + +
models
3.1.2 Waterjet system test + + - + - - +
installation
3.1.3 Pump loop test + - - + + - Update
installation
3.1.4 Inlet duct test - + - + - - +
installation
3.2 Measurements + + + + + Update
3.3 Instrumentation
3.3.1 Tunnel bypass velocity + + + + + - +
3.3.2 Tunnel static pressure + + + + + - +
3.3.3 Impeller shaft speed + + + + + + +
3.3.4 Impeller torque + + + + + + +
3.3.5 Head rise across the + + - + + + +
pump
3.3.6 Inlet duct loss - - + + + + -
3.3.7 Volume flow rate + + + + - - +
3.3.8 Water temperature + + + + + + +
3.3.9 Waterjet thrust + - + + + + -
3.4 Calibrations
3.4.1 Impeller torque and + + + + + + +
waterjet thrust
3.4.2 Head rise and inlet duct + + + + + + Update
loss
3.5 Test procedure and data + + + + + +
acquisition
3.6 Data reduction and - + + + + +
analysis
3.7 Extrapolation + + +
3.7.1 Scale effects + - - Update - - +
3.7.2 Conversion of model + + - Update - - +
data to full scale
3.8 Documentation + + + + + +
 Propulsion Committee
40

11. SCALING OF CONVENTIONAL

AND UNCONVENTIONAL
PROPELLER OPEN WATER DATA

11.1 General

Within the 27th ITTC a comparative CFD

calculation method has been started using the
propeller VP1304 from Schiffbau-Versuchs-
Anstalt (SVA) Potsdam, also known as PPTC.
Results from 12 institutions have been sent to Figure 85 Propeller P1727 of SVA Potsdam
the Propulsion Committee in this period.
All necessary data of both propellers and
instructions for the CFD calculations are avail-
able on the web site of SVA Potsdam:
http://www.sva-potsdam.de/ittc-benchmark/.

Results from 16 institutions were sent in to-

tal. The following table gives an overview over
the participants and for which propeller they
have given a result. In total there are 14 results
for the conventional propeller and 13 results
for the unconventional propeller.

Figure 84 Propeller VP1304 of SVA Potsdam Table 5. Overview over the participants
PPTC TRP
Institute
This work has been continued for the 28th VP1304 P1727
ITTC. Additional results have been sent to the China Ship Scientific Re- X X
Propulsion Committee. search Center
Dalian University of Tech- X X
As an unconventional propeller SVA Pots- nology
dam provided the propeller design P1727. It is Hamburgische Schiffbau- X X
a 4 bladed tip rake propeller which has been Versuchsanstalt
designed by SVA Potsdam for a research pro- Hyundai Maritime Re- X X
ject. Results of propeller open water tests are search Institute
available but were not published for the period Indian Institute of Tech- X
of calculations. nology Madras
Istanbul Technical Univer- X X
sity
Japan Marine United Cor- X X
poration
Krylov State Research X X
Centre
Marine Design & Re- X
search Institute of China
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
41

Pusan National University X

Samsung Ship Model Ba- X X
sin
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt X X
Potsdam
Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni- X X
versity
Shanghai Ship And Ship- X
ping Research Institute
Ship Design and Research X X
Centre Gdansk
SSPA Sweden AB X
Total results 14 13
Figure 87 KQ values in model scale VP1304
The following chapters give some results in
brief. Complete results can be found on the of
SVA Potsdam web site within the reports 4487
and 4488.

11.2 Results for the conventional propeller

Calculated KT values in model scale are in

general under predicted while KQ values are
over predicted for low advance coefficients and
under predicted for high advance coefficients.
The resulting propeller efficiency is under pre-
dicted by CFD. The results are showed as fol-
lows. Red lines are the model test results. Figure 88 Propeller efficiencies in model
scale VP1304

The full scale calculations show less KT de-

Figure 86 KT values in model scale VP1304
viation than in model scale while KQ deviation
is in the same range as in model scale. Conse-
quently the deviation of the efficiency in full
scale is less than in model scale. Figure 89 to
Figure 91 show the full scale results. Red lines
are the model test results corrected for the full
scale Reynolds number using the ITTC correc-
tion method. In full scale there is a tendency of
CFD for under predicted KT values at higher
advance coefficients and over predicted KQ
values at lower advance coefficients. The cal-
culated propeller efficiencies for full scale are
lower than the ITTC corrected values.
 Propulsion Committee
42
Figure 89 KT values in full scale VP1304
Figure 90 KQ values in full scale VP1304
Figure 91 Propeller efficiencies in full scale
VP1304
Figure 92 Statistics VP1304
In Figure 92 the deviations are summarised.
The minimum and maximum differences to the
model test result and the ITTC correction re-
spectively, are 25% and 75% quartiles and the
median over all advance coefficients as in Fig-
ure 93 explained.
Figure 93 Explanation of the statistics
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
43

11.3 Results for the unconventional
propeller
The calculations for the unconventional
propeller show the same tendencies as the con-
ventional propeller. KT and propeller efficien-
cies are under predicted in model scale. The
results for model scale are shown in Figure 94
to Figure 96.
In full scale the under prediction of KQ is
about the same as for KT and consequently
there is a pretty good agreement for the propel-
ler efficiency. The results for full scale are
shown in Figure 97 to Figure 99. In Figure 100
the statistics are shown.

Figure 97 KT values in full scale P1727

Figure 94 KT values in model scale P1727

Figure 98 KQ values in full scale P1727

Figure 95 KQ values in model scale P1727

Figure 96 Propeller efficiencies in model scale Figure 99 Propeller efficiencies in full scale
P1727 P1727
 Propulsion Committee
44
Figure 100 Statistics P1727
11.4 Summary and conclusions
In general the thrust and torque coefficients
in model scale were computed lower than the
corresponding measurements, with the differ-
ences in thrust coefficient between computa-
tion and measurements being relatively larger
compared to the torque coefficient. This has a
large impact on the open water efficiency.
The deviations between the different calcu-
lations for the unconventional propeller are less
than for the conventional propeller. In spite the
flow transition was considered in eight calcula-
tions for the unconventional propeller while
only three calculations have been done using a
transition model for the conventional propeller,
this does not have to be the reason. Also calcu-
lations without considering the transition have
low deviations.
There is a tendency for less deviation in full
scale than in model scale which means that the
present extrapolation method with model test
results is somewhat conservative than that of
CFD computation. It can be concluded that
CFD shall be used for the development of a
new correlation method for propeller character-
istics which is also applicable for unconven-
tional propellers.
12. EXAMINE METHODS OF TARGET
WAKE SIMULATION WITH THE
SUPPORT OF CFD (SMART
DUMMY)
During the period of the 28th ITTC the ac-
tivity on the smart dummy field was very small.
One publication only was found in Chunyu, et
al. (2017). This paper aimed to correct the
scale effects of nominal wake field by impos-
ing a contractual deformation on the aft hull of
a ship model. This method is a different ap-
proach in comparison to the adjoint sensitivity
analysis procedure to determine the geometry
of a dummy model.
To achieve the wake distribution of a real
ship using different scales of the ship model a
series of contractual deformations were im-
posed on the aft hull of the KCS container ves-
sel to obtain a wake distribution similar to that
of a real ship. Through numerical calculations,
a suitable deformation scheme with desirable
results was obtained.
The KCS model deformation scheme was
applied to a 5100 TEU container ship model to
obtain a new SDM. It was shown that the wake
field on the propeller disk of this modified
model also exhibits a significant contraction,
which matches well with the target wake field.
Based on the series if deformation effects
discussed above for the KCS ship model, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
 Two rows of control points are arranged at
23% T above and 9.5% T under the pro-
peller disk center along the model height
direction and at frame 0.5-2.5 along the
model length direction
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
45
 The maximum deformation displacement
is set as ΔS=3.13-3.83% BWL, and the de-
formation control factor is within the
range of 1.3-1.6, so as to have an inward
contraction as the deformation along the
model width direction.
Figure 101 5100 TEU container ship model
and stern lines with SDM08 and the original
Figure 102 Cross sections and test models
with a local coordinate system for wake field
measurements
Figure 103 Distribution of the axial norminal
wake field of model scale and target scale of
5100 TEU container ship
Figure 104 Comparison of wake distribution
between SDM08 and model 1 (left, target-
scale model; right, SDM08)
13. QUASI-STEADY OPEN WATER
PROPELLER AND PROPULSION
MODEL TESTS
Recently, propulsion systems have become
complicated with the advent of technologies
such as HCRSP and triple shaft propulsion.
Accordingly, the number of POW tests has in-
creased because of which the testing process
has become time consuming. The new quasi-
steady POW test has been studied to some ex-
tent at the MARIN model basin. Frans Hendrik
Lafeber, et al. (2013) studied a Quasi-Steady
Method at the towing tank of MARIN. The
single run is enough for determining all ad-
vanced coefficients with this method. The most
important aspect is the removal of hysteresis by
averaging of the acceleration and deceleration
data. According to the paper, there is a good
correlation between the present method and the
conventional method. It should be however
validated by more institutes because the un-
steadiness in the present method might be
much more than that in the conventional meth-
od.
According to the previous paper, various
parameters such as the range of acceleration
and deceleration and the minimum tank length
for the QSO (Quasi Steady Open water) test
have been investigated. The spec of the MAR-
IN towing tank is as follows:
 Length : 250m
 Breadth : 10.5m
 Depth : 5.5m
 Propulsion Committee
46

 Max. carriage speed : 9m/s
Figure 105 Velocity and rotation rate profile
The first is the hysteresis effect due to the mass
and mass moment of inertia of the propeller
(and pod or thruster unit), including the added
mass effects. Second, there is a hysteresis ef-
fect due to the unsteady hydrodynamic flow
around the propeller, mainly from the vortex
shedding to the propeller wake, both spanwise
and chordwise. The third is the hysteresis effect
due to flow separation and re-attachment. In
Figure 107, an example of the influence of the
inertia on the measured unit thrust is shown,
along with the average of the results from the
two parts of the test.

The velocity function is shown in equation

(7). (See Figure 105)


y  VMAX  sin(  t ) (7)
T
The acceleration of the towing carriage is
the differential value of equation (7) and the
distance for measurement is the integral value
of equation (7).
dy   Figure 107 Hysteresis effect due to inertia of
 VMAX   cos(  t ) (8) the test setup for a thruster unit
dt T T
MARIN has been testing the QSO method
T 2T
L   ydt VMAX  (9) by performing both steady and QSO measure-
0  ments for many open water model tests. This
way the QSO method has been tested for alu-
minium and bronze propellers, thrusters units
and pod units. Comparisons of the test results
from the traditional open water test and the
QSO test are discussed. The relative difference
between the two methods is also plotted. This
difference is defined for each J-value as:
K T , steady ( J )  K T ,QSO ( J )
difference ( J )  100%  ( )
K T , steady ( J  0)
Figure 106 Comparison of the steady and
QSO test for an open propeller At the bollard pull condition (J=0), the dif-
ference in KTP is 0.4% and in KQ even less at
During the tests, the measured values dur- 0.4%. The difference becomes even smaller for
ing the acceleration part and those of the decel- higher J-values. This results in a difference of
eration part can be different. There is a hystere- 0.3% in the maximum open water efficiency:
sis effect in the system. Three types of hystere- 67.2% for the steady open water test and 67.5%
sis effects have been identified for the QSO test. for the QSO test.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
47
Figure 108 Comparison of steady and QSO
test for an open propeller
The ducted propeller also shows a very
good agreement between the steady test and the
QSO test. In this case, the differences between
the two tests are even smaller than for the open
propeller. At J=0, the difference in KTP and KQ
is smaller than 0.1% and the difference in the
thrust of the duct is 0.6%. For the entire range
of J, the differences are smaller than 1%. The
absolute difference in the maximum efficiency
is 0.2%: η=64.8% from the steady test and
η=65.0% from the QSO test.
Figure 109 Comparison of steady and QSO
test for a ducted propeller
The results of a steady open water test and a
QSO test for a pod unit are shown in Figure
101. For this case, the differences in KTP, KTU
and KQ are also very small: below 1% for the
entire J-range. The maximum open water effi-
ciencies from both tests are the same at 62.7%.
Despite the larger mass of the pod unit com-
pared to an open propeller, the influence of in-
ertia is sufficiently cancelled.
Figure 110 Comparison of steady and QSO
test for a pod unit
The differences in the measured values
from the two tests on a thruster unit are very
small and the absolute differences are around
0.6% for several points. The difference in KTU
is very small for most of the points; the rela-
tively large hysteresis effect on the unit thrust
is well negated by taking the averages of the
acceleration and deceleration parts of the test.
Even though the differences in the measured
values are small, the difference in the maxi-
mum efficiency is slightly larger (0.6%) than
for the other propulsor types. The maximum
open water efficiency of the thruster at steady
test is 51.2%, whereas it is 50.6% from the
QSO test. This is still an acceptable difference
and within the repeatability seen in standard
open water testing.
 Propulsion Committee
48

cific model basin but also for several model

basins as mentioned before. The benchmark
test and validation along with the identification
of the limitations of actual tests are expected to
be conducted in the next term. The most im-
portant objective is to confirm the 100% can-
cellation of hysteresis by double measurements
because of the increase in unsteadiness. Other
factors to consider are the guideline for the cri-
terion for the acceleration (and deceleration),
the size of propeller, and the like. It may also
be useful to validate the test campaign if possi-
ble.

14. ADDITIONAL TASK FROM AC

(REYNOLDS NUMBER
CORRECTION FOR OPEN WATER
Figure 111 Comparison of a QSO test with PROPELLER TESTS)
constant RPM and varying RPM for a thruster
unit The AC Committee has an additional in-
quiry regarding the reason why the Re correc-
Additionally, the possible range for con- tion is not applied to the ducted propeller mod-
ducting Quasi-Steady Open Water Test at the el tests and that the Re correction for open wa-
small towing tank (e.g., the tank at the Pusan ter propeller tests requires update and en-
National University) is as follows. hancement in accordance with the development
 Length : 100m of the testing and computational methods.
 Breadth : 8m
 Depth : 3.5m First, with regard to the ducted propeller
 Maximum speed : 7m/s model tests, Wartsila sent some related materi-
 Maximum towing acceleration : 2m/s2 als about the Reynolds scaling effects for duct-
ed propellers based on the results from the
2T CFD analysis. The summary is as follows.
L  VMAX   The Reynolds scaling effect, which was

investigated on ducted propellers, has been
2T identified and explained based on the theo-
100  4.05 
 ry of loss coefficients and pump efficiency.
 Based on the present computations, the
T  38.785s
scale effect of the ducted propeller appears
 rather large compared to a normal propel-
a  4.05   0.3281(m / s2 )
38.785 ler.
In this case, the maximum acceleration and
deceleration should be 0.3281m/s2 and the
measurement time should be 38.785s. There-
fore it is possible to test an example case at a
small towing tank like the PNU tank.

To validate the new method, it is necessary

to conduct the model test not only for one spe-
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
49
Figure 112 Comparison of pump efficiency
(upward) and loss coefficient (downward) for
model scale and full scale for 19A and HR
nozzle
Figure 113 Comparison of calculated open
water performance of Kaplan 4-70 propeller
in 19A nozzle on model scale and full scale
Heretofore, there was no scaling method
recommended for ducted propellers in the
ITTC procedure. The extrapolation method for
ducted propellers has been investigated by the
22nd special Committee on unconventional
propulsors. Three kinds of methods (guideline)
have been introduced and the third method ap-
pears to be reliable but is not a convenient
method for actual testing. The committee pro-
poses to develop the standard procedure for
extrapolation of ducted propeller first. The
scale effect should be discussed for that proce-
dure.
Next, related to the Re correction for open
water propeller tests, the committee reviewed
some material such as “An Extrapolation
Method Suitable for Scaling of Propellers of
any Design” by Stephan Helma, SMP 2015 and
a paper published in the JASNAOE by the
committee member Takuya, titled “Reynolds
Number Effect on Propeller Performance in
Open Water” in 2009. Two papers in Korea
discuss the influence of Reynolds number on
the propeller open water performance. The
ITTC procedure recommends the condition of
Re≥2X105 in POW test. According to these
papers the criterion for the minimum Reynolds
number should be bigger than 2X105. The
summary of other papers is as follows.
Takafumi Kawamura, et al. (2009) present-
ed the Reynolds number effect on the propeller
performance in open water. The paper suggests
that a correction based on the skin friction co-
efficient can be applied to the extrapolation of
the thrust and torque coefficients at full-scale.
KQ of the transition model and full turbulence
result coincide at Re(K) larger than 2X106.
Therefore, the transition effect disappears for
Re(K) larger than 2X106.
Figure 114 Effect of Reynolds number on the
characteristics of Seiunmaru-I-CP at J=0.6
 Propulsion Committee
50
Figure 115 Effect of Reynolds number on the
characteristics of MP282 at J=1.1
Ki-Sup Kim, et al. (1985) studied the influ-
ence of Reynolds number on the propeller open
water characteristics and published their results
in the Korea Institute of Machinery & Materi-
als report. The specifications of the ten model
propellers are shown in Table 6.
Figure 116 shows the difference in Reyn-
olds number due to the velocity change. It
shows that the change in KT and KQ are stable.
However, when Re<5X105, KT and KQ are un-
stable.
Figure 116 Influence of Reynolds Number for
KP088 Propeller at the Towing Tank
KP024, KP025, and KP026 show the dif-
ference in the Reynolds number by propeller
scale. These three propellers are geometrically
similar, but their sizes are different. They have
diameters of 0.2336 m, 0.1168 m, and 0.0779
m with a size ratio of 6:3:2. KT is almost simi-
lar for the three propellers whereas KQ of
KP026 is smaller than the other propellers.
Figure 117 Open water test results of KP024,
KP025, and KP026 propellers at the towing
tank
KP092, KP098, and KP066 show the effect
of Reynolds number on the different sections.
The wing section of these propellers are NACA
66 a=0.8 mean line, MAU, and NSMB series,
respectively. If the wing section is different,
the shape of the fluid around the propeller and
the shape of the boundary layer would be dif-
ferent, but there would be no difference in
terms of the thrust and torque of the propeller.
The measured values are stabilized when
Re≥3X105 in all three sections.
From the above investigations, the mini-
mum Re number should be increased from
2X105 to some higher value which should be at
least more than 3X105. The minimum value is
expected to be decided in the next term.
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
51

Table 6. Principal Dimension of the Model Propellers

KP088 KP024 KP025 KP026 KP092 KP098 KP066
Dia. (m) `0.2500 0.2336 0.1168 0.0779 0.2500 0.2440 0.2500
Z 4 5 5 5 3 4 5
0.600 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.350 0.355 0.630
0.9300 0.6695 0.6695 0.6695 0.8310 0.8457 1.0000

Section NACA MAU MAU MAU NACA MAU NSMB

Skew(Deg.) 6.44 5.12 5.12 5.12
Rake(m) 0.00420 0.01430 0.00715 0.00477 0.00000 0.00063
H/D 0.2000 0.1712 0.1712 0.1712 0.2000 0.2136
0.08440 0.06150 0.03075 0.02050 0.06533 0.04977
0.00430 0.00320 0.00160 0.00107 0.00422 0.00263
15. CONCLUSIONS
15.1 Recommendations to the next committee
15.1.1 Procedure review/update
The 28th Propulsion committee has devel-
oped a new guideline for Triple Shaft Vessel
Propulsor Model Tests. The main feature of
this procedure is the load varying test with the
center and side propellers according to the con-
stant and variable conditions respectively. The
model test scaling is almost the same as in the
ITTC 1978 method and the validation by com-
parison with the full-scale data is necessary to
confirm the developed procedure.
The previous (27th) Propulsion committee
has developed a new guideline for HCRSP
(Hybrid Contra-Rotating Shaft Pod) Propulsor
Model Tests. The previous committee recom-
mended the continuous monitoring of the mod-
el test and scaling procedures used for this kind
of device; however, there is negligible full-
scale data available during the present term. It
is still necessary to monitor the full-scale data
for the validation of HCRSP the guideline.
Although the harmonization and alignment
of CA, ΔCF and CP is difficult due to the corre-
lation of each model basin for the prediction of
full-scale data, the correlation data between the
15.90 10.11 -
0.00780
-
0.07078
0.00353
model and the full-scale data is expected to be
standardized according to the variation in pa-
rameters that are very important for EEDI. If
the use of the CA value is to be continued, the
committee recommends developing a new
standard value for it if this value is going to be
used because the present standard CA value is
rarely used in model basins.
The minimum Re number for the reliable
POW test was investigated a long time ago.
The standard minimum Re number was decid-
ed at that time based on many discussions and
references. The many experiments conducted
for POW have raised several questions regard-
ing the minimum Re number for obtaining sta-
ble data. Although stable data could be ob-
tained using the present minimum Re number
is larger than 2X105 in some institutes it might
be necessary to increase the minimum Re
number to have enough margin to obtain relia-
ble data according to the different environmen-
tal conditions of each model basin as discussed
in Section 14.
Further validations are necessary to adopt
the quasi-steady method for POW as a standard
procedure although efficient testing could be
performed on the compound propulsors.
As the applications of CLT and Kappel
propeller increase the extrapolation method is
also expected to be set-up for these propulsors.
The strip method (J. Gonzalez-adalid, et al.
2014) has been applied to the extrapolation
method for these types of propulsors as well as
 Propulsion Committee
52
for a conventional propeller. The results seem
have a good correlation with CFD and sea-trial
data. Further validation is also necessary to
adopt the strip method as a standard procedure
which would be conducted in the next term.
15.1.2 Technologies to monitor
As the computational technology and com-
puting power improves the advanced methods
such as LES and DNS have been applied to the
analysis of propeller performance especially
for the analysis of cavitation. The complicated
bubble cavitation could be simulated in more
detail with the above methods. It is necessary
to monitor the effectiveness of the advanced
method, as there is a lack of sufficient compar-
ison with experimental data. The study on the
erosion mechanism would be of prime im-
portance with this advanced method.
The newly proposed scaling method
(Stephan Helma, SMP 2015) for the POW test
is expected to be further investigated because
the extrapolated results appear to be less de-
pendent on the Re number and the propeller
configuration.
The propulsor oriented technology has been
extended to the development of a new type of
rudder. As the inflow to the rudder is influ-
enced by the hull and the propeller, an accurate
analysis of the propeller is very important in
the development of a high performance rudder.
The Committee recommends monitoring the
interaction problem between the propeller and
rudder by experiments as well as by computa-
tional method.
Further work is still required on the meth-
ods for testing and analysis of the test results
for composite propellers. The use of CFD in
combination with EFD to investigate the fluid-
structure interaction needs to be better under-
stood. Scaling for the model test is another im-
portant and difficult problem for the full-scale
performance.
15.1.3 Scaling for propulsors
Because of the increasing interest in Energy
Saving Devices, the extrapolation method will
be prepared for the compound propulsor in col-
laboration with the ESM special committee. As
there might be a limitation related to the avail-
ability of full-scale data, the CFD can be used
as the best alternative. The correlation between
the full-scale data and the new extrapolation
for the ESDs is expected to be monitored con-
tinuously.
As full-scale measurement of the Pod Pro-
pulsor was not available due to the failure in
taking measurements during this session, the
committee recommends that the next commit-
tee should continue to look for the full-scale
data.
Because of the growing interest in energy
saving devices, the extrapolation method for
various kinds of propulsors is needed to be
monitored, especially for obtaining a reliable
extrapolation method.
As air-lubricated vessels become more
popular it is necessary to have correlation data
between the model test and sea trial results.
15.2 Recommendations to the conference
The committee recommends to the Full
Conference that they should
 Adopt the revised ITTC procedure 7.5-02-
03-01.1 Propulsion&Bollard Pull Test.
 Adopt the revised ITTC procedure 7.5-02-
03-01.2 Propulsion, Performance Uncer-
tainty Analysis, Example for Propulsion
Test
 Adopt the revised ITTC procedure 7.5-02-
03-01.4 ITTC 1978 Performance Predic-
tion Method
 Adopt the revised ITTC procedure 7.5-02-
03-01.6 Hybrid Contra-Rotating Shaft Pod
Propulsors Model Test
 Adopt the revised ITTC procedure 7.5-02-
03-01.7 Performance Prediction Method
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
53
for Triple Shaft Vessels
16. REFERENCES
A. Ducoin, J.C. Loiseau, and J.C. Robinet,
2015, “Direct Numerical Simulation of the
Laminar to Turbulent Transition on a Hy-
drofoil”, Fourth International Symposium
on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin,
Texas, USA
A. Sanchez-Caja, J. Gonzalez-Adalid, M. pe-
rez-Sobrino, and T. Sipila, 2014, “Scale Ef-
fects on Tip Loaded Propeller Performance
using a RANSE Solver”, Ocean Engineer-
ing 88, p. 607-617
Alireza Mofidi, J. Ezequiel Martin, and Pablo
M. Carrica, 2015, “RANS, DES and DDES
Simulations of Self-Propulsion of the Japan
Bulk Carrier”, Tokyo 2015 Workshop on
CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics, Tokyo, Japan
Andre Kleinwachter, Katrin Hellwig-Rieck,
Eric Ebert, Robert Kostbade, Hans-Jurgen
Heinke, and Nils A. Damaschke, 2015,
“PIV as a Novel Full-Scale Measurement
Technique in Cavitation Research”, Fourth
International Symposium on Marine Pro-
pulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Anirban Bhattacharyya, Vladimir Krasilnikov,
and Sverre Steen, 2015, “Scale Effects on a
4-Bladed Propeller Operating in Ducts of
Different Design in Open Water”, Fourth
International Symposium on Marine Pro-
pulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Arno Dubois, Zhi Q Leong, Hung D Nguyen,
Jonathan R Binns, 2017, “Development of a
Numerical Model for the Hydrodynamic
Performance Analaysis”, SMP`17, The
Fifth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, Espoo, Finland
Atanu Halder, Carolyn Walther, Moble Bene-
dict, 2017, “Unsteady Hydrodynamic Mod-
eling of a Cycloidal Propeller”, SMP`17,
The Fifth International Symposium on Ma-
rine Propulsors, Espoo, Finland
Bao-wei Song, You-jiang Wang, and Wen-long
Tian, 2015, “Open Water Performance
Comparison between Hub-type and Hubless
rim Driven Thrusters Based on CFD Meth-
od”, Ocean Engineering 103, p. 55-63
Bram Starke, 2015, “Viscous Free-Surface
Power Predictions for Self-Propulsion using
a Hybrid RANS-BEM Coupling Procedure
(PARNASSOS-PROCAL)”, Tokyo 2015
Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics,
Tokyo, Japan
Chunyu Guo, Tiecheng Wu, Qi Zhang, Wanzen
Luo, Yumin Su, 2017, “Numerical Simula-
tion and Experimental Studies on Aft Hull
Local Parameterized Non-geosim Defor-
mation for Correcting Scale Effects of
Nominal Wake Field”, Theory and Practice
of Naval Architecture, Marine Engineering
and Ocean Engineering, Vol.68, No.1
Chao-Tsung Hsiao, Jingsen Ma, and Georges L.
Chahine, 2015, “Simulation of Sheet and
Tip Vortex Cavitation on a Rotating Propel-
ler using a Multiscale Two-phase Flow
Model”, Fourth International Symposium
on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin,
Texas, USA
Danilo Calcagni, Flavia Bellotto, Riccardo
Broglia, Francesco Salvatore, and Rickard
E. Bensow, 2014, “Comparative Analysis of
the Hydrodynamic Performance of Un-
twisted and Twisted Rudders using a Hy-
brid RANSE/BEM Model”, Proceedings of
the Twenty-fourth International Ocean and
Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Ko-
rea
Douwe Rijpkema, Joao Baltazar, and Jose Fal-
cao de Campos, 2015, “Viscous Flow
Simulations of Propellers in Different
Reynolds Number Regimes”, Fourth Inter-
national Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
 Propulsion Committee
54
Dr. Dimitriy Ponkratov, and Constantinos Ze-
gos, 2015, “Validation of Ship Scale CFD
Self-Propulsion Simulation by the Direct
Comparison with Sea Trials Results”,
Fourth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Dr. Stephan Helma, 2015, “An Extrapolation
Method Suitable for Scaling of Propellers
of any Design”, Fourth International Sym-
posium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Dr. Stephan Helma, Heinrich Sterckwall, Jan
Richter, 2017, “The effect of propeller scal-
ing methodology on the performance pre-
diction”, SMP`17, The Fifth International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Espoo,
Finland
Fanlong Chen, Liwu Liu, Xin Lan, Qinyu Li,
Jinsong Leng and Yanju Liu, 2017, “The
Study on the Morphing Composite Propel-
ler for Marine Vehicle. Part I : Design and
Numerical Analysis”, Composite Structures
168, p. 746-757
Frans Hendrik Lafeber, Joris Brouwer, and Jie
Dang, 2013, “A Quasi-Steady Method for
Efficiently Conducting Open Water Model
Tests”, The 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Model Measurement Technology
for EU Maritime Industry, AMT13
Gert-Jan Zondervan, Nicola Grasso, Wim La-
feber, 2017, “Hydrodynamic design and
model testing techniques for composite ship
propellers”, SMP`17, The Fifth Internation-
al Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Espoo,
Finland
Grabert R., Lubke L., Klose R. and Barkmann
U., 2017, “ITTC Propeller Benchmark, Tip
Rake Propeller – P1727”, SVA-Report 4487,
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Potsdam, Ger-
many
Grabert R., Lubke L., Klose R. and Barkmann
U., 2017, “ITTC Propeller Benchmark, Tip
Rake Propeller – VP1304”, SVA-Report
4487, Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Potsdam,
Germany
Guiherme Vaz, David Hally, Tobias Huuva,
Norbert Bulten, Pol Muller, Paolo Becchi,
Jose L. R. Herrer, Stewart Whitworth, Ro-
main Mace, and Andrei Korsstrom, 2015,
“Cavitating Flow Calculations for the
E779A Propeller in Open Water and Behind
Conditions: Code Comparison and Solution
Validation”, Fourth International Symposi-
um on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin,
Texas, USA
Hyoung-Gil Park, Jung-Kyu Choi, and Hy-
oung-Tae Kim, 2014, “An Estimation
Method of Full Scale Performance for Pull-
ing Type Podded Propellers”, Int. J. Nav.
Archit. Ocean Eng. 6, p. 965-980
Hyoungsuk Lee, Min-Churl Song, Jung-Chun
Suh, Myung-Chan Cha, and Bong-Jun
Chang, 2015, “A Numerical Study on the
Hydro-elastic Behavior of Composite Ma-
rine Propeller”, Fourth International Sym-
posium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Hyoungsuk Lee, Jaewook Hur, Jin Hyoun Park,
Zoo Hwan Hah, Min-Churl Song, Bong-Jun
Chang, 2017, “A Design Concept of Com-
posite Marine Propeller for Long Stroke
Slow Speed”, SMP`17, The Fifth Interna-
tional Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
Espoo, Finland
ISO 484-1, 2015, “Shipbuilding-Shipscrew
propellers-Manufacturing tolerances-Part
1:Propellers of diameter greater than
2.50m”
J. Baltazar, D. Rijpkema, J.A.C. Falcao de
~
Campos, 2017, “On the Use of the γ- R eθ
Transition Model for the Prediction of the
Propeller Performance at Model-Scale”,
SMP`17, The Fifth International Symposi-
um on Marine Propulsors, Espoo, Finland
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
55
Johan Bosschers, Chris Willemsen, Adam Ped-
dle, and Douwe Rijpkema, 2015, “Analysis
of Ducted Propellers by Combining Poten-
tial Flow and RANS Methods”, Fourth In-
ternational Symposium on Marine Propul-
sors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
J. Gonzalez-Adalid, and M. Perez Sobrino,
2014, “Comparison of Different Scaling
Methods for Model Tests with CLT Propel-
lers”, Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Hydrodynamics, ICHD 2014,
Singapore
Jin-Keun Choi, and Georges L. Chahine, 2015,
“Experimental and Numerical Study of
Cavitation Erosion Resistance of a Polyurea
Coating Layer”, Fourth International Sym-
posium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Joost Moulijn, 2015, “Application of Various
Computational Methods to Predict the Per-
formance and Cavitation of Ducted Propel-
lers”, Fourth International Symposium on
Marine Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas,
USA
J.S. Carlton, 2008, “Podded Propulsors: Some
Results of Recent Research and Full Scale
Experience”, Journal of Marine Engineer-
ing and Technology, No. A11
Kazuo Suzuki, Yuki Mihara, Hiroshi Kiso, and
Takahiko Ito, 2015, “Proposal and Funda-
mental Experiments on Duct-shaped Water
Wheel without Rotating Blades”, Fourth In-
ternational Symposium on Marine Propul-
sors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Keun Woo Shin, Pelle Bo Regener, and Poul
Andersen, 2015, “Methods for Cavitation
Prediction on Tip-Modified Propellers in
Ship Wake Fields”, Fourth International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Keun Woo Shin, Poul Andersen, 2016, “CFD
Study on Effective Wake of Conventional
and Tip-modified Propellers”, 31st Sympo-
sium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Monterey,
California
Ki-Sup Kim, and Chang-Sup Lee, 1985, “In-
fluence of Reynolds Number on Propeller
Open-Water Characteristics”, Korea Insti-
tute of Machinery & Materials Report
Ki-Sup Kim, Kyung-Youl Kim, Jong-Woo Ahn,
and Jin-Tae Lee, 2000, “Effect of Reynolds
Number, Leading Edge Roughness and Air
Content on the Cavitation Performance of
Model Propellers”, Journal of the Society of
Naval Architects of Korea 37(1), p. 10-25
Koichiro Shiraishi, Yuki Sawada, Kunihiro
Hoshino, 2017, “Cavity Shape Measure-
ment Using Combination Line CCD Cam-
era Measurement method”, SMP`17, The
Fifth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, Espoo, Finland
Lin Lu, Guang Pan, and Prasanta K. Sahoo,
2016, “CFD Prediction and Simulation of a
Pumpjet Propulsor”, International Journal
of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineer-
ing 8, p. 110-116
Lin Lu, Guang Pan, Jing Wei, and Yipeng Pan,
2016, “Numerical Simulation of Tip Clear-
ance Impact on a Pumpjet Propulsor”, In-
ternational Journal of Naval Architecture
and Ocean Engineering 8, p. 219-227
Marco Altosole, Silvia Donnarumma, Valentina
Spagnolo, and Stefano Vignolo, 2017, “Ma-
rine Cycloidal Propulsion Modelling for DP
Applications”, 7th International Conference
on Computational Methods in Marine En-
gineering, MARINE 2017, Nantes, France
Mariano Perez-Sobrino, Juan Gonzalez-Adalid,
Ramon Quereda, Cristina Soriano, Amadeo
Moran, and Giulio Gennaro, 2016, “A New
Performance Prediction Procedure for Pro-
pellers with Unconventional Tip Shape”,
12th International Conference on Hydrody-
namics, 18-23 September 2016, Delft, The
 Propulsion Committee
56
Netherlands
Martio J. and Sanchez-Caja A., 2016, “The per-
formance and force coefficients of flapping
foil”, 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrody-
namics, Monterey, California
Martio J., Sanchez-Caja A., and Siikonen T.,
2017, “Open and ducted propeller virtual
mass and damping coefficients by URANS-
method in straight and oblique flow”,
Ocean Engineering, 130: 92-102
Mitja Morgut, Dragica Jost, Enrico Nobile, and
Aljaz Skerlavaj, 2015, “Numerical Investi-
gations of a Cavitating Propeller in Non-
Uniform Inflow”, Fourth International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Moran Guerrero Amadeo, Juan Gonzalez Ada-
lid, Mariano Perez Sobrino, Leo de Miguel
Gonzalez Gutierrez, 2017, “Open Water
Results Comparison for Three Propellers
with Transition Model Applying Crossflow
Effect, and Its Comparison with Experi-
mental Results”, SMP`17, The Fifth Inter-
national Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
Espoo, Finland
Moon-Chan Kim, Yong-Jin Shin, Won-Joon
Lee, and Joon-Hyoung Lee, 2017, “Study
on Extrapolation Method for Self-
Propulsion Test with Pre-Swirl Device”,
Fifth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, SMP`17, Espoo, Finland
Myoung-Soo Kim, Young-Yeon Lee, Haeseong
Ahn, Cheol-Hee Kim, Seunghyun Hwang
and Suak-Ho Van, 2016, “Study on the
Load Variation Coefficients based on the
Model Test”, Proceedings of PRADS2016,
Copenhagen, Denmark
M.A. Verhulst, 2015, “Validation of Quasi-
Steady Model Propulsion Tests”, The 4th
International Conference on Advance Mod-
el Measurement Technologies for the Mari-
time Industry, Istanbul, Turkey
Nikolay V. Marinich, Aleksey Yu. Yakovlev,
Nikolay A. Ovchinnikov, and Tomi Veikon-
heimo, 2017, “Multicomponent Design of
Rotor-Stator-Nozzle (RSN) Propulsor on
Azipods”, 7th International Conference on
Computational Methods in Marine Engi-
neering, MARINE 2017, Nantes, France
Norbert Bulten, and Maarten Nijland, 2011,
“On the Development of a Full-scale Nu-
merical Towing Tank Reynolds Scaling Ef-
fects on Ducted Propellers and Wakefields”,
Second International Symposium on Ma-
rine Propulsors, SMP`11, Hamburg, Ger-
many
Pasi Miettinen, and Mikael Lindfors, 2015,
“Investigation of Azipod Thruster with
Nozzle Performance by CFD Simulations
and Experiments”, Fourth International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Patrick Schiller, Keqi Wang, and Moustafa Ab-
del-Maksoud, 2017, “Flow Study on a
Ducted Azimuth Thruster”, 7th Internation-
al Conference on Computational Methods
in Marine Engineering, MARINE 2017,
Nantes, France
Patrick Queutey, Jeroen Wackers, Alban
Leroyer, GanBo Deng, Emmanuel Guil-
mineau, Michel Visonneau, and Gerco
Hagesteijn Joris Brouwer, 2014, “Dynamic
Behaviour of the Loads of Podded Propel-
lers in Waves: Experimental and Numerical
Sinulations”, Proceedings of the ASME
2014 33rd International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2014, San Francisco, California,
USA
Pelle Bo Regener, Yasaman Mirsadraee, Poul
Andersen, 2017, “Nominal vs. Effective
Wake Fields and their Influence on Propel-
ler Cavitation Performance”, SMP`17, The
Fifth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, Espoo, Finland
 Proceedings of 28th ITTC – Volume I
57
Pieter J. Maljaars, and Mirek L. Kaminski,
2015, “Hydro-elastic Analysis of Flexible
Propellers: An Overview”, Fourth Interna-
tional Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Pol Muller, and Fabian PЙcot, 2017, “Devel-
opment of a Fluid Structure Coupling for
Composite Tidal Turbines and Marine Pro-
pellers”, 7th International Conference on
Computational Methods in Marine Engi-
neering, MARINE 2017, Nantes, France
Praveen Kumar, and Krishnan Mahesh, 2015,
“Analysis of Marine Propulsor in Crash-
back using Large Eddy Simulation”, Fourth
International Symposium on Marine Pro-
pulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
R. Roemen, and J.K. de Bruin, 2016, “On the
Oblique Ice Impact Loading of Azimuthing
Propulsion Units”, Proceedings of
PRAD2016, Copenhagen, Denmark
R. Sampson, S. Turkmen, B. Aktas, W. Shi, P.
Fitzasimmons, and M. Atlar, 2015, “On the
Full Scale and Model Scale Cavitation
Comparisons of a Deep-V Catamaran Re-
search Vessel”, Fourth International Sym-
posium on Marine Propulsors, SMP`15,
Austin, Texas, USA
Sanchez-Caja A., and Martio J., 2017, “On the
optimum performance of oscillating foil
propulsors”, Journal of Marine Science and
Technology, 22: 114-124
Sang-Il Park, Seung-Jae Lee, Geuk-Sang You,
and Jung-Chun Suh, 2014, “An Experi-
mental Study on Tip Vortex Cavitation
Suppression in a Marine Propeller”, Journal
of Ship Research, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 157-
167
Stefano Gaggero, Diego Villa, Giorgio Tani,
and Michele Viviani, 2017, “Propeller Noz-
zles Design using Viscous Codes and Opti-
mization Algorithms”, 7th International
Conference on Computational Methods in
Marine Engineering, MARINE 2017,
Nantes, France
Stefano Gaggero, Giorgio Tani, Michele Vivi-
ani, and Francesco Conti, 2014, “A study
on the Numerical Prediction of Propellers
Cavitating Tip Vortex”, Ocean Engineering
92, p. 137-161
Stefano Gaggero, Giorgio Tani, Diego Villa,
Michele Viviani, Pierluigi Ausonio, Piero
Travi, Giovanni Bizzarri, Francesco Serra,
2017, “Propeller geometry optimisation for
pressure pulses reduction: an analysis of the
influence of the rake distribution”, SMP`17,
The Fifth International Symposium on Ma-
rine Propulsors, Espoo, Finland
S. Berger, R. Gosda, M. Scharf, R. Klose, L.
Greitsch, and M. abdel-Maksoud, 2016,
“Efficient Numerical Investigation of Pro-
peller Cavitation Phenomena Causing
Higher-Order Hull Pressure Fluctuations”,
31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Monterey, California
Takafumi Kawamura, and Takuya Omori, 2009,
“Reynolds Number Effect on Propeller Per-
formance in Open Water”, J. JASNAOE Vol.
10, p. 29-36
Thomas Lloyd, Guilherme Vaz, Douwe Rijp-
kema, Antoine Reverberi, 2017, “Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics Prediction of Marine
Propeller Cavitation Including Solution
Verification”, SMP`17, The Fifth Interna-
tional Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
Espoo, Finland
Tomi Veikonheimo, Pasi Miettinen, John
Huisman, 2017, “On the advanced extrapo-
lation method for a new type of podded
propulsor via CFDs imulations and model
measurements”, SMP`17, The Fifth Interna-
tional Symposium on Marine Propulsors,
Espoo, Finland
Tuomas Turunen, Timo Siikonen, Johan
Lundberg, and Rickard Bensow, 2014,
 Propulsion Committee
58

“Open-Water Computations of a Marine drodynamics, Tokyo, Japan

Propeller using OpenFOAM”, 6th European
Conference on Computational Fluid Dy-
namics, Barcelona, Spain
Tsung-Yueh Lin, and Jen-Shiang Kouh, 2014,
“On the Scale Effect of Thrust Deduction in
a Judicious Self-Propulsion Procedure for a
Moderate-Speed Containership”, JASNA-
OE 2014
Vladimir Krasilnikov, Lucia Sileo, and Tae-
Hwan Joung, 2015, “Investigation into the
Influence of Reynolds Number on Open
Water Characteristics of Pod Propulsors”,
Fourth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Xiongjun Wu, Jin-Keun Choi, Abigail Leaman
Nye, and Georges L. Chahine, 2015, “Ef-
fect of Nozzle Type on the Performance of
Bubble Augmented Waterjet Propulsion”,
Fourth International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA
Zhirong Shen, and Richard Korpus, 2015,
“Numerical Simulations of Ship Self-
Propulsion and Maneuvering Using Dy-
namic Overset Grids in OpenFOAM”, To-
kyo 2015 Workshop on CFD in Ship Hy-
drodynamics, Tokyo, Japan

Yan Xing-Kaeding, and Scott Gatchell, 2015,

“Resistance and Self-Propulsion Predictions
for Japan Bulk Carrier without and with
Duct using the FreSCo+ code”, Tokyo 2015
Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics,
Tokyo, Japan

Yan Xing-Kaeding, Scott Gatchell, and Hein-

rich Streckwall, 2015, “Towards Practical
Design Optimization of Pre-Swirl Device
and its Life Cycle Assessment”, Fourth In-
ternational Symposium on Marine Propul-
sors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA

Yiran Su, Spyros A. Kinnas, Hannu Jukola,

2017, “Application of a BEM/RANS Inter-
active Method to Contra-Rotating Propel-
lers”, SMP`17, The Fifth International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Espoo,
Finland

Ye Tian, and Spyros A.Kinnas, 2015, “A Vis-

cous Vorticity Method for Propeller Tip
Flows and Leading Edge Vortex”, Fourth
International Symposium on Marine Pro-
pulsors, SMP`15, Austin, Texas, USA

Yuji Arai, Michio Takai, and Takafumi Kawa-

mura, 2015, “Ship Flow Computations us-
ing OpenFOAM with Rotating Propeller”,
Tokyo 2015 Workshop on CFD in Ship Hy-