Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/303676909
CITATIONS READS
0 3,030
1 author:
Oliver Ayris
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Oliver Ayris on 30 May 2016.
supervised by
iii
iv
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I must thank my supervisor Dr Panagioti Kakli for his sup-
port, understanding and advice in every step throughout the process. I would also
like to express special thanks to Sotiri Chouliara, who repeatedly went out of his
way to assist me when I was in need. This project was also supported by Dr Heinrich
Streckwall and the Hamburg Ship Model Basin who provided me with their useful
tools and guidance. Finally, I would like to show my appreciation towards my family
for their unconditional support and faith in me.
v
Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents v
List of Tables x
Nomenclature xi
Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Types of Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Propeller Performance Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Numericals Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Project Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Blade Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Blade Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Pitch Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Skew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 Warp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.8 Rake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.9 Blade Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.10 Propeller Hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 Propeller Modelling 16
3.1 Validation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Comparative Study Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
vi
4 Propeller Simulations 21
4.1 Numerical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 Open Water Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3 Cavitation Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4 Comparative Study Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 Results 27
5.1 Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2 Blade Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3 Blade Area Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4 Pitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.5 Skew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.6 Rake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References 38
vii
List of Figures
viii
5.6 Cavitation with BAR variation at σ = 0.25 (left) and σ = 0.15(right) 31
5.7 Sensitivity to cavitation at lower cavitation number with BAR variation 31
5.8 Cavitation with pitch variation at σ = 0.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.9 Sensitivity to cavitation at lower cavitation number with pitch variation 33
5.10 Cavitation with skew variation at σ = 0.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.11 Sensitivity to cavitation at lower cavitation number with skew variation 34
5.12 Cavitation with rake variation at σ = 0.25 (left) and σ = 0.15 (right) 35
5.13 Sensitivity to cavitation at lower cavitation number with rake variation 35
ix
List of Tables
x
Nomenclature
Symbols
xi
θs Section skew angle degrees (◦ )
ρ Water density kg/m3
σ Cavitation number
σ0 Free stream based cavitation number
σm Mean cavitation number
σn Rotational speed based cavitation number
σ n0.8 Local cavitation number at 0.8R
φ Perturbation potential
Abbreviations
BAR Blade Area Ratio
BEM Boundary Element Method
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CPP Controllable Pitch Propeller
HSVA Hamburg Ship Model Basin
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NACA National Advisory Council for Aeronautics
PPB Propeller Panel Based method
USS United States Ship
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Cavitation
Cavitation, also referred to as “cold-boiling”, is the phenomenon of the formation
of vapour pockets – cavities – within a fluid, caused by pressure reduction below
a certain value named “vapour pressure”. When the cavities find themselves back
in a higher pressure environment they implode, causing the liquid to rush towards
its centre to fill it, hence generating large pressures (up to 1 GPa). These are
subsequently propagated in the form of pressure waves to their surroundings.[1]
1
Its occurrence has detrimental impact on its surrounding environment. First
and foremost, the pressures exerted by the imploding cavities cause erosion of the
propeller blades, the encompassing hull plates and other nearby equipment such as
the rudder etc. Also the effects cause vibrations to be radiated towards the vessel
and transmitted structurally, which not only endanger the vessel and its machinery,
but also is uncomfortable for the crew and passengers on-board. On that note, the
collapsing vapour pockets produce noise which is not only undesirable to the people
on-board, but is also an environmental concern. Additionally, it is an important
subject of concern to engineers in the naval industry, where stealth is a primary
aspect of a successful product.[3]
Finally, cavitation causes loss of thrust in marine propellers due to the reduced
contact area between the blades and water and thus efficiency degradation is ob-
served. There are certain instances when the propeller is required to operate at high
rotational speeds and cavitation is unavoidable. In these cases, propellers can be
designed to take advantage of the flow characteristics, for example by reducing the
curvature of the leading edge of the blade and making it sharper. Propellers that
operate with fully developed cavitation are called “super-cavitating” propellers and
are employed exclusively for high speed scenarios, as their operation at lower speeds
is sub-optimal.[2]
2
Figure 1.2: Various types of cavitation
constant inflow speed and gradually increasing the rotational speed up to the motor’s
capabilities, usually achieving a range of at least 0 to 50 percent slip for inception
tests. For studying the cavitation extent and behaviour on a propeller, a certain
advance coefficient is selected, normally according to a thrust identity between model
and full scale, while also retaining cavitation number similarity.[5][6]
These evaluation methods have been implemented with wide acceptance by re-
searchers and the industry, however they involve a certain number of disadvantages.
Firstly, satisfying flow similarity between model and full scale is impossible, and
thus various techniques are needed to transform tank test results. This demands
a certain amount of empiricism and also allows for technique variation between
different testing facilities. Additionally, the time requirements and costs involved
are not always feasible, which has led to a restricted amount of experimental data
to become available. A combination of the above, and the complex geometry of
propellers, which are tailor made on a case-by-case basis, make the process quite
restrictive and prone to errors.
3
yielding surfaces as opposed to volumes, and the velocities are computed on each
individual panel. Depending on the nature of the grid generator and solver, this
vastly accelerates the computation while retaining great accuracy due to its semi-
analytical nature. They also have benefits over lifting-line methods with regards to
errors near the leading edge and root of the blades.[5] The main issues that arise from
these methods is the complex programming required and the flow at the propeller
tip is not effectively captured, which in the case of cavitation, does not allow the
research of tip vortex cavitation.[7]
• Tabulate the above interrelations for use in propeller design and also the con-
firmation study that took place.
• Undergo a validation study that evaluates the accuracy of the available nu-
merical method.
• Study the results and derive conclusions based on the above findings.
4
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Background
Cavitation in fluid flows is quantified using the cavitation number σ , which is defined
as the ratio of the static pressure head over the dynamic pressure head. The static
head is usually defined at the shaft centreline or either a radial position of 0.7 to
0.9R depending on the needs of the study. The dynamic head is based on either
a single or vector sum of the axial and rotational velocities of the propeller, once
again, possibly at an intermediate radial position of the blade. The following are
various forms in which it can be defined.[5]
p 0 − pv p0 − pv p0 − p v
σ0 = 1 σn = 1 σm = 1
2
ρV 2 2
ρ(πxnD)2 2
ρ(V 2+ (πxnD)2 )
This parameter is a means of measuring the difference between the inflow stream
pressure compared to the vapour pressure, the point at which vapour cavities will
start to form. When compared to the pressure coefficient obtained from the pressure
distribution on the propeller blades it allows us to identify possible locations at which
cavitation will occur due to significant loads and pressure imbalance. The pressure
coefficient at a certain point is defined as follows:
p − p0
Cp = −
q
When the resultant velocity of the blade increases, the pressure imbalance on
the face and back of the propeller blade increases, leading to the low pressure side to
possibly fall below vapour pressure. This pressure limit, although not an absolute
requirement for the inception of cavitation, is identified for a certain cavitation num-
ber and it is to be avoided during operation by manipulation the propeller geometry
amongst other methods, and therefore the change of the pressure distribution.
The geometrical parameters for the review are identified as:
• Diameter
• Blade number
• Blade area
• Pitch angle
5
• Skew
• Rake
• Warp
• Blade section
• Propeller hub
2.2 Diameter
A larger diameter is favoured by naval architects, as it means that the vessel can
achieve higher thrust, and so higher forward speed for the same rotational speed
of the shaft. Usually, the design limitation is the tip clearance from the bottom
of the hull and also high-speed planning vessels are an exception. For optimum
efficiency, the propeller diameter determination is a complex procedure involving
various empirical formulae.[9]
With regards to cavitation, a larger diameter is beneficial as the rotational speed
of the propeller could be reduced and still achieve the required forward movement.
A reduced rotational speed would mean that the pressure imbalance on the blades
would be reduced with the reduction of the inflow forces and so cavitation would be
decreased or alleviated. So for a certain engine output or desired forward speed, a
large diameter propeller would allow for slower rotation and reduced cavitation, as
seen in Figure 2.2.[10]
6
Figure 2.2: Optimum diameter selection graph
7
Figure 2.3: Correlation between optimum diameter, blade number and blade area
ratio
8
Burrill’s method can provide recommendations for fixed pitch propellers using
Figure 2.4. For a certain “permissible” level of cavitation, the graph provides the
thrust loading coefficient at the 0.7R section of the blade. This estimate was deter-
mined from cavitation tunnel tests in uniform axial load.
The projected and expanded propeller areas would be calculated using the fol-
lowing two formulae respectively:
T AP
AP = 1 AE =
τ ρ(V 2
2 c
+ (0.7πnD)2 ) 1.067 − 0.229P
D
where τc is obtained from Figure 2.4.
Keller’s method is based on the expanded area ratio:
AE (1.3 + 0.3Z)TP
= +K
A0 (ps − pv )D2
The value K varies from 0.2 for single screw propellers, to 0.1 for slow twin screw
merchant ships, and 0 for fast twin screw naval ships.
Figure 2.5: Blade section pitch P, nose-tail pitch angle θ and inflow angle β
9
Figure 2.6: Left – Velocity distributions at (a) positive, (b) ideal and (c) negative
angle of attack. Right – Cavitation bucket diagram
in Figures 2.6 and 2.7. It can be observed with these graphs how the angle of at-
tack can be modified to move cavitation inception from the back to the face of the
propeller. It has been deduced from studies that cavitation inception is limited to
lower numbers of the cavitation number for small angles of incidence, however as it
increases, the susceptibility spreads to the wider range.[5]
Bucket diagrams can show the type of cavitation occurring at a certain com-
bination of angle of attack and cavitation number while also expressing the non-
cavitating capabilities of the 2-dimensional section in the width of the “bucket”.
The fact that this refers to a section rather than a 3-dimensional blade leaves room
for uncertainty with regards to tip and root cavitation, and so other design methods
must be used to optimise those areas in particular. Nevertheless, they are often used
during the design process.[5]
10
Figure 2.8: Observation from experimental tests
2.6 Skew
Skew is considered to be the most effective geometrical parameter that can be ad-
justed in order to manage the extent and inception of cavitation, due to not having
a simultaneous effect on thrust.[12] The optimum amount to be applied has been
suggested to be in the range of 45-60◦ , where the greatest amount of blade unloading
occurs. Angles in excess of 60◦ have been shown to cause the increase of negative
pressure at the tip region, nevertheless moderate angles of skew have been shown to
be beneficial in normal operations.[13]
Skew weakens sheet cavitation and moves it from the blade tip to the leading
edge, however this can be aggravated at low cavitation numbers and turn into leading
edge vortices.[14] The resultant pressure fluctuation produced for skewed propellers
is 50-70% less than that commonly found.[15]
2.7 Warp
Warp is defined as the angular displacement equal to the projected skew angle mea-
sured after the skew induced rake is made up with opposite rake.[16] Warp has been
proven to have a very similar effect to skew, with a good comparison test showing
that warp might even be more effective for moderate cavitation numbers, while, only
for very low values of the cavitation parameter, skew might be superior.[12]
11
Figure 2.9: Unwrapped view of section showing the relationship between warp and
skew
Figure 2.10: Comparison between undistorted, 36◦ and 72◦ skew, and 36◦ and 72◦
warp
2.8 Rake
Evidence for the use of rake for cavitation reduction was not sufficient to confirm
its use for cavitation management purposes. The main purpose for which it is
introduced is for increasing the clearance between the blade tip and the hull bottom.
There is some evidence that slight backwards rake can reduce cavitation with small
reduction of propeller efficiency.[17] Since rake also allows for the use of a larger
diameter, it might implicitly lead to cavitation improvement.
On the other hand, it leads to an increase of the load experienced by the propeller
blades and therefore a greater section thickness is used, the effects of which will be
discussed in the next section. Although blade rake does not seem to be used for
cavitation mitigation purposes, blade tip rake has been found to be of great interest
and benefit.
12
2.9 Blade Section
The blade section geometry comprises of the section thickness, camber and chord
length. For better cavitation characteristics, NACA sections have become a popular
choice for newer ships with marked improvements.[18] The vast amount of experi-
mental data on NACA foils makes them an attractive option for engineers, who will
go on to modify them to fit their particular case. The flat pressure distribution on
the suction side provides a wide bucket diagram, on the pressure side however the
phenomenon is not so well controlled. To solve the problem of high loading at the
leading edge of the blade, which is the source of severe cavitation, the maximum
thickness is suggested to be positioned forward of 50% of the chord length with an
S-shaped camber.
Thicker foils also allow for the use of a wider range of angles of attack, however
the increased drag and reduced lift that result may not be welcomed. An increase
in camber can be regarded as an increase of the initial angle of attack, which would
eventually cause cavitation, but with less impact on the drag of the foil. Therefore,
cavitation-free operation can be carried out at larger positive angle and smaller
negative angle with a small increase in the width of the range.[19] The thickness is
also limited by the cord length, as a thickness-to-chord ratio above 0.35 can lead to
cavitation.
In the radial direction, although thicker blades are more prone to cavitation,
combining it with greater camber can help avoid the low pressure peak at the lead-
ing edge and hence reduce the possibility of sheet cavitation. On the contrary, a
thin blade with small camber is better for avoiding bubble cavitation.[20] Overall,
the blade section requires a significant amount of attention and an iterative and sys-
tematic process to accomplish a satisfactory design. More detailed characteristics,
such as the blade leading edge radius and shape are also important, but their study
could not be accommodated in this project.
13
Figure 2.12: Right – The influence of thickness on cavitation inception. Left – The
influence of camber on cavitation inception
14
Table 2.1: Literature Review Summary
15
Chapter 3
Propeller Modelling
The modelling of the propellers was completed with the assistance of a parametric
modeller, with the capability of reproducing various series of widely known and
used propellers, such as the Wageningen B-series, Gawn, Kaplan and others. It also
allows for custom rules to be applied on the blades, hub and individual cross section,
making it a very useful tool for custom design.
16
Table 3.1: Blade Section Thickness and Camber Distribution
Number of blades: 5
Hub diameter ratio: 0.2
Expanded area ratio: 0.725
Section mean line: NACA08
Section thickness distribution: NACA66-MOD
Design advance coefficient: 0.889
r/R c/D P/D θs xs /D tmax /D fmax /c
0.2 0.174 1.332 0 0 0.0434 0.0351
0.25 0.202 1.338 0 0 0.0396 0.0369
0.3 0.229 1.345 0 0 0.0358 0.0368
0.4 0.275 1.358 0 0 0.0294 0.0348
0.5 0.312 1.336 0 0 0.0240 0.0307
0.6 0.337 1.280 0 0 0.0191 0.0245
0.7 0.347 1.210 0 0 0.0146 0.0191
0.8 0.334 1.137 0 0 0.0105 0.0148
0.9 0.280 1.066 0 0 0.0067 0.0123
0.95 0.210 1.031 0 0 0.0048 0.0128
1.0 0 0.995 0 0 0.0029 -
17
Figure 3.1: Solid and wire representation of the parent model
according to B-series polynomials, while the rake distribution was linear. Finally,
the maximum camber was set at 0.01 of the section chord length.
The parent propeller consisted of 5 blades, a blade area ratio of 0.75, a 7m
diameter and pitch, 15◦ rake and the skew was determined by the modeller at 16.3◦ .
The first group of propellers consisted of 11 models that varied in diameter, starting
from 4 meters up to 9 meters in increments of 0.5 meters. The second group consisted
of 6 models, ranging from 3 to 7 blades, including the second 4-bladed model with the
80% pitch. Next, were 6 propellers with BAR ranging from 0.3 to 1.05 in increment
of 0.15. Group 4 varied in pitch from 4.2 to 9.8 meters in 1.4 meter steps and an
additional model with 3.5 meter pitch. The group of skew-varying propellers started
at 0◦ , then 16.3◦ and from 25◦ to 75◦ in 10◦ steps. Finally, rake began from -5◦ up
to 30◦ by 5◦ increments.
18
Table 3.3: Comparative Study Models
19
Figure 3.2: CAD drawing of the parent propeller
20
Chapter 4
Propeller Simulations
21
Figure 4.1: Grid and mesh of the DTNSRDC Propeller 4381
modelling was not disclosed, however the method is loosely based on the panel
method approach used by Kinnas et al. and Lee et al.
The input file for the solver requires the following parameters: the advance
coefficient, the propeller rotational speed, the diameter, a wake parameter (set to
zero throughout the project as it relevant only to simulations of in-behind condition)
and finally the local cavitation number at 0.8R of the blade at the 12 o’clock position,
and is defined as follows:
patm + ρgh − pv
σn0.8 = 1
2
ρ(πnD)2
The file can be configured to run consecutive simulations, thus providing a table
of results. The output file provides the pressure coefficient on the suction and
pressure side for each radial ordinate at a position of 1/7th of the total chord. It
also provides a non-dimensionalised circulation and cavity volume, estimated from
the mean surface pressure, both for all 10 radially distributed panels. For this code,
only sheet cavitation is predicted.[24]
22
Figure 4.2: Open water performance comparison between PPB and experimental
results by Boswell
Overall the open water results do follow the same trend as the experimental
results, however the discrepancy is on the higher end of the spectrum for engineering
applications; at the design point of J= 0.889 the percentage difference between
results is 8.8% for both thrust and torque. It is not specified in the experimental
test procedures if a run of the tank carriage was made in order to determine the
system friction and dummy hub torque and thrust. Therefore, it is unknown if
the results are solely due to blade action or not, and potential flow solvers tend to
predict a slightly higher thrust at the design point when modelled without a hub.[25]
In general it has been shown that below the design point BEMs are often unable
to properly predict torque when compared to other numerical methods.[26][27] The
efficiency is under-predicted by less than 1.5%.
This propeller was designed by a lifting surface procedure with additional correc-
tions based on thrust performance criteria. The overall performance of the models
tested was lower than the design condition, with 2.3% thrust, 0.4% torque and -1.8%
efficiency at J= 0.889. When these results are compared with the numerical results
the error of the method is reduced to 6.3% for thrust and 8.3% for torque, whilst
the error in efficiency increases to 3.2%.
23
4.3 Cavitation Validation
The study conducted by Boswell included cavitation results and thus the opportunity
to validate the performance of PPB in that aspect was utilised. The test procedure
was completed in a variable pressure water tunnel and so the cavitation number,
selected at the shaft centre-line, could be controlled independently. First, a value
for the advance coefficient was selected and then values for the inflow and rotational
speed were adjusted, always remaining between 10 and 20 feet per second for the
former, and 14 and 20 rps for the latter. Initially the propeller would operate in a
non-cavitating condition and a reduction of pressure was introduced until cavitation
would appear or change.[21]
To convert the free stream cavitation number to the local value required by
PPB, a systematic procedure was required for each advance coefficient. First the
advance coefficient was selected together with the highest possible inflow speed, not
exceeding the previously mentioned range. The rotational speed was now adjusted
by definition J=V /(nD). The static head needed to be converted from that at the
propeller shaft, to one at 0.8R of the blade at 12 o’clock, to achieve the correct local
number. If the two definitions can be expressed as:
1
2
ρV 2 σ 0 − 0.4ρgD
⇒ σn0.8 = 1
2
ρ(πnD)2
From here the cavitation number could be derived for the range of 1 to 12 of
σ 0 , and the whole process repeated to cover the range of 0.5 to 1 for the advance
coefficient. The results for cavitation inception are only an estimate as it would
require an extensive procedure to identify the exact value of J of its initiation. It
has been noticed that PPB detects the sheet at the very top ordinate and, as it
becomes larger, it spreads to lower parts of the blade. The two lines in Figure 20
represent the tip and 0.4R ordinate of the blade.
The results are not encouraging as they indicate a severe under-prediction of
cavitation at higher cavitation numbers. The cavity volume estimation is based on
the blade pressures, nevertheless there seems to be significant difference. However,
due to uncertainty with regards to the processes followed in the model experiments
it is not possible to draw a definite conclusion. For the comparison study lower
cavitation numbers will be used in order to avoid any potential issues with the
prediction.
24
Figure 4.3: Total cavitation inception as predicted by PPB compared to the
experimental prediction
cient and local cavitation number. There is substantial discussion regarding the
ideal definition of the cavitation number for performance comparison in model test-
ing.[28][29][30] There is no definite consensus on the “correct” method, however it
is suggested that for model tests the local cavitation number is used, especially for
inception studies.[5] This is not relevant in this case, as all propellers are in full-scale
and no scaling of the model or the effect needs to be done.
Nevertheless, the strategy followed was to test all 40 propellers at 3 different local
cavitation numbers: 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25. First, the parent propeller was used, along
with an inflow speed of 10 m/s to determine the free stream cavitation number when
the shaft was submerged by one diameter. The result was kept throughout all the
tests and was approximately 3.3. For every new propeller the new static pressure was
determined always at a shaft submergence of one diameter and, using the free-stream
cavitation number the inflow velocity was determined for the particular diameter.
Every propeller was tested at advance coefficients ranging from 0 to 1.5, and for
each one a unique rotational speed was derived by definition of J=V /(nD). Finally,
the desired local cavitation number would be selected and this would eventually
re-adjust the static pressure, changing the free-stream cavitation number for each
propeller.
The reason for keeping the local cavitation constant is mainly due to the fact
that it is part of the input of PPB, and so greater consistency is achieved for the
comparison. The initial derivation of the inflow speed is justified as a “prediction”
of what forward speed the propeller would have to achieve the free-stream cavitation
number. The correction of the inflow velocity is an attempt to adjust for the pres-
sure change due to the modified submergence that would occur if the tests were not
performed in a pressure controlled environment, such as normal ship operation. Fi-
25
∆p ∼
∆p = patm + ρgD − pv σv = 1 = 3.3
2
ρV 2
where D = 7m
where V = 10 m/s
s
∆p
V = 1
J = 0, 0.1, 0.2 . . . 1.5 2
ρσv
where σv ∼
= 3.3
V V
J= ⇒n=
nD JD
Figure 4.4: Flowchart demonstrating the derivation of the PPB input variables
nally, since the ability to de-/pressurise the environment exists, it seems appropriate
to take advantage of it to keep other variables constant.
Overall this process is not necessary, as one could just keep either the local
or free-stream cavitation number constant and not take advantage of the pressure
adjustability. This would set either the inflow or rotational speed, depending on the
definition of the cavitation number, and for the range of advance coefficients, the
other speed would be determined. Yet the above process seemed like a justifiable
extra step in the process.
26
Chapter 5
Results
For all geometrical characteristics, two types of figures are presented. First, the
value of the volume of the cavity is shown as both the geometry and the advance
coefficient are varied through the prescribed range. The second type is an attempt
to investigate how the sensitivity to cavitation changes with the geometry, as the
cavitation number decreases. To achieve this, the increase in volume is measured
between consecutive cavitation number reductions. Then the difference between the
two increases is derived and plotted against the geometrical change and J.
5.1 Diameter
Larger diameter propellers generate more cavitation at a certain advance coeffi-
cient, with cavitation increasing almost linearly as J reduces. At the same J, the
growth of the volume is quadratic with the diameter and this is amplified at low
values of advance. This is not surprising, as the expanded blade area also increases
quadratically with diameter, leading to a greater surface area. However, the fact
the this effect is amplified at lower values of J seems to suggest that the optimum
rotational speed reduces as a propeller becomes larger, which is in agreement with
industry practice.[9] Therefore, an engineer must identify this reduction of optimum
rotational speed and compare it to the gains in forward speed and thrust. The
cavitation increase per unit diameter could be linear, however the slope of this line
depends on the above residual parameters.
Figure 23 also confirms the previous statement for optimum rotational speed, as
the local cavitation number reduces quadratically with n. For larger propellers, cavi-
tation increases drastically at low J, whereas smaller ones seem to reach a stagnation
point. The reduction of increase at low J - high D suggests a similar stagnation in
further growth. An important note, however, is that cavitation is conceived almost
at the same advancement coefficient for all diameters, therefore this is a matter of
tolerance of total cavity volume.
27
Figure 5.1: Cavitation with diameter variation at σ = 0.15
28
Figure 5.3: Cavitation with blade number variation at σ = 0.15
for the 5-blade propeller and 25% for the 3-blade, which greatly exceeds the recom-
mendation of 16-18%. The 80% pitch reduction for the 4-blade propeller suggested
for B-series models does seem to have a small favourable impact, but cannot negate
significant errors in design decisions. The further reduction in cavitation upwards
of 5 blades may not come along with other performance benefits or could be due to
the inability to detect root cavitation due to close blade proximity.
Although the difference in increase of cavitation when lowering the cavitation
number seems to be somewhat slightly affected by the number of blades, the 3-
bladed propeller exhibits an unanticipated vulnerability. In industry it is suggested
that lower blade number propellers have a higher efficiency but for strength reasons
cannot be utilised when high thrust is a requirement. However, the above advantage
is hindered by the diameter, which seems to fall below the advisable range for 3-blade
designs.[9]
29
Figure 5.4: Sensitivity of cavitation at lower cavitation number with blade number
variation
Figure 5.5: Optimum blade number suggestion by MAN Diesel & Turbo
30
Figure 5.6: Cavitation with BAR variation at σ = 0.25 (left) and σ = 0.15(right)
31
Figure 5.8: Cavitation with pitch variation at σ = 0.15
5.4 Pitch
Pitch demonstrates a linear response to both growth of the total volume. It also
appears earlier for propellers with higher pitch in a linear fashion, which seems like
a reasonable outcome since a linear pitch distribution was used for all propellers and
the variation of pitch effectively alters the angle of attack of the blade to flow. This
results in the effective pressure on the blade to increase with the angle of attack.
In an attempt to arrive at a useful conclusion, Figure 30 shows that as the
cavitation number reduces, at the speed of inception, all propellers experience the
same increase. Therefore, pitch, together with diameter, must be adjusted to fit the
rate of revolution that is to be selected. For lower rates of revolution, pitch-over-
diameter should be larger, and so should the diameter. Therefore, the losses due to
an increased pitch must be counteracted by the benefits gained from the increase in
diameter. This is in agreement with research findings and industry practice.[5][9]
32
Figure 5.9: Sensitivity to cavitation at lower cavitation number with pitch
variation
5.5 Skew
The use of skew for preventing cavitation is confirmed by the comparative study.
The effect is not of great significance, however given that skew does not have a
consequence on thrust, it is a useful tool for this purpose. A delayed onset rotational
speed and a reduced rate of growth is observed. In a numerical study [13] it was
found that optimum skew is around 45-60◦ , however the results from PPB indicate
that the benefits continue at higher values, which agrees with studies that used both
numerical and experimental methods.[12][14]
An increase in skew also reduces the rate of growth of cavitation as the cavitation
number reduces, meaning that it can benefit high rotating speed propellers. One
important note is that, although skew has beneficial effects, the manufacturing of
the blades may require other geometrical changes, such as an increase in thickness,
which could negate the positive gains.
5.6 Rake
The study reveals that cavitation is almost totally independent of rake. The effect
is negligible, however it is interesting to note that it is positive for large angles at
higher cavitation numbers, whereas it is negative for larger angles at lower cavitation
numbers. Thus, it seems unlikely that rake would be used with this goal in mind,
considering the additional measures that are required to cater for the strength of the
blades. This also confirms the implementation of warp in marine propellers, where,
when skew is implemented, skew induced rake is removed by applying negative rake.
33
Figure 5.10: Cavitation with skew variation at σ = 0.15
34
Figure 5.12: Cavitation with rake variation at σ = 0.25 (left) and σ = 0.15 (right)
35
Chapter 6
The validation of PPB produced mixed results that were not re-assuring in regards
to accuracy for its purpose. Open water results were reasonably accurate, with a
deviation of 8.8% compared to experimental methods. Over-estimation of torque
and thrust is a normal behaviour of potential flow solvers; however, in this case
results could be improved significantly by increasing the mesh density.[23]
Cavitation prediction was underwhelming in the validation process, indicating
that the cavity volume estimation from the blade pressures might not be sufficient.
A late onset of cavitation was found; still there are various differences between the
experimental and numerical tests that might occur and lead to such deviation. First,
the exact values of inflow and rotational velocity were not provided in the experi-
ment description by Boswell, and therefore the precise values of the local cavitation
number, required as input for PPB, could be affected slightly. Additionally, there
are environmental parameters, such a water density, water air content and tank wall
effects, that are a significant factor for cavitation inception.[5][28][29][30] Finally,
there was no mention of a dummy hub test, which means the effect of the hub on
the results could be a reason for the discrepancy.
Overall, the results from the comparative study are in agreement with the knowl-
edge applied to marine propeller design. Although the diameter produces higher
volumes of cavitation, it increases linearly per meter of diameter, and therefore the
designer must take into account operational speed and thrust requirements. A re-
duction of the number of blades causes a large spike, as the area per blade becomes
excessive and the width of the blade exceeds its root-to-tip height. For a 5-blade pro-
peller, the increase of BAR is welcomed, as it delays the onset of cavitation, however
due to the conclusions from blade number variation, one must be cautious with the
reaction with different geometry. In general, the above three geometrical properties
are interconnected, yielding an optimum design based on requirements.[10]
Although a larger pitch is usually beneficial for performance, the onset of cavi-
tation moves to lower rotational speeds in a linear fashion with pitch increase. Skew
was confirmed to be successful in reducing cavitation throughout the range of 0◦ to
75◦ . This does not agree with certain numerical studies, which show that pressure
loading at the tip increases further from 60◦ [13], and this could be due to the in-
ability of BEMs to identify tip vortex cavitation. Finally, rake was not found to
be useful in alleviating cavitation, especially when the negative consequences of its
implementation could harm a propellers service life.
Throughout the study there were a number of decisions and techniques involved
36
that could be a source of eventual faults in the outcome and conclusions. Potential
flow introduces various simplifications to a real flow, and hence may not necessarily
lead to representative results. The mesh generated on the blades, although refined
at the leading and trailing edge may not be dense enough to capture the flow in
detail. The above, combined with viscous corrections applied to the results may
even lead to further inaccuracies.
An additional source of potential error can be found in the validation with the
absence of a more detailed description of the experimental procedures. Combined
with an uncertainty for the accuracy of the cavity volume estimation through the
surface pressure prediction, a deviation of the results for cavitation is not entirely
unlikely. Finally, the absence of the propeller hub, although a common technique in
such studies, is still another source of discrepancies between the real and simulated
scenario.
This study could be extended to provide similar insight on the effects of the
blade section on cavitation inception and extent. It is possible that camber could
be particularly useful for controlling cavitation, utilised appropriately with pitch. A
collection of the all the above could be coded into a program similar to “OpenProp”,
which started at MIT and since moved to Dartmouth College. It uses a generalised
lifting line method for model design and analysis, while it can also perform basic
stress calculations on the blades and output geometries for further work.[31] It would
form as a useful optimisation tool for cases where cavitation is a significant issue,
and would give suggestions on which geometrical parameter one should change, to
control sheet cavitation in the most efficient way.
37
References
38
[15] B. Ji, X. Luo, and Y. Wu, “Unsteady Cavitation Characteristics and Al-
leviation of Pressure Fluctuations Around Marine Propellers with Different
Skew Angles”, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 28, no. 4,
pp. 1339–1348, 2014.
[16] D. R. Smith and J. E. Slater, “The Geometry of Marine Propellers”, Defence
Research Establishment Atlantic, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 1988.
[17] Y. Ukon, K. Kume, J. Fujisawa, H. Takeshi, Y. Kawanami, J. Hasegawa, R.
Fukasawa, S. Yamasaki, J. Ando, and T. Kanai, “Research on Improvement of
Propulsive Performance of a High-Speed Ship Equipped with a High-Powered
Propeller”, National Maritime Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan, 2008.
[18] J. Dang, “Improving Cavitation Performance with New Blade Sections for
Marine Propellers”, International Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 353–
376, 2004.
[19] S.-W. Chau, K.-L. Hsu, J.-S. Kouh, and Y.-J. Chen, “Investigation of Cavita-
tion Inception Characteristics of Hydrofoil Sections via a Viscous Approach”,
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 147–158, 2004.
[20] G. Kuiper, “Cavitation Inception on Ship Propeller Models”, TU Delft, Delft
University of Technology, 1981.
[21] R. J. Boswell, “Design, Cavitation Performance, and Open-Water Performance
of a Series of Research Skewed Propellers”, Department of the Navy Naval Ship
Research and Development Center, Washington, D.C., 1971.
[22] R. Biven, “Interactive Optimization Programs for Initial Propeller Design”,
University of New Orleans, New Orleans, 2009.
[23] S. Gaggero, J. Gonzalez-Adalid, and M. Perez Sobrino, “Design of Contracted
and Tip Loaded Propellers by Using Boundary Element Methods and Opti-
mization Algorithms”, Applied Ocean Research, vol. 55, pp. 102–129, 2016.
[24] H. Streckwall, “User Manual for HSVA’s Propeller Panel Method ”ppbfdom””,
Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, 2001.
[25] S. Brizzolara, S. Gaggero, and D. Grassi, “Hub Effect in Propeller Design
and Analysis”, presented at the Third Internationals Symposium on Marine
Propulsors smp’13, 2013.
[26] L. Greco, R. Muscari, C. Testa, and A. Di Mascio, “Marine Propellers Perfor-
mance and Flow-Field Prediction by a Free-Wake Panel Method”, Journal of
Hydrodynamics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 780–795, 2014.
[27] S. Gatchell, D. Hefermann, and H. Streckwall, “Open Water Test Propeller
Performance and Cavitation Behaviour Using PPB and FreSCo+”, presented
at the Second International Symposium on Marine Propulsors smp’11, Ham-
burg, Germany, 2011.
[28] “Comparative Tests of Propellers in Cavitation Tunnels”, presented at the
Fifth International Conference of Ship Tank Superintendents, London: The
International Towing Tank Conference, 1948.
[29] “Comparative Cavitation Tests”, presented at the Sixth International Confer-
ence Ship Tank Superintendents, Washington: The International Towing Tank
Conference, 1951.
39
[30] “Comparative Cavitation Tests of Propellers”, presented at the 8th Interna-
tional Towing Tank Conference, Madrid: The International Towing Tank Con-
ference, 1957.
[31] B. Epps and R. Kimball. (2013). OpenProp v3: Open-Source Software for
the Design and Analysis of Marine Propellers and Horizontal-Axis Turbines,
[Online]. Available: http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/epps/openprop.
40