See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241075208

A review of the equations used to predict the velocity distribution within a

ship’s propeller jet

Article  in  Ocean Engineering · January 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.10.016

CITATIONS READS

38 122

5 authors, including:

Wei Haur Lam Gerard Hamill

Tianjin University Queen's University Belfast
130 PUBLICATIONS   778 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Desmond Robinson Srinivasan Raghunathan

Queen's University Belfast Queen's University Belfast
35 PUBLICATIONS   590 CITATIONS    84 PUBLICATIONS   337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Use of Subsurface Physical Barriers to Control Seawater Intrusion in Heterogeneous Coastal Aquifer View project

Ship Scour in Harbours View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Haur Lam on 30 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Review

A review of the equations used to predict the velocity distribution within a

ship’s propeller jet
W. Lam a,b,n, G.A. Hamil b,1, Y.C. Song a, D.J. Robinson b,1, S. Raghunathan c,2
a
Key Laboratory of Ocean Energy Utilization and Energy Conservation of Ministry of Education, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, PR China
b
School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AG, Northern Ireland
c
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AG, Northern Ireland

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: Predicting the velocity within the ship’s propeller jet is the initial step to investigate the scouring made by
Received 23 November 2009 the propeller jet. Albertson et al. (1950) suggested the investigation of a submerged jet can be undertaken
Accepted 23 October 2010 through observation of the plain water jet from an orifice. The plain water jet investigation of Albertson
Editor-in-chief: A.I. Incecik
et al. (1950) was based on the axial momentum theory. This has been the basis of all subsequent work with
Available online 19 November 2010
propeller jets. In reality, the velocity characteristic of a ship’s propeller jet is more complicated than a
Keywords: plain water jet. Fuehrer and Römisch (1977), Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), Berger et al. (1981), Verhey
Ship’s propeller jet (1983) and Hamill (1987) have carried out investigations using physical model. Current paper reviews the
Velocity distribution state-of-art of the equations used to predict the time-averaged axial, tangential and radial components of
Seabed scour
velocity within the zone of flow establishment and the zone of established flow of a ship’s propeller jet.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Propeller jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Propeller jet formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Concept of propeller jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1. Plain water jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.2. Axial momentum theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Limitations of plain water jet and axial momentum theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Semi-empirical equations for a propeller jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.1. Efflux velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.2. Contraction of the propeller jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.3. Length of the zone of flow establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.4. Zone of flow establishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.5. Zone of established flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.6. Rotational/tangential component of velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.7. Radial component of velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1. Introduction

n
Corresponding author at: School of Energy and Power Engineering, Dalian The investigations of predicting the velocity within the ship’s
University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning 116024, China. Tel.: +86 411 84706722; propeller jet, which can lead to seabed scouring are of particular
fax: + 86 411 84708015.
E-mail address: wlam@dlut.edu.cn (W. Lam).
interest for the design of marine structures. In Whitehouse’s (1998)
1
Tel./fax: + 44 28 9097 4006. book ‘‘Scour at Marine Structures’’, the potential damage made by
2
Tel./fax: + 44 28 9097 4147. the propeller jet is highlighted. The action of the propeller jet to the

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.10.016
 Author's personal copy
2 W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
seabed scouring is also described in Sumer and Fredsøe’s (2002)
book ‘‘The Mechanics of Scour in the Marine Environment’’ and
Gaythwaite’s (2004) book ‘‘Design of Marine Facilities for the
Berthing, Mooring, and Repair of Vessels’’ (Fig. 1). These authors
proposed the velocity prediction within the ship’s propeller jet is
the initial step to investigate the scouring made by the propeller jet.
A rotating ship’s propeller draws in water, accelerates and then
discharges this water downstream to propel a ship. The discharge
of water is a high velocity flow, which is capable of scouring the bed
if unchecked. In an unrestricted area, the velocity of the flow decays
proportional to the distance from the propeller face by entraining
the surrounding still water. If this jet is restricted, this high velocity
jet will not decay naturally by entraining the surrounding water,
but will cause damage to the adjacent area. If the movement of a jet
is restricted by the seabed, this will cause seabed scouring, as
documented by Hamill (1987).
The propeller jet is a complicated flow with axial, rotational/
tangential and radial components of velocity. Experimental inves-
tigation is traditionally used to develop the predicting equations
for the ship’s propeller jet (Fuehrer and Römisch, 1977; Blaauw
and van de Kaa, 1978; Berger et al., 1981; Verhey, 1983; Hamill,
1987; Kee et al., 2006; Lam et al., 2010). However, the validity of
these equations has not yet to be confirmed for complex propeller
geometries (van Blaaderen, 2006).
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been widely applied
to investigate fluid dynamics problems and has become relatively
inexpensive compared to experimental investigations (Lam et al.,
Stern ramp
Ro-ro ship
Quay wall
Propeller
Fig. 1. Jet impingement in the case of ro–ro ship with stern ramp (Sumer and
Fredsøe, 2002).
Fig. 2. Schematic view of propeller jet (Hamill, 1987).
2006). However, the application of CFD models is on a case by case
basis. There is no universal CFD model that can be used in all the
different cases (Fluent User Manual, 2003). A number of research-
ers are most likely to use CFD to investigate the phenomena of a
propeller jet to prevent seabed damage without improving existing
equations (Dargahi, 2003; Brovchenko et al., 2007). Naval archi-
tects have motivation to investigate the performance of a propeller
(Seil et al., 2003; WS Atkins Consultants et al., 2004; Yang et al.,
2009), which is a close research area but it is not currently direct
applicable to this research.
2. Propeller jet
2.1. Propeller jet formation
The principle of propeller operation is to convert the torque of a
shaft to produce axial thrust (Massey, 2005). The propeller provides
this thrust by increasing the rearward momentum of the fluid in
which it is submerged. As a reaction, the fluid exerts a forward force
on the propeller which is used for propulsion. This fundamental
concept provides the basis for all propeller propulsion theories
(Stewart, 1992).
The flow field behind a manoeuvring ship, which encompasses a
rotating propeller jet and turbulent wake from the hull, is complex
in character. The rotating propeller produces a high velocity jet,
while the bow cutting through the water induces a turbulent wake,
making the flow pattern more complicated, (Hamill, 1987). When
the ship is stationary or manoeuvring at low speed, the wake due
to the hull cutting through the water is insignificant and conse-
quently the influence of hull’s geometry on the propeller jet is
negligible, (Prosser, 1986). Approximation to the propeller jet can
therefore be made with sole consideration of the action of the
propeller (Prosser, 1986).
The velocity magnitude of a ship’s propeller jet tends to decay
along the longitudinal axis from the initial plane immediately
downstream of the propeller jet (efflux plane), (Blaauw and van de
Kaa, 1978; Hamill, 1987; Stewart, 1992; McGarvey, 1996). The
eddies, which are generated in this region of high viscous shear,
give rise to lateral mixing. As a consequence the fluid within the
propeller jet is gradually decelerated with longitudinal distance
from the propeller face, while the still ambient fluid is gradually
accelerated (Brewster, 1997).
 Author's personal copy
W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
The regions within a jet can be divided into two zones, the zone
of flow establishment (ZFE) which lies close to the propeller face,
followed by the zone of established flow (ZEF), as shown in Fig. 2. As
the propeller is rotating, the jet forms the zone of flow establish-
ment initially. Due to the influence of the hub at the centre of
propeller, the propeller jet has a low velocity core along the axis of
rotation within the zone of flow establishment. The lateral velocity
profiles within the zone of flow establishment are therefore two-
peak ridges. The influence of the hub disappears gradually along
longitudinal axis due to the penetration of high velocity fluid into
low velocity central core (Hamill, 1987). At the beginning the fluid
is mixing with the surrounding water both inwardly and outwardly
along the axis of rotation (McGarvey, 1996). At a certain distance
downstream, the flow will only be mixing outwardly and this is
then referred to as the zone of established flow (McGarvey, 1996).
In this region, there is only one maximum velocity peak located at
the axis of rotation (McGarvey, 1996).
2.2. Concept of propeller jet
Albertson et al. (1950) used a plain water jet to investigate the
velocity field within the jet based on axial momentum theory. This
has been the basis of all subsequent work with propeller jets.
Several researchers have carried out investigations using physical
model to determine the velocity magnitudes within a ship’s
propeller jet. Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), Berger et al. (1981),
Verhey (1983) and Hamill (1987) investigated the velocity field
within a ship propeller jet using an actual propeller to compensate
the flaw inherited from the investigations of a plain water jet.
2.2.1. Plain water jet
Albertson et al. (1950) suggested the investigation of a sub-
merged jet can be undertaken through observation of the plain
water jet from an orifice, as shown in Fig. 3. The investigation was
based on the following assumptions:
 The pressure is hydrostatically distributed throughout the flow.
 The diffusion process is dynamically similar under all
conditions.
Fig. 3. Schematised representation of a diffusing jet from an orifice (Albertson et al., 1950).
3
 The longitudinal component of velocity within the diffusion
regions varies according to the Gaussian normal probability
function at each cross section.
According to the investigation of Albertson et al. (1950), the
plain water jet (Fig. 3) is categorised into a zone of flow establish-
ment (Fig. 4) and a zone of established flow (Fig. 5). In the zone of
flow establishment the maximum velocity is constant while the
lateral distribution is expanding (Vmax ¼Vo, Fig. 3).
The region with constant maximum velocity has a pronounced
potential core (Fig. 3) (Lee and Chu, 2003). The lateral section of
potential core is contracting due to the turbulent mixing between
the core and the surrounding fluid (Fig. 3). In the zone of established
flow, the maximum velocity starts to decay along the rotation axis
(Vmax oVo, Fig. 3). The diffusion process now continues without any
essential change in character (Stewart et al., 1991). In this zone,
entrainment of the surrounding fluid is balanced by reduction in
the jet velocity. In addition, the plain water jet was axisymetrical
with the entire jet being mirrored about the central axis (Hamill,
1987).
Albertson et al. (1950) reported the angle of diffusion in the
zone of established flow is larger than the angle in the zone
of flow establishment. Brewster (1997) suggested the difference of
angle may due to the varied diffusion process within these
two zones.
2.2.2. Axial momentum theory
The plain water jet investigation of Albertson et al. (1950) was
based on the axial momentum theory, which was proposed by
Froude with reference to Rankine’s investigations in the 19th
century. The axial momentum theory makes the following
assumptions:
(1) The propeller is represented by an ideal actuator disc of
equivalent diameter.
(2) The disc consists of an infinite number of rotating blades,
rotating at an infinite speed.
(3) There is negligible thickness of the disc in the axial direction.
(4) The disc is submerged in an ideal fluid (inviscid fluid) without
disturbances.
 Author's personal copy

4 W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10

Fig. 4. Definition sketch for the zone of flow establishment after Albertson et al. (1950).

Fig. 5. Definition sketch for the zone of established flow after Albertson et al. (1950).

(5) All elements of fluid passing through the disc undergo an equal Boundary of
increase of pressure. Actuator disc slipstream
(6) The energy supplied to the disc is, in turn, supplied to the fluid
without any rotational effects being induced.

Fig. 6 shows the propeller represented as an ideal actuator disc

and the surrounding fluid on which it acts. In this simplified
representation, the boundary of the slipstream is a surface across
which there is a discontinuity of pressure and velocity (Massey,
2005). In reality, the pressure and velocity at the edge of the
slipstream reduces due to fluid mixing with the still, ambient fluid.
(B) (C)
In Fig. 6, sections A and D are far enough from the propeller to allow
(D)
the fluid pressure at section A (PA) and the fluid pressure at section
(A)
D (PD) equal to hydrostatic pressure. Far upstream the pressure and
the velocity are given by PA and VA, respectively. As the flow Velocity
VC VD
approaches the propeller disc at section B, acceleration due to the VA VB
reduced pressure PB of the upstream side of the disc occurs. Due to
the negligible thickness of the disc, the velocity at sections B (VB)
Pressure
and C (VC) is equal. In passing through the disc, the pressure at
section C is increased to PC, which further accelerates the flow. At PA PB PC PD (=PB)
section D, the velocity has increased to VD and the pressure PD is
that of the surrounding undisturbed fluid. In Fig. 6, the slipstream Fig. 6. Propeller as an ideal actuator disc (Massey, 2005).
downstream reduces with the increase of velocity in order to
maintain the continuity principle. The energy is supplied to the
system as the fluid passes through the disc, and as a result investigation laid the foundation of the investigation of a ship’s
Bernoulli’s equation does not apply between regions B and C. propeller jet using axial momentum theory. Blaauw and van de Kaa
However Bernoulli’s equation may be applied between the sections (1978) work was influenced by Albertson’s investigation of a plain
A and B and between the sections C and D. water jet.
The axial momentum theory has been widely applied to The change of the momentum due to the energy supplied to the
describe the characteristics of a ship’s propeller jet as aforemen- system through the presence of the actuator disc results in a net
tioned researchers in Section 2.2. Blaauw and van de Kaa’s (1978) thrust on the fluid. This thrust can be related to the Bernoulli’s
 Author's personal copy
W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
equation in order to develop an equation for the efflux velocity as
follows, Stewart (1992):
1 
T¼ rAðVD2 VA2 Þ ð2:1Þ
2
Dimensional analysis of the propeller thrust gives (Stewart,
1992)
T ¼ Ct rn2 D4 ð2:2Þ
where T is the propeller thrust, r is the density of fluid, A is the area
of actuator disc, VD and VA are velocities at sections D and A,
respectively (Fig. 6), Ct is the thrust coefficient of the propeller, n is
the speed of rotation of the propeller in revolutions per second and
D is the propeller diameter in metres. The thrust coefficient (Ct) is a
non-dimensional coefficient determined from measured perfor-
mance characteristics. It is a ratio of the thrust to the product of the
fluid density, the square of the propeller revolutions and fourth
power of diameter (Stewart, 1992). Equating Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) for
propeller thrust results in
1 approximately the same is incorrect, with sizable differences
rAðVD2 VA2 Þ ¼ Ct rn2 D4 ð2:3Þ
2 (in order of a factor of 20) being measured by Hamill et al.
As the advance speed (inflow velocity to the propeller) VA ¼0
and the area A ¼ pD2/4, Eq. (2.3) becomes
pD2
VD2 ¼ Ct n2 D4 ð2:4Þ
8
Rearranging Eq. (2.4) gives
pffiffiffiffiffi
VD ¼ 1:59nD Ct ð2:5Þ
In the case during manoeuvres of ships, the speed of the ships is
very low, the influence of the ship on the propeller slipstream is
very small, that is why the ships are assumed to have zero speed of
advance (Blaauw and van de Kaa, 1978). Therefore Eq. (2.5) derived
from the axial momentum theory can be used to predict the efflux
velocity, which VD ¼Vo. The efflux velocity (Vo) is the maximum
velocity at the face of the propeller (Fuehrer and Römisch, 1977),
which is
pffiffiffiffiffi
Vo ¼ 1:59nD Ct ð2:6Þ
where n is the speed of rotation of the propeller in revolution
per second, D is the propeller diameter in metres and Ct is the thrust
coefficient of the propeller, with this coefficient being derived from
the area of the actuator disc (A¼ pD2/4).
Hamill et al. (2004) found the assumptions in the axial
momentum theory (see Section 2.2.2) to be inadequate to describe
the process involved in the formation of the propeller jet. Fuehrer
et al. (1987) suggested that Eq. (2.6) was found to be in error as
much as 720%.
2.3. Limitations of plain water jet and axial momentum theory
The earliest investigations of the velocity characteristics within
a ship’s propeller jet use the axial momentum theory and a plain
water jet. In reality, the velocity characteristic of a ship’s propeller
jet is more complicated than a plain water jet. There are flaws when
applying the axial momentum theory, or a simplified plain water
jet instead of a rotating propeller jet. These are:
 The axial momentum theory only considers the velocity char-
acteristics of the axial component within a submerged jet.
A propeller jet has two other components of velocity (rotational
and radial components) in addition to the axial component of
velocity. The assumption of simulating a rotating propeller jet
using a plane submerged jet is therefore not entirely satisfac-
tory, due to the absence of the rotational and radial components
of velocity in a plane jet (Qurrain, 1994). Therefore assumption
5
six in the axial momentum theory ‘‘energy suppliedyto the
fluid without any rotational effectsy’’ is invalid.
Hamill et al. (2004) found the assumptions of the axial
momentum theory are not applicable to true propeller jets.
Thus, the equations derived from axial momentum theory are
inherently flawed. Assumption two in axial momentum theory
‘‘disc consists of an infinite number of rotating blades, rotating
at an infinite speed’’ is clearly void since the true propeller
cannot consist of an infinite number of rotating blades and
rotate at an infinite speed. The propeller is normally carefully
designed with three to six blades and the speed of rotation is
carefully chosen to provide the maximum efficiency when in
service, and tends to be in hundreds of revolutions per minute.
Assumption three that the disc (and hence propeller) has
negligible thickness in the axial direction is not practical as
for efficient operation the blades of the propeller must have
pitch (travel distance of a point in the longitudinal direction of
the jet after one rotation) in this plane. The resulting conclusion
is that the velocity on either side of the disc (propeller) is
(2004). As the blades on a ship’s propeller change in both pitch
and area within a three dimensional space, assumption five
‘‘equal increase of pressure’’ is also invalid as there are
significant differences in pressure changes across the blade
from the root at hub to the tip.
 The flow pattern along the rotation axis of a propeller jet is
different from a plain submerged jet due to the presence of the
hub to connect the propeller via shaft (Berger et al, 1981;
Verhey, 1983). The hub causes a low velocity core at the rotation
axis in the zone of flow establishment. Therefore, the assump-
tion of plain water jet that the maximum axial velocity at any
lateral section occurs at the rotation axis cannot be true.
These shortfalls have led to modification of the theoretical
equations in an attempt to take account of the propeller character-
istics. Further investigations were carried out by Oebius and
Schuster (1975), Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), Berger et al.
(1981), Verhey (1983), Robakiewicz (1987), Hamill (1987) to
compensate for the flaws of existing theories.
2.4. Semi-empirical equations for a propeller jet
The behaviour of an actual ship’s propeller jet contradicts most
of the assumptions made in the derivation of the axial momentum
theory. However several researchers, such as Fuehrer and Römisch
(1977), Berger et al. (1981), Verhey (1983) and Hamill (1987) have
developed equations to predict the velocity field within the
propeller jet based on the axial momentum theory. The prediction
of the velocity magnitude is based on predicting the efflux velocity.
The efflux velocity will be substituted into equations to predict the
maximum velocity at various sections. Once the maximum velocity
at a certain cross section is attained, the lateral distribution at the
plane can be calculated using the developed equations. Therefore
the accuracy of the entire jet relies on the accurate prediction of the
efflux velocity, (Stewart, 1992).
2.4.1. Efflux velocity
The maximum velocity taken from a time-averaged velocity
distribution along the initial propeller plane is termed the efflux
velocity denoted Vo (Ryan, 2002).
Hamill (1987) refined the theoretical equation of axial momen-
tum theory for the efflux velocity through an experimental inves-
tigation of a rotating ship’s propeller jet instead of a plain water jet.
He proposed a lower coefficient value, producing a semi-empirical
 Author's personal copy
6 W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
equation based on detailed measurements on two propellers.
pffiffiffiffiffi
Vo ¼ 1:33nD Ct ð2:7Þ
Stewart (1992) performed similar experiments on two further
propellers and proposed an equation for the efflux velocity where
the coefficient was based on geometrical characteristics of the
propellers. Stewart (1992) reported the coefficient used in the
existing equation to predict efflux velocity was not a constant but
was dependent on the propeller characteristics. The following
equation was subsequently suggested:
pffiffiffiffiffi
Vo ¼ BnD Ct ð2:8Þ
where the efflux coefficient, B is equal to
 1:519
P
B ¼ D0:0686 BAR0:323 ð2:9Þ
D
where BAR is the blade area ratio (projected area of all blades
related to the propeller disc area) and P/D is the pitch ratio of the
propeller (quotient of a pitch and the propeller diameter). The
efflux coefficient B in Eq. (2.9) used a dimensional term (D) in an
otherwise non-dimensional relationship. Hashmi (1993) refined
this equation by non-dimensioning the propeller diameter (D), by
dividing by the hub diameter (Dh).
pffiffiffiffiffi
Vo ¼ Eo nD Ct ð2:10Þ
where the efflux coefficient Eo, is equal to
 0:403
D (Fig. 7). The limit of the zone of flow establishment was found to
Eo ¼ Ct 1:79 BAR0:744 ð2:11Þ
Dh
2.4.1.1. Position of the efflux velocity. The distance to the maximum
axial velocity (Rmo) is the radial distance of the blade from the
rotation axis where maximum thrust occurs (Hamill, 1987).
Albertson et al. (1950) investigated the position of the efflux
velocity using a plain water jet and suggested that the maximum
velocity was located at the rotation axis. This suggestion was found
inaccurate since the hub at the rotation axis does not produce any
axial velocity (Brewster, 1997). Berger et al. (1981) proposed the
following equation to predict the location of maximum axial
velocity, from the rotation axis, at the efflux plane
Rmo ¼ 0:67ðRRh Þ ð2:12Þ
where R is the radius of the propeller and Rh is the radius of the
propeller hub. Eq. (2.12) was validated by Stewart (1992) in his
experimental investigation.
McGarvey (1996) found the position from Eq. (2.12) differed
from the results of an experimental investigation by up to 30%.
Prosser (1986) suggested the maximum axial velocity in the jet
occurred at about 60% of the blade radius from the hub due to the
low blade velocities near to the hub. Hamill et al. (2004) suggested
that the axial velocity distribution increases from the propeller hub
to a distance of approximately 0.7(R  Rh) along the blade and then
decreases to the blade tips.
2.4.2. Contraction of the propeller jet
Several researchers believed that contraction happens at the
efflux plane. Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), Verhey (1983) and
Robakiewicz (1987) proposed that the contraction at the efflux
plane of the propeller jet can be predicted using
Do ¼ 0:707D ð2:13Þ
where Do is the diameter of the contracted section and D is the
diameter of the propeller. For a ducted propeller, no contraction
occurs at the efflux plane.
Eq. (2.13) is determined theoretically using the continuity equa-
tion through ðpD2 =4ÞVB ¼ ðpD2o =4ÞVD . Substituting
pffiffiffiVB ¼ ð1=2ÞVD from
Fig. 6, the continuity equation becomes Do ¼ 1= 2D or Do ¼ 0:707D.
However, Fuehrer and Römisch (1977), Bergh and Cederwall
(1981) and Hamill (1987) stated that the contraction is insignif-
icant for a ship’s propeller jet. From their experimental investiga-
tions, Stewart (1992) concluded the velocity profile close to the
propeller has little or no contraction.
2.4.3. Length of the zone of flow establishment
The length of the zone of flow establishment is based on the
distribution profiles of the axial component of velocity in the
direction of the jet axis (Bergh and Cederwall, 1981).
Albertson et al. (1950) suggested the axial velocity distribution
is represented by two symmetrical halves of the probability
function, connected by a straight line through the central core
(Fig. 4). Albertson et al. (1950) defined the limit to the end of this
zone as:
xo 1
¼ ð2:14Þ
Dor 2C
where xo is the limit to the end of the zone of flow establishment,
Dor is the diameter of orifice and the constant C is
s
C¼ ð2:15Þ
xo
where s is the standard deviation of velocity at lateral section
occur at x/Dor ¼6.2 giving the experimental constant C a value of
0.081 (Albertson et al., 1950).
Fuehrer et al. (1987) found this initial zone much smaller than
that suggested by Albertson et al. (1950). Fuehrer et al. (1987)
proposed that the limit to the end of the zone of flow establishment
at x/D ¼2.6 and C¼ 0.192. Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978) found a
similar value of C ¼0.19 for non-ducted propeller and a modified
value of C¼ 0.17 for ducted propellers. Since the differences
between the constant C values were assumed insignificant, further
calculations with C ¼0.18 were carried out to determine that the
zone of flow establishment reached up to x/D ¼2.8. Verhey (1983)
suggested that the length of zone of flow establishment is
x/D ¼2.77. Hamill (1987) carried out detailed velocity measure-
ment within diffusing propeller jets and found the end of this zone
occurred at x/D ¼2.
Stewart (1992) observed the development of the axial velocity
distribution and proposed the length of the zone of flow establish-
ment is x/D ¼3.25 from the initial efflux plane. The proposed length
of Stewart (1992) is much larger than the assumption x/D ¼2.6 by
Fuehrer et al. (1987), assumption x/D ¼2.8 by Blaauw and van de
Vx,r
=e
Vmax
Vx,r =0.605 V max
r
σ
Vmax
Fig. 7. Characteristics of the Gaussian normal probability curve (Albertson et al.,
1950).
 Author's personal copy
W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
Kaa (1978) and assumption x/D ¼2.77 by Verhey (1983) and
assumption x/D ¼ 2 by Hamill (1987).
2.4.4. Zone of flow establishment
Hamill (1987) stated that the zone of the flow establishment
showed two peak values at the lateral distribution of axial velocity
with a lower velocity at the rotation axis.
2.4.4.1. Decay of the maximum velocity within the zone of flow
establishment. Research prior to the work undertaken by Hamill
(1987) suggested that there was no decay of the maximum velocity
in the zone of flow establishment. The ratio of the maximum
velocity to the efflux velocity which was proposed by Albertson
et al. (1950) was taken as
Vmax
¼1 ð2:16Þ
V0
Hamill (1987) found that this is only valid up to approximately
x/D ¼0.35 from the propeller face (Fig. 8). After this distance the
maximum velocity decays steadily along the propeller jet, and the
maximum velocity at locations downstream can be calculated by
the relationship
Vmax  x ðBAR=4Þ
¼ 0:87 ð2:17Þ
V0 D the axial direction x, from the initial efflux plane and the radial
where BAR is the blade area ratio of the propeller. Stewart (1992)
proposed the longitudinal length of zone of flow establishment to
be up to x/D¼ 3.25, and suggested an equation to determine the
maximum velocity, decaying from the propeller face within the
zone of flow establishment.
x
Vmax
¼ 1:01720:1835 ð2:18Þ
V0 D flow establishment for a submerged jet. Assuming Vmax is equal to
2.4.4.2. Position of the maximum velocity from the rotation axis within
the zone of flow establishment. Previous discussion describes the
shortfalls of the equation to predict the magnitude of efflux
velocity, derived from the axial momentum theory. Further
investigations were undertaken to take account of the low velocity
core due to the hub at the rotation axis. Oebius and Schuster (1975)
found that the radial positions of maximum axial velocity for
locations other than that of the efflux plane are offset from the
Fig. 8. Schematic view of propeller jet in the zone of flow establishment after Hamill (1987).
7
centre axis a distance Rm, defined as
 
x 0:3
Rm ¼ 0:3Rmo ð2:19Þ
Rmo
where Rm is the location of maximum axial velocity at an arbitrary
section within the zone of flow establishment and Rmo is the
location of maximum velocity at the efflux plane.
2.4.4.3. Extent of the zone of flow establishment. At the initial efflux
plane and throughout the zone of flow establishment, the dis-
tribution of the axial component of velocity was found to increase
from the low velocity core at the rotation axis, along the blade to a
peak velocity value and then decrease rapidly to the tip of the blade.
The low velocity core found at the rotation axis within the zone of
flow establishment may be due to the influence of the propeller hub
(Hamill, 1987).
The velocity distribution within a ship’s propeller jet are defined
at any distance (x) from the propeller face and radius (r) from the
propeller axis of rotation by (Vx,r) for downstream jet.
Albertson et al. (1950) found the velocity distribution at any
section within a submerged jet to follow the general trend of the
Gaussian normal probability function (as shown in Fig. 7)
Vx,r 2 2
¼ e½ðr =2s Þ ð2:20Þ
Vmax
where Vx,r is the mean velocity at any position in the jet defined by
distance r, from the rotation axis. The standard deviation of velocity
(s) is linearly constant (0.605Vmax) dependent on the axial distance
from the propeller as Eq. (2.15)
Albertson et al. (1950) suggested the axial velocity distribution
can be estimated based on the initial efflux velocity (Vo). Based on
Eq. (2.20), Albertson et al. (1950) proposed an equation for the
velocity distribution from the efflux plane to the end of the zone of
Vo, substituting Cx for s and replacing r with a term to take account
of the potential core gave
Vx,r 2 2
¼ e½ððr þ CxðDor =2ÞÞ Þ=ð2ðCxÞ Þ ð2:21Þ
Vo
The constant ratio C of standard deviation (s) and axial distance
(x) from the initial efflux plane is due to the second assumption
‘‘diffusion process is dynamically similar under all conditions’’ in
Section 2.2.1 by Albertson et al. (1950).
 Author's personal copy

8 W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10

Hamill (1987) refined Albertson’s (1950) work and suggested suggested equations to estimate the maximum velocity of the
two equations to estimate the lateral distribution at cross sections propeller jet with various coefficients in term of x/D.
within the zone of flow establishment Fuehrer and Römisch (1977)
Vmax  x 1:0
Vx,r 2
¼ 2:6
¼ e½ð1=2ÞððrRmo Þ=ðRmo =2ÞÞ  ð2:22Þ V0 D
ð2:27Þ
Vmax

which was applicable to distances up to 0.5D downstream of the

Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978)
propeller. The distribution of axial velocity for the remainder in the
zone of flow establishment can be determined using equation Vmax  x 1
¼ 2:8 ð2:28Þ
V0 D
Vx,r 2
¼ e½ð1=2ÞððrRmo Þ=ððRmo =2Þ þ 0:075ðXRÞÞÞ  ð2:23Þ
Vmax
Berger et al. (1981)
Stewart (1992) carried out experimental measurements of the  x 0:6
Vmax
velocity distribution within the zone of flow establishment and ¼ 1:025 ð2:29Þ
V0 D
confirmed the validity of the both Eqs. (2.22) and (2.23).
McGarvey (1996) proposed an equation for the axial velocity
distribution based on the geometrical characteristics of propellers, Verhey (1983)
thus eliminating the restrictive assumptions associated with the Vmax  x 0:7
axial momentum theory. A dimensional analysis was carried out to ¼ 1:275 ð2:30Þ
V0 D
gain understanding of the influence of all the propeller character-
istics, which are considered by naval architects in designing the
geometry of the blade, on the axial velocity (Vx,r) Hamill (1987) proposed an alternative equation to estimate the
decay of the maximum axial velocity within zone of established
Vx,r ¼ f ðn,Z,R, m, r,P,t,r,c,hd ,ht Þ ð2:24Þ flow by taking account of the blade characteristics of a propeller.
where n is the number of revolution per second, Z is the number of Vmax 0
 x B 0

¼A ð2:31Þ
blades, R is the radius of propeller, m is the dynamic viscosity, r is V0 D
the density of fluid, P is the pitch of blade, t is the thickness of blade,
c is the chord length, hd is the helical distance from blade section Au ¼ 11:4Ct þ6:65BAR þ 2:16ðP=DÞ ð2:32Þ
leading edge to rake datum line (line connecting the tip and root of
the propeller) and ht is the helical distance from blade section Bu ¼ ð1:0Ct Þ0:216 ðBARÞ1:024 ðP=DÞ1:0 ð2:33Þ
leading edge to position of maximum thickness. where BAR is the blade area ratio and P/D is the pitch ratio of the
A multivariate regression was then carried out with Vx,r/nZR as propeller. Stewart (1992) reported that the decay of the maximum
the dependent variable and proposed an equation with a correla- velocity was independent of the propeller speed of rotation and
tion coefficient of R2 ¼0.985. propeller type used. Stewart (1992) proposed the following linear
  c      equation to describe the decay of maximum velocity in the zone of
Vx,r P t h
¼ 1:2610:974 þ0:733 þ 18:53 þ5:028 d established flow to a downstream distance of x/D ¼10.
nZR R R R R
 2  2  2 x
P h ht Vmax
þ 0:106 7:277 d 4:093 ð2:25Þ ¼ 0:5430:0281 ð2:34Þ
R R c V0 D
However the use of this equation is only valid across the initial
efflux plane and may not be used to estimate the axial velocity Hashmi (1993) found that the equation for predicting the rate of
distribution at downstream distances within the zone of flow decay of the maximum unconfined velocity proposed by Stewart
establishment, and only for the propeller used in his investigation. (1992) was invalid at distances greater than 10D from the propeller,
and consequently proposed
Vmax
2.4.5. Zone of established flow ¼ 0:638eð0:097ðx=DÞÞ ð2:35Þ
V0
Hamill (1987) stated that the axial velocity distributions in the
zone of established flow are one-peaked-ridge shaped with the Hashmi (1993) proved that the zone of established flow can be
maximum velocity at the rotation axis. extended up to 16D downstream of the propeller jet. However for
the investigation of the seabed scouring researchers were inter-
ested in the region up to 8D of a propeller jet (Qurrain, 1994).
2.4.5.1. Decay of the maximum velocity within the zone of established
flow. Albertson et al. (1950) proposed that the decay of the max- 2.4.5.2. Extent of the zone of established flow. Albertson et al. (1950)
imum velocity for a submerged jet is proportional to the distance proposed a semi-empirical equation to predict the extent of the
from the efflux plane. axial component of velocity within the zone of established flow
Vmax 1  x 1 based on submerged jet theory. This equation was agreed by most
¼ ð2:26Þ of the researchers involved in propeller jet investigation including
V0 2C D
Fuehrer and Römisch (1977), Hamill (1987), Stewart (1992) and
where the constant C is the ratio of the standard deviation of McGarvey (1996).
velocity with the axial distance (Eq. (2.15)). Furthermore Fuehrer
Vx,r 2
and Römisch (1977), Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), Berger et al. ¼ e½22:2ðr=XÞ  ð2:36Þ
Vmax
(1981) and Verhey (1983) investigated the relationship between
the decreases in maximum velocity and the axial distance from the
propeller. The general form of this equation in term of x/D was Investigation into the scouring action of the propeller jet has
also adopted in their investigations. These researchers therefore concentrated on the influence of the axial component of velocity.
 Author's personal copy
W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
The rotational/tangential and radial components of velocity present
within the jet are largely ignored. Limited investigations have been
found on how to determine this component of velocity.
2.4.6. Rotational/tangential component of velocity
The rotating effect of a ship’s propeller causes the water to move
spirally in the direction of flow, about the axis of rotation, thereby
inducing a ‘rotational’ velocity (Brewster, 1997). The axial momen-
tum theory discussed in previous section assumes ‘‘ the energy
supplied yto the fluid without any rotational effectsy’’ contra-
dicts to the behaviour of an actual propeller jet. The rotational
component of a propeller jet rotates in the direction of rotation of
the propeller blades. The rotational velocity may also be termed as
‘tangential’ velocity.
Brewster (1997) reported that the axial component of velocity
was the largest contributor to the resultant velocity field in the
propeller jet, followed by the rotational and radial components.
Prosser (1986) found that the magnitude of the rotational velocity
was approximately 30% of the maximum axial velocity along the
initial efflux plane.
2.4.6.1. Rotational velocity distributions at the efflux plane. Brewster
(1997) investigated the rotational component of velocity using
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation. Brewster (1997)
reported that the distribution of the rotational velocity along the
efflux plane (maximum velocity taken from a time-averaged
velocity distribution along the initial propeller plane) was related
to the geometrical characteristics of the rotating propeller blades
and likely to be a function of the pitch angle j (angle between the
helix of constant lead and the propeller plane), blade section speed
Vb (speed by multiplying radius of a particular blade section to the
rotational speed) and the chord length c (developed length of a
cylindrical profile section from the leading edge to the trailing
edge). A regression analysis was carried out relating the rotational
velocity distribution with these blade characteristics. Brewster
(1997) derived the following equation with a high correlation
coefficient of R2 ¼0.94:
Vtðx,rÞ V c
¼ 0:0124j þ 0:0033 b þ 0:188 0:6 ð2:37Þ
nD nD cmax
where the speed of a blade section Vb was determined by multi-
plying the radial distance of the propeller blade (r) under con-
sideration by the angular velocity (o),
Vb ¼ r  o ð2:38Þ
A further analysis was carried out to include the skew factor
present in the blade (c/2 hd), which slightly increased the
correlation coefficient to R2 ¼0.96:
Vtðx,rÞ V c c=2hd
¼ 0:022j þ0:0071 b þ 0:53 0:126 1:67
nD nD cmax R Vrðx,rÞ
ð2:39Þ
2.4.6.2. Position of the maximum rotational velocity at the efflux
plane. Both Petersson et al. (1996) and Brewster (1997) reported
the similar trends in the rotational velocity distribution along the
efflux plane. The rotational velocity profile was shown to have two
peaks. The first peak corresponds to the point at which the hub and
the propeller blades were joined and the second peak was present
at a point near the tip of the propeller.
Petersson et al. (1996) found the first peak at r/R¼0.15 and the
second peak at r/R¼0.65. The two peaks were found to rapidly
decrease simultaneously along the longitudinal axis and merge, to
produce one maximum in the rotational velocity profile by
x/D ¼1.5.
9
Brewster (1997) found these two peak velocities to occur at
radial distance r/R¼ 0.3 and r/R¼ 0.8 at the initial efflux plane.
Brewster (1997) reported these two peaks merge into one peak
velocity at x/D ¼0.8 downstream and the one peak velocity located
at approximately radial distance r/R¼0.5.
2.4.6.3. Decay of the maximum rotational velocity. Brewster (1997)
found the decay of the maximum rotational velocity was expo-
nential along the longitudinal axis from the initial efflux plane. The
investigation of Brewster (1997) was carried out using two pro-
pellers with varied diameter of propeller, number of blade and
pitch distance and proposed,
VtðmaxÞ
¼ 0:38e0:3ðx=DÞ ð2:40Þ
nD
VtðmaxÞ
¼ 0:47e0:35ðx=DÞ ð2:41Þ
nD
Brewster (1997) suggested the coefficients in the equations for
the decay of the maximum rotational velocity for these two
propellers are almost similar and suggested that the decay of the
velocity field was independent of the propeller blades character-
istics. However, the variation of two coefficients is 19%. No reports
by other researchers to describe the decay of maximum rotational
velocity were found.
2.4.7. Radial component of velocity
McGarvey (1996) carried out an experimental investigation to
measure the magnitude of the radial velocity within the jets produced
by two propellers. Earlier researchers assumed that the radial
component of velocity was negligible within the jet of a marine
propeller, McGarvey (1996) found the magnitude of this component
was approximately 30% of the axial velocity along the face of the
propeller and should not be neglected. McGarvey (1996) found a
propeller jet has a greater angle of diffusion than a plain water jet. This
may be due to the radial component of a propeller jet (which causes
the jet to expand in size) is influenced by both the axial and rotational
components of velocity, but the radial diffusion of a plain water jet is
solely influenced by the axial component of velocity.
2.4.7.1. Radial velocity distribution at the efflux plane. McGarvey
(1996) measured the radial component of velocity using a Laser
Doppler Anemometry (LDA). McGarvey (1996) reported the radial
velocity distributions had characteristics similar to the axial
component of velocity. The radial component of velocity was found
to increase from the hub to a peak velocity and thereafter decrease
towards the blade tip. A relationship was derived based on the
characteristics of the propeller blades along the face of the pro-
peller to determine the distribution of radial velocity.
 1:241  6:177  1:002  1:286  5:291
P c t hd ht
¼ 0:768
nZR R R R R c
ð2:42Þ
Nevertheless, McGarvey (1996) found this equation under-
estimated the radial distance along the propeller blade to the peak
velocity and overestimated the magnitude of the overall velocity
distribution. McGarvey (1996) suggested that further experimental
investigation were necessary to improve the prediction capabilities
of the derived relationship.
Brewster (1997) investigated the radial velocity distribution
along the initial efflux plane using Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD). Negative radial velocity values were found near to the
propeller hub indicating that the flow was directed towards the
rotation axis.
 Author's personal copy
10 W. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 1–10
2.4.7.2. Decay of the maximum radial velocity. McGarvey (1996)
found the radial component of velocity had decayed by 80% within
x/D ¼0.3 from the initial efflux plane. This indicated larger decay
rates of the radial velocity component than the axial and rotational
velocity components. After a downstream distance of x/D ¼0.3, the
radial velocities were found to have no significant magnitude or
influence on the formation and diffusion properties of a
propeller jet.
Brewster (1997) found the radial component of velocity had
decayed to very low magnitudes (near to zero velocity magnitude)
by x/D ¼1.5. The rate of decay of the maximum radial velocity was
found independent of the propeller speed of rotation and of the
initial efflux velocity.
3. Summary
The purpose of this paper was to present a detailed review of the
equations used to predict the time-averaged axial, rotational and
radial components of velocity within the zone of flow establish-
ment and the zone of established flow of a ship’s propeller jet.
In summary, three steps are generally used to predict the
velocity field within a ship’s propeller jet:
(1) The efflux velocity and its position are predicted using
Eqs. (2.6)–(2.12).
(2) By using the predicted efflux velocity and its position attained
from the step (1), the maximum velocity and its position at
various longitudinal distances can be predicted using
Eqs. (2.16)–(2.19) for the zone of flow establishment and
Eqs. (2.26)–(2.35) for the zone of established flow.
(3) Using the predicted maximum velocity and its position of a
certain longitudinal distance attained from the step (2), the
lateral velocity distribution of any particular cross section of
interest can be predicted using Eqs. (2.20)–(2.25) for the zone
of flow establishment and Eq. (2.36) for the zone of
established flow.
To date, the rotational and radial components of velocity are still
poorly understood compared to the axial component of velocity. No
equation is available to predict the lateral velocity distribution of
the rotational and radial components within a ship’s propeller jet.
The rotational and radial components are the second and third
contributors to the resultant force which may cause seabed
scouring. These two components are less important compared to
the axial component of velocity which is the first contributor and
therefore these two components attracted less attention from the
researchers.
Acknowledgement
Current research was supported by SPUR Studentship from
Virtual Engineering Centre, Queen’s University Belfast.
References
Albertson, M.L., Dai, Y.B., Jensen, R.A., Rouse, H., 1950. Diffusion of a submerged jets.
Transcript of the A.S.C.E., Paper No. 2409, 115, 639–697.
Berger, W., FelKel, K., Hager, M., Oebius, H., Schale, E., 1981. Courant provoque par les
bateaux protection des berges et solution pour eviter l’erosion du lit du Haut
Rhin. In: Proceedings of the 25th Congress on P.I.A.N.C., Edinburgh, 1981,
Section I-1.
Bergh, H., Cederwall, K., 1981. Propeller Erosion in Harbours, Bulletin No. TRITA-VBI-
107. Hydraulics Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Blaauw, H.G., Kaa E.J., van de, 1978. Erosion of Bottom and Sloping Banks Caused by
the Screw Race of Manoeuvring Ships, Publication No. 202, July 1978, Delft
Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands.
View publication stats
Brewster, P.M., 1997. Modelling the Wash from a Ship’s Propeller. Thesis submitted
to the Queen’s University of Belfast for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Brovchenko, I., Kanarska, J., Maderich, V., Terletska, K., 2007. 3D non-hydrostatic
modelling of bottom stability under impact of the turbulent ship propeller jet.
Acta Geophysica 55 (1), 47–55.
Dargahi, B., 2003. Three-dimensional modelling of ship-induced flow and erosion.
In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water and Maritime
Engineering, Issue WM2, pp. 193–204.
Fluent User Manual, 2003. Fluent User’s Guide. Fluent Inc., Lebanon, USA.
Fuehrer, M., Römisch, K., 1977. Effects of modern ship traffic on islands and ocean
waterways and their structures. In: proceedings of 24th Congress P.I.A.N.C.,
Leningrad, 1977 Sections 1–3.
Fuehrer, M., Pohl, H., Römisch, K., 1987. Propeller jet erosion and stability criteria for
bottom protection of various constructions. In: Proceedings of P.I.A.N.C., Bulletin
No. 58, 1987.
Gaythwaite, J., 2004. Design of Marine Facilities for the Berthing, Mooring, and
Repair of Vessels. ASCE Publications, ISBN: 0784407266, 531 pages.
Hamill, G.A., 1987. Characteristics of the screw wash of a manoeuvring ship and the
resulting bed scour. Thesis submitted to the Queen’s University of Belfast for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Hamill, G.A., McGarvey, J.A., Hughes, D.A.B., 2004. Determination of the efflux
velocity from a ship’s propeller. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Maritime Engineering 157 (2), 83–91.
Hashmi, H.N., 1993. Erosion of a granular bed at a quay wall by a ship’s screw wash.
Thesis submitted to the Queen’s University of Belfast for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
Kee, C., Hamill, G.A., Lam, W., Wilson, P., 2006. Investigation of the velocity
distributions within a ship’s propeller wash. In: The Proceedings of the Sixteenth
(2006) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco,
ISBN 1-880653-66-4. pp. 451–456.
Lam, W., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., Kee, C., 2006. Simulations of a
ship’s propeller wash. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth (2006) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco, ISBN 1-880653-66-4.
pp. 457–462.
Lam, W., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., 2010. Observations of the
initial 3d flow from a ships propeller. Ocean Engineering 37, 1380–1388.
Lee, Joseph H.W., Chu, V.H., 2003. Turbulent Jets and Plumes, A Lagrangian
Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN: 1-4020-7520-0.
Massey, B., 2005. Mechanics of Fluids eighth ed. Routledge Publisher, ISBN:
0415362067.
McGarvey, J.A., 1996. The influence of the rudder on the hydrodynamics and the
resulting bed scour, of a ship’s screw wash. Thesis submitted to the Queen’s
University of Belfast for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Oebius, H., Schuster, S., 1975. Modelversuche zur frage der beschadigung von
flussohlen durch die schiffahrt versuchsanstalt fur wasserbau und schiffbau,
Berlin, VWS-Bericht nr. 743/75, 1975.
Petersson, P., Larson, M., Jonsson, L., 1996. Measurements of the velocity field
downstream of an impeller. Journal of Fluids Engineering, ASME 118 (3),
602–610.
Prosser, M.J., 1986. Propeller Induced Scour, BHRA Project RP A01415. The Fluid
Engineering Centre, Canfield, ISBN: 0900337184.
Qurrain, R., 1994. Influence of the sea bed geometry and berth geometry on the
hydrodynamics of the wash from a ship’s propeller. Thesis submitted to the
Queen’s University of Belfast for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Ryan, D., 2002. Methods for determining propeller wash induced scour in harbours.
Thesis submitted to the Queen’s University of Belfast for the degree of doctor of
philosophy.
Robakiewicz, W., 1987. Bottom erosion as an effect of ship propeller action near the
harbour quays. In: Proceedings of P.I.A.N.C., Bulletin No. 58, 1987, 89–106.
Seil, G.J., Lunberg, J., Peterson, G., 2003. CFD calculation and experimental validation
of a Kamewa high-skew marine propeller. In: Proceeding of CFD 2003:
Computational fluid dynamics technology in Ship Hydrodynamics, London,
pp 137–148.
Stewart, D.P.J., Hamill, G.A., Johnston, H.T., 1991. Velocities in a ship’s propeller
wash. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Environmental Hydrau-
lics, Rotterdam.
Stewart, D.P.J., 1992. Characteristics of a ships screw wash and the influence of Quay
wall proximity. Thesis submitted to the Queen’s University of Belfast for the
degree of doctor of philosophy.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 2002. The Mechanics of Scour in the Marine Environment.
World Scientific Publisher, ISBN: 9810249306, 552 pages.
van Blaaderen, E.A., 2006. Modelling bow-thrusters induced flow near a Quay wall.
M.Sc. Thesis, Delft: University of Technology.
Verhey, H.J., 1983. The Stability of Bottom and Banks Subjected to Velocities in the
Propeller Jet behind Ships, Delft Publication No. 303, April 1983, Delft
Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands.
Whitehouse, R., 1998. Scour at Marine Structures: A Manual for Practical Applica-
tions. Thomas Telford Publisher, ISBN: 0727726552.
WS Atkins Consultants et al., 2004. Best Practice Guidelines for Marine Applications
of Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Yang, Q., Wang, Y., Zhang, Z., Ding, J., 2009. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of
effects of number of pump blades on water-jet propeller performance. Journal of
Mechanical Engineering 45 (6), 222–228 June 2009.