Professional Documents
Culture Documents
erable scale effect between the model and actu- crease. It was anticipated that the total gain
al measurements such that the efficiency gain would be somewhat reduced due to the fric-
at full scale could be two or three times that at tional drag of the fins. Indeed thrust and torque
the model scale. This was mainly attributed to measurements with the same model showed
laminar flow around the boss cap and possible 5% gain in efficiency with the PBCF confirm-
laminar flow separation at the back of the fins. ing the earlier predictions independently. It was
Finally a suitable scale factor, which could be also claimed that it was not apparent from the
determined from a large number of tests on respective studies that the PBCF type device
models and actual ships in the same manner as had to contain the same number of vanes as the
the roughness allowance in the resistance of number of the propeller blades to achieve the
ships, was recommended to compensate for the max efficiency gain as claimed in the PBCF
scale effect. patent.
Ouchi (1988) and Ouchi et al. (1990) also As far as extrapolation methods are con-
reported on various other aspects of PBCF as- cerned, no particular procedure dedicated to
sociated with the extrapolation of the powering PBCF has been reported in the above refer-
performance. They indicated that the presence ences. However, it appears that the patent
of a rudder significantly reduces the strength of holding companies have a well-established
the hub vortex and hence the gain in propeller procedure to quantify the power saving and
efficiency due to PBCF can be reduced by 10- hence the efficiency by the use of PBCF. This
30%. Self-propulsion tests to investigate the procedure is based upon the reverse POT set-
propulsive efficiency by PBCF indicated that up in their circulating water channel and the
the efficiency gain obtained from the self- experience gained over a considerable number
propulsion tests were similar to the gain ob- of full-scale measurements. Moreover, private
tained from the “reverse POT” tests with the communication with the West Japan Fluid En-
rudder. The effectiveness of the PBCF was re- gineering Laboratory Co. Ltd. by this commit-
ported to be hardly affected by the hull wake tee has confirmed that the standard extrapola-
suggesting that most of the efficiency gain was tion technique for the performance prediction is
due to the propeller flow itself, but it was im- based upon the ITTC 1978 procedure, as brie-
portant to take into account the effect of the fly reviewed in Section 5.6.
rudder. The thrust identity analysis of the self-
propulsion tests, in which the PBCF was con- Atlar and Patience (1998) gave a detailed
sidered as an appendage to the propeller, de- review of activities on various boss cap designs
monstrated that the effect of the PBCF pri- as well as on PBCF. Amongst them is a recent
marily appears as an increase in the relative– innovative concept, which is known as the Hub
rotative efficiency due to the reduction in the Vortex Vane (HVV), jointly developed by the
propeller torque due to the PBCF. Potsdam Model Basin, SVA and SCHOTTEL.
The HVV is a small vane propeller fixed to the
In order to shed more light on the function tip of a cone shaped boss cap within a limiting
of PBCF, Gearhart & McBride (1989) carried radial boundary where the tangential velocities
out a detailed flow analysis and power meas- due to the hub vortex are greater than those of
urements with PBCF. The experimental analy- the propeller. In this range the small vane pro-
sis of the efficiency gain from PBCF utilised peller diverts the high tangential velocities in
the results of LDV measurements in the ARL the direction of the jet, thereby generating ad-
Pennstate water tunnel with a model propeller ditional thrust. It is claimed that this mecha-
behind a hull including its rudder. This con- nism is different from the mechanism for
cluded that 2 % out of a total 6% efficiency PBCF where the fins are located usually
gain was due to thrust increase while the re- beyond this limiting radius and the fins them-
maining 4% was associated with torque de-
4
selves do not generate thrust. Unlike PBCF, the The special geometries are in general only lim-
number of the vanes of HVV is greater than ited modifications of the propeller. For this rea-
that of the propeller blade. In their product son the model testing and scaling of results to
briefs, Potsdam Model Basin(SVA) (1995) and full scale can in principle be done in the same
SCHOTTEL (1995), and in a detailed technical way as for a conventional propeller. In this
report by Schulze (1995), the results of LDV section a review of model testing methods and
measurements and cavitation details with HVV scaling of the results from such propellers is
models are presented. These publications report given. As far as end-plate and similar propel-
remarkable reductions in the hub vortex cavi- lers are concerned the literature often deals
tation by the HVV as well as a successful ap- with the propulsors separately, i.e. if and how
plication of HVV on the full scale claiming an they improve their efficiency, whereas scaling
increase of 3% in the propeller efficiency. and power prediction are not treated. Here,
only the latest references or those related to
scaling and prediction are given.
Atlar and Patience (1998) also reported on
a series of experimental investigations with
Sparenberg & de Vries (1987) by using
various boss caps, which were done in the Em-
linear optimisation theory designed and tested a
erson Cavitation Tunnel at Newcastle Univer-
3-bladed end-plate propeller. Open water tests
sity, over the last decade. These involved com-
were carried out in two different series for two
parative efficiency and cavitation performance
different rates of revolutions. Correspondingly,
measurements with different boss caps through
the Reynolds numbers (with respect to chord
the reverse open water tests in the presence of
length and relative inflow velocity at the 0.85R
no rudder and later on with a rudder for some
section) varied. There were clearly differences
caps, Atlar et al (1998). The cylindrical boss
caps tested were fitted with: fins similar to in the measured open-water curves (KQ and η,
PBCF; fins with end plates; fins as extension to but only small differences in KT) reflecting the
the propeller blades as Trailing Edge Flaps influence of Reynolds number. Over a range of
(TEF); an accelerating duct; a decelerating advance ratios, including the design value, the
duct and Boss Slots (or holes) (BoS). The latter efficiency was higher for the high Reynolds
are designed to increase the pressure in the hub number, as expected. The tests also included
vortex core. The comparison of the perfor- measurements with the end-plate propeller
mances for these caps displayed comparable working behind the model of a tanker, making
efficiency savings relative to a standard cone it possible to present the propeller efficiency in
shape type except for the cap fitted with the the behind condition.
decelerating duct which displayed a large
amount of efficiency loss. The BoS type cap Model testing of an optimally designed
displayed a superior suppression of the hub propeller with two-sided shifted end plates on
vortex cavitation, but also at the cost of a con- the blades was described by de Jong et al.
siderable efficiency loss. No particular mention (1992). The tests consisted of open water tests
has been made of extrapolation issues in these and cavitation tests. The former were carried
investigations. out at a rate of rotation sufficiently high to
avoid laminar-flow effects on the propeller
blades which was checked by further experi-
ments. In the cavitation tests uniform inflow
4.2 Tip Fins was considered. The interest was focused on
the end plate propeller and on comparisons
End-plate and other such propellers that with the same propeller without end plates and
have modified blade tips, have various names with a reference propeller. For that reason scale
like tip-fin, Kappel, winglet, etc., propellers. effects were not considered in greater detail
than as outlined above, nor were interaction
5
between propeller and ship or aspects of power procedure to be applied to test results with CLT
prediction dealt with. propellers request certain unexpected correc-
tions only known by (the designer) and hence
For the special end-plate propeller known not available for model basins. This makes it
as the CLT propeller, Hollstein et al. (1997) advisable to rely for the predictions of full-
outline the design of such a propeller for a bulk scale performance of the CLT propeller on the
carrier and compare this with data for a sister basis of direct calculations”. In their paper they
ship fitted with a conventional propeller. Ac- show calculated open-water characteristics of
cording to them no model tests were carried out, their CLT propeller as well as the characteris-
although resistance, open-water and self- tics of the conventional propeller. They also
propulsion test results for a conventional pro- give trial trip results for the ships with conven-
peller are available for the designer of the CLT tional and CLT propellers.
propeller. This is because “...the interpolation
Table 1 Propulsion coefficients, power and rate of revolutions obtained by model experiments
and three different extrapolations and by theoretical predictions (Andersen 1996, table 3).
η D tip fin
η D conventional 1.037 1 1.038 1 1.047 1 - -
For the tip-fin or Kappel propeller with in- basis of model test results. One method was
tegrated fins in the tip region (bent blade tips) due to the model basin (Danish Maritime Insti-
Andersen (1996) carried out a comparative tute) where a correlation allowance and a cor-
study with the conventional propeller actually rection to the wake fraction coefficient was ap-
fitted on the ship as a reference. The model plied. The second method followed the ITTC
tests consisted of traditional tests, i.e. in addi- 1978 with the exception that a more detailed
tion to resistance tests for the ship model, scaling of the influence of friction on the open-
open-water, self-propulsion and cavitation tests water propeller characteristics was carried out.
for both conventional and tip-fin propeller This procedure was based on the flat plate fric-
models. Three different methods were used for tional resistance coefficient. The third method
making the full-scale power prediction on the combined the two others in applying the proce-
6
dure of the model basin (correlation allowance speed, vanished when the air cavity approached
and correction to the wake) and the correction its ultimate form, i.e. for Froude numbers
to the propeller open-water characteristics. The greater than 3. Hadler and Hecker (1968) indi-
three methods gave different required power, rectly concurred with this hypothesis, but they
demonstrating the need for rational procedures calculated the Froude number using the total
for such estimations (see table 1.). inflow velocity and the immersion of the shaft
as the length parameter. Finally, Olofsson
(1996) acknowledged an influence of FnD, (cal-
culated with the diameter as the length pa-
4.3 Surface Piercing Propellers
rameter), but he set to 4 the limiting value
beyond which the influence disappears. Sum-
marizing, it is widely recognized that the
Surface piercing propellers (SPP) can be
Froude number does affect the behavior of
included into the unconventional propulsor fa-
SPPs, and all authors have suggested the exis-
mily because of their particular mode of opera-
tence of a threshold value that limits this influ-
tion. However, system geometry and compo-
ence. The same general agreement has not been
nents for surface piercing propulsion is quite a
reached on the minimum value that must be
conventional concept for it includes only the
attained to avoid scaling problems. This is due
classical propeller-shaft-rudder layout.
to the different kind of Froude numbers that
have been used. Further research is required to
Current extrapolation methods are focused
identify the minimum value of Fn which must
on two items:
be achieved during open water tests. Never-
theless, provided that open water tests are per-
1) extrapolation to full scale of the model
formed at Fn beyond the threshold value, the
open water performance;
Froude number identity can be avoided during
2) extrapolation to full scale of the propeller
the tests without affecting the full scale per-
hull interaction (wake fraction, thrust de-
formance of the propeller.
duction and relative rotative efficiency).
According to Shiba (1953), surface tension
Comments on item 1). This extrapolation
plays its role when the propeller is about to be
procedure should take into account the influ-
fully ventilated. Complete ventilation is a
ence of two additional parameters, namely the
rather sudden phenomenon that can be corre-
Froude number, Fn, and the Weber number.
lated to a certain value of J called the critical
The influence of the Froude number is relevant
advance coefficient JCR. The critical advance
as the propeller acts at the interface between air
coefficient can roughly be located in the mid-
and water much like hulls. The Weber number
dle of the transition region and the sudden drop
is a ratio between inertial and surface tension
of KT and KQ identify its position. Indeed Shiba
forces. Its influence can be easily foreseen for
found a correlation between Wn and JCR for a
an SPP, which continually pierces the water
single propeller. Later work on this matter
surface.
(Ferrando and Scamardella 1996) acknowl-
edged the influence of the Weber number on
The first comments on the role of Fn are
the location of JCR, and the existence of a
due to Shiba (1953). In his investigation he
threshold value of Wn beyond which its influ-
pointed out that gravity affects the shape of the
ence disappears. Unfortunately there is not suf-
air cavity through the Bernoulli equation that
ficient evidence to suggest the existence of a
can be enforced at the boundary between water
unique threshold value. Further research on this
and the atmosphere vented cavity. Accordingly,
subject is therefore strongly needed. Anyway,
the influence of Fn based on the diameter of the
provided that open water tests are performed at
propeller as the length parameter and nD as the
Wn beyond the threshold value, the Weber
7
number identity can be avoided during the tests big expenditures like extensive tank testing or
without affecting the full scale performance of high standard sea trials. There is not a single
the propeller. known case study in the open literature
providing data for extrapolation purposes.
As far as is known, provided that open wa-
ter tests are performed in agreement with the In some favourable circumstances EHP is
above requirements, the performance of SPPs determined by means of towing tests, while for
can be scaled in the same fashion as conven- the great majority of applications an effective
tional propellers, i.e. by applying a Reynolds horse power estimate is performed using Savit-
number correction only. sky’s (1964) equations or something similar. In
both these instances there is not enough data
Comments on item 2). The propeller is usu- for a true extrapolation of the propeller-hull
ally located quite far from the hull (i.e. 1 to 2 interaction. The absence of sea trial results pre-
diameters away) and the projection in the verti- vents the development of a reliable full scale
cal plane of the immersed hull surface near the extrapolation.
propeller is small. As a consequence, the value
of the thrust deduction factor for SPPs is negli-
gible or zero. Furthermore, from a theoretical 4.4 Oscillating Propulsors
point of view the phenomenon of augmented
resistance for this kind of propulsion can be Oscillating propulsors are still at the resear-
treated with the same physical model used for ch and development stage. Only very few ac-
conventional propellers because no additional tual applications have been built and tested at
thrust affecting devices are involved. Hence the full scale and all of these have been for small
same scaling procedure adopted for conven- craft. Examples are the small boat driven by an
tional propulsion can apply also to SPPs. oscillating propulsor and outboard motor des-
igns built by Isshiki et al. (1987), the experi-
Surface piercing propulsion is mainly em- ments done by a group led by M. Triantafyllou
ployed on planing or semi-displacement craft, at MIT, and various oscillating propulsor des-
exploiting the ventilation of the transom. As igns used on human powered craft (e.g.
SPPs operate far behind the hull the contribu- Bennett 1996), including examples on human
tion of the potential wake is small. On the other powered submersibles (Skidmore et al. 1989).
hand, the viscous wake cannot be neglected, As a result, extrapolation methods for power-
because part of the propeller lies in the ing prediction for oscillating propulsors are
boundary layer of the hull. Considering that rare.
surface piercing propulsion does not include
any additional wake modifying device and that Other propulsors that operate with a similar
the physics of the wake production process is propulsive mechanism to the oscillating pro-
the same as in the case of conventional propul- pulsor are trochoidal propellers (a type of cy-
sion there are no obstacles to using the same cloidal propeller), the most recent example of
scaling procedure as that used in the case of which is the Whale Tail Wheel (Anon. 1998)
conventional propeller arrangements. being fitted to the inland waterways vessel
As regards relative rotative efficiency there “Ludwina”. Such propulsors have been studied
is no particular reason that prevents the appli- at model scale (e.g. Manen 1973, Bose and Lai
cation of traditional scaling methods. 1989, Riijarvi et al. 1994). A special type of
oscillating propulsor, that might be described
Setting aside the preceding considerations, as a hybrid between a conventional and an os-
almost all applications of surface propulsion cillating propulsor, is a propeller with cyclic
are in the pleasure craft trade. Generally, the pitch control (e.g. Gabriel and Atlar, 1998).
budget for the boat design does not allow for
8
Estimates of the full scale performance of fied ITTC 1978 method have been used to pre-
ships fitted with oscillating propulsors have dict full-scale performance from ship model
been made by Lai (1990) and Yamaguchi and test results. These predictions have been com-
Bose (1994). These have been based on con- pared with the results from sea trials or from
ventional approaches to powering prediction statistical sailing data.
using estimates of the hull efficiency to ac-
count for propulsor/hull interaction. Yamagu-
chi and Bose (1994) assumed neligible Table 2 Pre-swirl energy-saving devices.
hull/propulsor interaction leading to a hull effi-
ciency of one. The rationale for this estimate Name of pre-swirl device Energy- Energy-saving
was that as an oscillating propulsor design saving rate %
mechanism model test/trial
normally has relatively light loading, they are
Reaction fin PRI 4-8 / 4-9
usually large devices with relatively large Novel integrated duct IPI 4-5 / 4-6
swept area and large span relative to the ship Inflow compensate nozzle IPI, AFS 6-11 / 8
beam and/or draft. In view of this much of the Simplified compensate IPI, AFS 4-9 / 4-9
propulsor is not in close proximity to the hull nozzle
and the hull/propulsor interaction was assumed Wake-adapted duct IPI, AFS 4-9 / 4-9
Hydrodynamic fins IPI 4-6 / 3-9
to be small. For the ship under consideration, Fore-propeller hydrody- IPI 4-7 / 4-7
this was a conservative estimate as the hull ef- namic fin sector
ficiency was above one for the comparable Thrust shaft brackets PRI 4.5-12 / 5-8
conventional propeller system. Lai (1990), on Sheathed shaft bracket PRI 5-8 / 5-8
the other hand, assumed similar values of the Hydrodynamic partition IPI, AFS 2-3.7 / 2-3.7
plate
wake and thrust deduction fraction as the con- Aperture fin PRI 2-4 / 2-4
ventional propeller system for the oscillating Stern-appended fin IPI, AFS 3/3
propulsor proposal when considering the pow- Flettner rotor at stern post IPI, AFS 8/
ering performance of four ships. This was Fore-propeller vane-wheel IPI, AFS 3-4 /
done in the absence of more detailed data as
the hull efficiencies for the four vessels varied
from 0.92 to 1.12.
Since 1984 MARIC has developed more
4.5 Pre and Post-Swirl Devices than ten ESDs such as the composite device of
simplified compensate nozzle (SCN) and Costa
Since the 1970s the development and appli- propulsion bulb (CPB), thrust shaft brackets
cation of hydrodynamic energy-saving devices (TSB), fore-propeller hydrodynamic fin sector
(ESD) have been demonstrated all over the (FPHFS) etc. (Qian et al., 1992a, Zhou et al.,
world. Tables 2-4 show energy savings from 1990, Qian et al., 1992b). Eight different types
pre- and post-swirl devices. The propeller in- have been put into use on more than 200 ships
flow compensate nozzles developed by over the range from 500 to 150,000 dwt with
Schneekluth have been installed on more than an annual 50,000 ton fuel-savings. In all cases
600 ships (Schneekluth, 1986). Powering per- a modified prediction method based on the
formance prediction for full-scale ships with ITTC 1978 method has been used in the pre-
pre- and post-swirl devices have been made diction of the full-scale performance from the
based on model test results. For most of these ship model test results. Practice indicates that
the ITTC 1978 method and the two dimension- the energy-saving rate (ESR) or the predicted
al Froude method have been used to predict the speed of the ships installed with ESDs correlate
full-scale performance for ships having a large well with the full scale data.
range of block coefficients. At MARIC several
different prediction methods based on a modi-
9
0 0 .4
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kt propeller
velocity m/s
0 .3
torque coefficient in the bollard condition for the only is plotted in figure 3) for open water and
open water and behind condition (KQ = 0.0915) behind condition with and without the rudder
was the same with a precision of less than 0.2 % shows again an effect of the rudder.
for both propellers. However, KQ becomes
0.5
0.0945 in the bollard condition with rudders (an
increase of 3%). Also, the KT of the propeller 0.4
Interest in multi-blade row propulsors has An incoming velocity profile near the plane
developed because of increasing efficiency of the propulsor and the predicted hull drag co-
demands for high-speed surface ships and efficient are necessary to start the design proc-
submerged vehicles. The attractiveness of ess. This has been traditionally obtained from
ducted propulsors for these applications is due model scale tests with corrections for variations
to the ability to design a propulsor having a in Reynolds number. In some cases, analytical
lower blade relative velocity and a higher effi- predictions are also being used due to more re-
ciency than can be achieved by an open pro- liable computational fluid dynamic procedures
peller in these applications. The similarities and their validation to specific geometries
which exist between ducted propulsors and (Larsson et al. (1998), Arabshahi et al. (1998),
axial-flow compressors and liquid pumps have Zierke et al. (1997) and Stern et al. (1996).
lead to the application of momentum analysis
methods. Nowhere are different testing meth- It is also necessary to determine the total
odologies more evident between an open pro- drag of the hull, which includes increments due
peller and a complex multi-blade row marine to appendages, etc. The flow field solution re-
propulsor than in reviewing a momentum based quires the calculation of the frictional drag on
design methodology. all the various propulsor components. It must
be remembered that the pressure drag of the
Early efforts in developing momentum afterbody, which is initially included only as a
based design methodology are given by Wisli- bare-body drag coefficient, is substantially
cenus (1960 and 1968), Henderson et al. modified by the addition of the propulsor.
(1967), and Bruce et al. (1974). This method However, this effect is initially estimated from
determines the type, size, and design of any the modified pressure distribution with the pro-
multiblade row propulsor from an optimisation pulsor/hull combination.
of the mass flow through the propulsor to
achieve design goals. An optimised blade-row It must be emphasised that this momentum-
spanwise-circulation distribution is obtained based design procedure is applied where there
from minimising the energy losses in the pro- is incoming vorticity in the flow. The approach
pulsor and in the discharge jet. A detailed uses an inviscid calculation of the flow field
analysis of the flow field at various stations and is coupled with an energy analysis through
through the propulsor follows by solving the the propulsor. Therefore, all the energy losses
momentum, continuity and energy equations. through the propulsor are calculated and the
The upstream boundary conditions are the mass efficiency of the rotor becomes the hydraulic
flow rate, the momentum and the kinetic ener- efficiency, which is the ratio of the energy
gy of the ingested flow. placed in the fluid to the shaft energy. Solu-
18
tions to the flow field are obtained by using the scale ship drag which must include appendage
Streamline Curvature Method (Treaster, 1969). drag and propulsor/hull interactions. Current
Today, this has been extended to a RANS so- attempts to do this utilise CFD procedures, lar-
lution using computational fluid dynamics ge water tunnel tests, and an extended analysis
modeling. of propulsion data.
tow force (FD) to overcome the effects of an of the propeller are scaled following ITTC
additional frictional resistance and achieve 1978 procedure while no scale effect correction
equivalent thrust loading. This is accomplished is applied to the thrust/drag produced by the
by varying the propeller rpm at a constant ve- pre-swirl stator.
locity. One basic assumption of this method is
that the efficiency of the model propeller is the Van et al. (1993) state that this method
same as that of the ship propeller; this is ap- provides a better full scale prediction than the
propriate for small wake fractions. This is ITTC 1978 procedure. This statement is sup-
again an ITTC 1978 type method, but dis- ported by the close agreement between model
penses with the form factor, open water tests and full scale predictions presented, that is not
and other corrections. found by using the ITTC 1978 procedure di-
rectly.
Both of the above methods have limited
application for unconventional propulsors since It is well known that the ITTC 1978 corre-
the previous test data and correlation coeffi- lation procedure fails to correctly scale the per-
cients, needed for the methods to work, do not formance of unconventional propulsion sys-
exist. tems, and this is due to two main causes. The
first one is that whatever device is applied to
the hull, it generally has a longitudinal dimen-
5.3 Performance Prediction Methods For sion which is much less than that of the hull
Ships With Pre-Swirl Stators itself. Given the usual testing speeds, this pro-
duces a Reynolds number corresponding to a
Van, Kim and Lee of KRISO (1993) pro- laminar flow on the device. The second cause
posed two alternative procedures for perfor- is that the model hull has a boundary layer that
mance prediction for ships fitted with pre-swirl differs from the full scale one both in thickness
stators. The authors explicitly state that the two and in velocity distribution. Therefore, the in-
procedures, named A and B respectively, basi- teraction between the hull and the special devi-
cally follow the ITTC 1978 method. In answer ce can seldom be correctly reproduced at model
to a request for clarification Van pointed out scale if it strongly modifies the flow around the
that at their towing tank the form factor method hull.
is not used. Accordingly these procedures are In this particular case of the pre-swirl stator,
not true variations of the ITTC 1978 correla- we can assume that the flow around the stern is
tion methodology as they follow the 2-D ITTC not overly affected. This can be argued fol-
1957 approach. The two procedures are dis- lowing the principle of operation of the pre-
cussed separately. swirl stator that is designed to produce a rota-
tional speed component opposite to that in-
Method A. In this method, the propeller duced by the propeller. For this reason, testing
and the stator are considered as a propulsion the stator together with the open propeller in-
system and are tested together. This assump- sures a higher Reynolds number on the stator
tion implies that in both open water and self- itself due to the propeller-induced velocities.
propulsion tests, the thrusts of propeller and Probably this is the main reason of the better
stator are measured simultaneously and their agreement of Method A performance predic-
sum is used as the thrust of the propulsion sys- tion with the model results.
tem. The hull resistance is scaled according to
the ITTC 1957 method (i.e. a form factor is not Method B. This procedure does not require
used). the joint test of the stator and the propeller be-
cause the stator is tested with and considered
In his correspondence with the Committee, part of the hull. On the other hand, it requires
Van stated that the open water characteristics that a double set of resistance and self-
20
propulsions test are done with and without the General remarks. Both of the proposed
stator. methods are basically 2-D procedures that can
be regarded as variations of the ITTC 1957 cor-
The scaling process is again the two dimen- relation approach, but in principle these tech-
sional approach of the ITTC 1957 method with niques could be used also with the ITTC 1978
an exception made for the determination of the 3D correlation procedure.
full-scale wake, which is performed by means
of the following formula that closely resembles From a theoretical point of view, the pro-
that suggested by the ITTC 1978 correlation posed methods are acceptable when applied to
procedure: special propulsive devices that do not consider-
ably alter the flow around the hull. In other
wS = (t MO + 0.04 ) words, these methods are suitable for scaling
C FS + C A the performance of propulsive devices whose
+ (wMO − t MO − 0.04 ) + (wMS − wMO ) effect is mainly confined to altering the pro-
C FM peller inflow, without affecting the pressure
field around the hull. Since these methods ad-
where: dress the scaling problem only from the poten-
wS = ship wake tial flow point of view, they are not suited to
wMO = model wake without stator treat such devices that could produce a consid-
wMS = model wake with stator erable variation of the pressure field acting on
tMO = model thrust deduction without stator. the hull. Actually, a hull pressure-modifying
device could alter the characteristics of the
while the standard ITTC 1978 ship wake is: flow around the model hull, e.g. the extent of
laminar separation. In this case, the proposed
wS = (t + 0.04 ) methods will probably produce results as inac-
(1 + k ) C FS + ∆C F curate as those of the unmodified ITTC 1978
+ (wM − t − 0.04) procedure. The lack of sea trials results pre-
(1 + k ) C FM vents a practical evaluation of the capability of
these methods to correlate model test results
The major difference compared with the with the actual performance of the ship. Thus,
ITTC 1978 formulation is the term (wMS – wMO). further effort is required to validate these
Since in the opinion of Van et al. (1993) the methods.
main effect of the stator is the increase of the
angles of attack of the propeller blade sections, From an experimental point of view, if the
the stator action can be considered to be a two proposed techniques are equally reliable, it
mainly potential phenomenon. Thus, the differ- appears that Method B would be preferable.
ence in wakes with and without stator can be Actually, the testing procedure related to
directly transferred to full scale. Method B requires additional resistance and
self-propulsion tests; this is its major drawback,
If the flow on the hull is not overly affected but the procedure is straightforward and does
by the presence of the stator, this assumption not require any special test rig. On the contrary,
looks reasonable and this procedure is accept- an ad hoc test rig is necessary to simultane-
able. The same would not be true in the case of ously measure the thrust of the propeller and of
other devices that accelerate or decelerate the the stator as required by Method A. The time
flow on the hull, like ducts, partial ducts etc. consumption of this technique is comparable
Van et al. (1993) state also that Method B ex- with that of standard tank practice, but the re-
hibits a good agreement with power savings quired special equipment would not be feasible
obtained at model scale. or available in all of the towing tanks.
21
Nozzle as an appendage of the hull. The In this method, the influence of the nozzle
nozzle is primarily considered as a flow regu- on the screw is barely taken into account. A
lator. The resistance test is done with the noz- nozzle limits the radial outflow of a screw and
zle behind the hull and the open water test with therefore, the KT/KQ ratio will not be measured
the screw alone. correctly during the open water test.
The thrust deduction fraction is defined as Nozzle as a part of the propulsion unit.
Here the open water test is done with the screw
T − R H+ N + nozzle system and the resistance test is done
t= P
TP with the naked hull. The thrust deduction frac-
where Tp is the propeller thrust and RH+N is the tion is defined using the naked hull resistance,
resistance of the hull with nozzle. The wake and the total screw + nozzle thrust
fraction is found by propeller thrust identity
V − VA TP + T N − R H
w= t=
V TP + TN
where V is the model speed and VA is the ad-
vance velocity of the screw. The total resis- In this case, VA in the defining formula of the
tance of the hull with nozzle is extrapolated by wake fraction is the entrance velocity into the
subtracting the estimated model nozzle resis- screw + nozzle system. The naked hull resis-
tance from the measured total resistance, scal- tance is extrapolated according to the ITTC
ing the resistance of the naked hull according 1978 guidelines. The scaling of the screw
to the ITTC 1978 method, and adding again the thrust and torque from the open water test is
estimated full size nozzle resistance. It is as- performed with the same ∆KTP and ∆KQ correc-
sumed that the formula to estimate the nozzle tions as proposed by the ITTC 1978. The noz-
resistance does not introduce too large errors zle thrust coefficient KTN should also be scaled.
because the nozzle resistance only amounts to a The resistance difference ∆KTN is roughly esti-
few percent of the total resistance. Note that mated using a flat plate friction line and a for-
this is in contrast to the tests described in sec- mula according to Hoerner. The interaction co-
tion 4.6. efficients are extrapolated using the ITTC 1978
method or by considering the effective power
The scaling of the propeller characteristics of the screw + nozzle system in their normal
is performed in exactly the same way as out- position and in a position far behind the hull.
lined in the ITTC 1978 method. The interaction
coefficients are extrapolated either according to The objections against the method are two-
the ITTC 1978 or by the method of Stierman fold:
22
(1) the nozzle thrust must necessarily be meas-
ured during the self-propulsion test; This method has been used to predict the
(2) the action of the screw + nozzle system is performance of ships fitted with energy saving
different in open and behind conditions. devices such as the simplified compensate noz-
In the behind condition the nozzle produces a zle; COSTA propulsion bulb; thrust shaft
larger thrust due to the contracting inflow at the brackets; fore-propeller hydrodynamic fin sec-
stern. For instance, in an open water condition tor; COSTA propulsion bulb and rudder-
τ = TP/TT = 0.90 may be found, while τ = 0.70 appended thrust fins; composite energy-saving
in the behind condition. Such an effect can be technique; etc.
seen also on a twin screw ship even with no
contracting inflow, perhaps due to boundary The size of MARIC’s towing tank is
layer or inclined flow influences. Due to this 70*5*2.5m. The length of the geosim ship
discrepancy, it is incorrect to determine the models were 3.5 to 4.5m. The diameters of
wake fraction by using the total thrust identity single and twin-propeller models Dm are bigger
axiom. than 0.12m and 0.11m respectively. The fol-
lowing method is used for the energy saving
Screw, nozzle and hull as three interacting devices described in section 4.5 and tested at
objects. To assess the interaction between the MARIC. The method utilises resistance, self-
screw and the nozzle, an open water test is car- propulsion and open water tests. The open wa-
ried out with the ducted screw. The resistance ter test is done with the propeller alone; the re-
test is performed with the nozzle behind the sistance and self-propulsion tests are done with
hull to take into account the interaction be- and without the energy saving devices. This
tween the nozzle and the hull. The thrust de- testing procedure is described in the following
duction and wake fraction are defined as in paragraphs.
method 1, by making use of the hull + nozzle
resistance, the screw thrust measured during Resistance test. The resistance test of the
the self-propulsion test, and the entrance ve- single-screw ship model is usually done
locity VA into the screw disk. The open water without the appendages such as bilge keel etc.
velocity VA in which the screw acts is the sum Measurements are made of the total model re-
of the translation velocity of the screw + nozzle sistance Rm, towing speed Vm and the water
system and the nozzle induced velocity. The temperature tm at the same loaded condition as
screw must be out of the nozzle. The KTP/KQ the propulsion test. To get a reliable value of
ratio remains constant, but the entrance veloc- (1+k) more data are taken in the low speed area
ity is changed. This means a shift of the J-axis than elsewhere. For the power prediction of the
of the open water diagram with a ∆J-correction, full-scale ship with the above mentioned ener-
standing for the dimensionless nozzle induced gy saving devices, the resistance test of the
velocity. The nozzle induced velocity can be ship model is usually done with and without
calculated by momentum methods, and vortex the above mentioned energy saving devices to
ring or sheet methods. compare their influence on the resistance per-
formance.
The resistance of the hull and the nozzle is
separately extrapolated, as described in method Open-water test. An open water test is
1. The propeller characteristics are scaled using done for the propeller model used in the pro-
the well-known ∆KT and ∆KQ corrections. pulsion test. In this test the propeller submer-
gence is bigger than its diameter. The advance
speeds vary from 0 to the case of zero thrust
5.5 The Modified Full-Scale Performance while the rotational speed is kept constant
Prediction Method (MARIC Method e.g. during the test. The results of the open-water
Zhao et al., 1988). test are used in the analysis of the self-
23
5
Pcc
be accurate enough for tip fin propellers. In-
Container Container stead the blade was subdivided into streamwise
4
Pcc strips and the sectional drag estimated using
2
3
Reefer the theoretically calculated velocities and a
Pcc
Pcc
simple, flat-plate estimate of the frictional re-
2 sistance which was dependent on mainly the
Container local Reynolds number. To secure a fair com-
1 parison this procedure was applied to both the
tip fin and the conventional comparator pro-
0
0 1 2 3
pellers. By this procedure the corrections turn-
Gain by Model Test (%) ed out to be bigger for the tip fin propeller, i.e.
∆=η=pm it is more sensitive to scale effects. Unfortu-
nately, no full scale tests have been done, so no
Figure 5. Correlation of Efficiency Gains by confirmation of this scaling procedure can be
PBCF between Model and Actual Ship, made.
Ouchi & Tamashima (1989) 5.8 Extrapolation From an Extended Analy-
sis of Self Propulsion Test Data
An alternative to the above procedure,
which makes use of self-propulsion tests, has Under this category are grouped some
been used by the West Japan Fluid Engineering methods that were developed with the aim of
Laboratory Co Ltd. and is also reported im- improving the powering prediction process by
plicitly by Ouchi (1988). In this procedure the avoiding and replacing some of the assump-
PBCF is considered to be an appendage and tions inherent in their use. The common theme
then the usual open water characteristics of the behind these methods is that the use of the
propeller are predicted from standard series towing resistance is considered meaningless or
data. The effect of the PBCF is included in the misleading when attempting to predict full
self-propulsion factors, which are obtained by scale power.
means of the thrust identity method. The per-
formance of the ship with PBCF is predicted About ten years ago, some researchers
based on the standard ITTC 1978 procedure. (Holtrop 1990), started to make full scale pow-
ering predictions using self propulsion and
open water tests as the sole source of experi-
5.7 ITTC 1978 Modified Method for Tip mental data. This was the first step in the di-
Fins rection of dispensing with towing resistance
data, but this method was still consistent with
The only extrapolation method reported in traditional propulsion analysis since the model
detail in the literature for end plate and similar resistance had to be reconstructed from model
propellers is that reported by Andersen (1996). self propulsion test results.
Since the tip fin propeller is only a slight modi-
fication of a conventional propeller the ITTC Briefly described here are two methods
1978 procedure has been followed with only a which fall into this category, but which have
minor modification. The standard ITTC 1978 not yet been developed to a stage suitable for
27
general application. These methods, however, The second method described in this sec-
have promise in the development of useful tion, Schmiechen’s (1991) “rational theory”, is
tools for the full scale powering prediction for a method for ship powering analysis based on
vessels equipped with unconventional propul- results from model self-propulsion load vary-
sors. ing tests alone. Stand alone resistance and
propulsor open water tests are avoided.
Iannone (1997a, 1997b), starting from the
ITTC 1978 methodology framework, intro- Two overload tests are done at the same
duced a new propulsive analysis through the steady speed, but different values of the over-
separation of the self propulsion flow into its load. Care must be taken to ensure that the
viscous and potential components. To this end speed is steady to avoid significant accelera-
only open water and British self propulsion tion/inertia forces in the longitudinal momen-
tests are required. In particular, to evaluate the tum equation. The following parameters are
viscous component of the self propulsion flow measured for the two tests: speed, shaft rota-
the innovative concept of self propulsion form tional speed, shaft thrust, torque and the towing
factor KSP is introduced. force. These are designated
è DN 2 DN1 èπ
1/ 2
where D is the propeller diameter. The resis- æ2ö 3 1/ 2 K
K PLP1 = K PPH −ç K TO K TH − T 0
tance is found from èπ 2 2
T0 T K PLT = K PPO + K PP H J HT
KT 0 = ; K TH = H 3
ρD 4
ρD
Q Q and a cubic equation for the propeller advance
K QP 0 = P 05 ; K QPH = PH4 coefficient in the zero thrust condition
ρD ρD
K PPH 2 PPLP1 4 ( K PLT − K PLPO )
J PT = − +
Schmiechen then assumes that the power K TH π J PT π J PT
2
2
K PLP 2 = 2
( K PLT − K PLPO − K PLP1 J PT ) various parameters in Schmiechen’s “ thrust
J PT
deduction theorem”
Using the above basis, the propulsive perfor-
mance of the vessel can be found over a range τ = (1 + CT )1/ 2 − 1
of ship advance coefficients, JH, which can be
assumed. In sequence the thrust and power co- thrust deduction fraction t = tH JH
efficients are found as
é τ t2 ù
K T = K TO + K TH J H ê(1 + τ )t −
2
K PP = K PPO + K PPH J H
χ=ë
(1 − t )
K pp pump efficiency
K QP =
2π
K PL ηTP
K QL = η JP =
2π ηTJ
JP K T (1 − t ) æ TE ö
w = 1− CE = çç =
JH
è ρD V
2 2 2
JH
• The exact physical mechanism by which propulsors when applied to ships fitted with
some unconventional propulsors interact tip fin and tip plated propellers, propeller
with the hull is not clear. boss cap fins, surface piercing propellers
and other devices which are modifications
• Extrapolation of full scale powering for of a conventional propeller.
ships fitted with unconventional propulsors
may be developed from extensive load Recommendations to the Conference
varying tests and in addition one or more of
momentum analysis, CFD computations, or • For powering prediction it is recommended
an extended analysis of self propulsion test that ship models fitted with unconventional
data. propulsors, such as propellers with ducts,
partial ducts, pre- and post- swirl devices,
• Use of extrapolation methods for uncon- z-drives, etc., should be tested as a unit and
ventional propulsors based on modifica- not broken down into component tests of
tions to the ITTC 1978 method show simi- the hull, propulsor and rotor and stator
lar levels of variation of the powering pre- components.
diction found between methods as the level • Extrapolation methods of full scale power-
of the power saving expected with the de- ing for unconventional propulsors should
vice. In other words, the accuracy of these be done using self-propulsion load varying
extrapolation methods is in most cases of tests of the geometrically similar ship
the same order of magnitude as the level of model and geometrically similar propulsor.
power saving of the device under analysis.
• It is recommended that for self-propulsion
• There is a shortage of accurate data from tests with unconventional propulsors the ef-
full scale trials supporting extrapolation fect of the rudder on the propulsion system
predictions made for unconventional pro- be considered due to the influence of the
pulsors. downstream swirl on the rudder.
REFERENCES
Ferrando, M. & Scamardella, A. 1996 Surface
Piercing Propellers: Testing Methodologies,
Andersen, P., 1996, A Comparative Study of
Result Analysis and Comments on Open
Conventional and Tip-Fin Propeller Per-
Water Characteristics. In Proceedings Small
formance. In Proc. 21st Symp. on Naval
Craft Marine Engineering Resistance &
Hydrodynamics. Trondheim, Norway.
Propulsion Symposium, pp.5-1 – 5-27. Yp-
Anon., 1998, Whale tail hits the road, Marin
silanti: University of Michigan
News, No. 65.
Friesch, J. & Johannsen, C. 1994 Propulsion
Arabshahi, A., Beddhu, M., Briley, W., Chen, Optimization Tests at High Reynolds
J., Gaither, A., Gaither, K., Janus, J., Jiang, Numbers, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 102,
M., Marcum, D., McGinley, J., Pankajak- pp.1 – 21
shan, R., Remotigue, M., Sheng, C., Gabriel, R. and Atlar, M., 1998, Calculation of
Sreenivas, K., Taylor, L., Whitfield, D., the performance of a ship propeller with
1998, A Perspective on Naval Hydrody- cyclic blade pitch control, International
namics Flow Simulations, Twenty-Second Shipbuilding Progress, 45 (443), 201-223.
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Washington, D.C., August. Gearhart, W. S., McBride, M. W., 1989,
“Performance Assessment of Propeller
Boss Cap Fin Type Device”, 22nd ATTC, St
Atlar, M., Hannah, J., Takinaci, A.C., and John’s., Newfoundland.
Korkut, E., 1998, “Effect of various boss
caps on the efficiency and cavitation per- Hadler J.B. & Hecker R. 1968 Performance of
formance of a propeller.”, Intl Symposium partially submerged propellers. In Pro-
Honoring Tarik Sabuncu On the Occasion ceedings, Seventh Symposium on Naval
of His 75th Birthday, Istanbul Technical Hydrodynamics (ed. R.D.Cooper & S.W..
University. Doroff), pp. 1449-1493. Arlington: Office
of Naval Research – Department of the
Atlar, M., Patience, G., 1998, “An Investiga- Navy.
tion into Effective Boss Cap Designs to
Eliminate Hub Vortex Cavitation”, Halstensen, O. and Leivdal, PA., 1990. The
PRADS’98, The Hague. development of the speedZ propulsion
system. The 7th high speed surface craft
Bennett, J., 1996, Of fiddles and fins, Wooden conf., London.
Boat, 132, September/October, 40-43.
Henderson, R.E., McMahon, J.F. and Wisli-
Bose, N. and Lai, P.S.K., 1989, The experi- cenus, G.F., 1967, A Method to Design
mental performance of a trochoidal pro-
35
Schneekluth, H. 1986 Wake equalizing duct, Van, S-H, Kim, M-C. and Lee, J-T, 1993
The Naval Architect, April, 1986 / A pam- “Some remarks on the powering perfor-
phlet from Schneekluth Hydrodynamik, mance prediction method for a ship
Entwicklungs- und Vertriebsges. MBH equipped with a pre-swirl stator-propeller
system”, Korea Research Institute of Ship
Schott, C.G., 1996, Design and Analysis of and Ocean Engineering, Daejeon, Korea,
Axial Flow Turbo-Machinery Blades in ITTC 1993, Vol. 2.
Steady Incompressible Flow by a Combi-
nation of Momentum and Singularity Wislicenus, G.F., 1968, Pumping Machinery
Methods, Master of Science Thesis, The for Marine Propulsion, ASME Symposium
Pennsylvania State University. on Pumping Machinery for Marine Propul-
sion.
SCHOTTEL, 1995, “TVV and HVV Propeller,
A Joint Development of SCHOTTEL and
SVA”, SCHOTTEL-Werft Product Brief. Wislicenus, G.F., 1960, Hydrodynamic and
Propulsion of Submerged Bodies, J. Am.
Schulze, R., 1995, “SVA- Nabenkappenflossen Rocket Soc., Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 1140 –
fur Schiffspropeller”, SVA (Postdam Model 1148.
Basin) Report No: 2218.
Yamaguchi, H. and Bose, N. 1994 Oscillating
Shiba H. 1953 Air-Drawing of Marine Propel- foils for marine propulsion, Proceedings of
lers. Transportation Technical Research In- the Fourth International Offshore and Polar
stitute, Report No. 9. Tokyo: the Unyu- Engineering Conference, Osaka.
Gijutsu Kenkyujo.
Skidmore, J.E., Lueschen, J.D., Renzo, J.A. Zhao, H.H. et al. 1988 Experimental research
and Landrum, C. 1989 Design of a human on the scale effect of ship geosim, Pro-
powered wet submersible for competition, ceedings of Ship Performance Symposium
Oceans ‘89, Seattle. of China Shipbuilding Engineering Society.
Sparenberg, J.A. & de Vries, J. 1987. An Op-
timum Screw Propeller with Endplates. In- Zhou, Z. M. et al. 1990 Energy-saving shaft
ternational Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 34, bracket suitable for multi-screw vessels,
no. 395, pp. 124-33. China Shipbuilding, No. 2, (in Chinese).
Stern, F., Paterson, E. G., Tahara, Y., 1996. Zierke, W.C. (editor) and 18 authors, 1997, A
CFDSHIP-IOWA: CFD Method for Sur- Physics-Based Means of Computing the
face Ship Boundary Layers and Wakes and Flow Around a Maneuvering Underwater
Wave Fields, IIHR Report #381. Vehicle, Technical Report No. TR 97-002,
Applied Research Laboratory, The Penn-
Stierman, E.J. 1984 “Extrapolation methods for sylvania State University.
ships with a ducted propeller”, International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.31, No. 356.
interaction. MARIN would however like to ask The figure above shows that the torque
attention for scale effects on the oscillating coefficient decreases with 30 to 60% for
propulsor itself. Reynolds numbers in the range from 2·10 to
7·10, dependent on the blade angle motion and
MARIN has been thoroughly involved in the condition. The torque coefficient of the
the development of the first prototype Whale wheel is dependent on both the lift and drag
Tail Wheel (see e.g. van Manen et al.,1996). coefficients of the blades.
This is a cycloidal propulsor which can operate
in a trochoidal blade motion. From open water
tests at scale factor 2 and several rotation rates, The observed decrease in torque coefficient
it appeared that mainly the torque coefficient is of the Whale Tail Wheel occurs in the same
considerably sensitive to the Reynolds number region of Reynolds numbers where a
(see the figure below). significant decrease in drag coefficient of
streamlined foils has been reported (see e.g.
The Reynolds number is defined as: Hoerner, 1965).
VR c
Re =
ν Trochoidal propellers can operate at the
condition where at some point in the blade path,
where V is the average resultant velocity the entrance velocity to the blade equals zero or
relative to the blade, c is the chord length and ν practically zero, causing extremely low
is the kinematic viscosity of water. The torque Reynolds numbers. Special precautions during
coefficient is defined as: testing and for extrapolation of results may
have to be taken. Little is known on this issue.
Q
KQ =
ρn D4L 2
Due to the sometimes large angles of attack of
the flow on the blade, in combination with low
where Q is the torque delivered by the two Reynolds numbers, leading edge separation
main shafts (corrected for friction), ρ is the may occur, which is also likely to be prone to
density of water, n is the rotation rate, D is the scale effects.
diameter of the wheel and L is the span of the
blades. The torque coefficient is normalised References:
relative to the value at the lowest Reynolds
number for each condition and blade angle van Manen, J.D. and van Terwisga, T., “A new
motion (designated ‘bam A’ or ‘bam B’). way of simulating Whale Tail Propulsion”, 21
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Reynolds effect on torque coefficient
Whale Tail Wheel Trondheim, June 1996
120%
bollard pull 'bam A'
KQ
60%
0%
Of the many different unconventional
2.0E+05 3.0E+05 4.0E+05 5.0E+05 6.0E+05 7.0E+05 propulsors considered by the Committee,
Re
podded propulsors are of increasing practical
3
The hydrodynamics of different types of First I would like to give my thanks to the
podded propulsion systems (pushing, pulling committee for it’s really good work. In chapter
and shuttle) may change the overall 5.9 (page 240) are described very well the
hydrodynamic performance of the vessel. Can possible methods for using open water test
the Committee comment on these differences results for podded drives.
and how they may influence the approach to
making performance predictions? Some factors are mentioned which affect
the measured values of propeller thrust,
• Ghassemi, H. and Allievi A. 1999: Fluid propeller torque and unit thrust (system thrust)
Analysis and Hydrodynamic Performance and additionally four different approaches to
of Conventional and Podded Propulsion extrapolation methods are described.
Systems, Oceanic Engineering International,
Vol. 3 No. 2. Unfortunately, the estimation of the
propeller thrust in the case of pulling pods is
very difficult and the correct measurement is
impossible. The reason for that fact is the gap
by Jaakko V. Pylkkanen (VTT) between the propeller hub and the pod housing.
The pressure in this gap influences to a
First of all I would like to express my substantial level the measured propeller thrust.
appreciation to the Committee for its This substantial inner force in the gap is a
competent report. result of the high pressure behind the working
4
propeller, the pressure change due to the propulsor are becoming more common and
stagnation point of the pod shaft coupled with experiments are being conducted in water
the large gap area. The width of the gap, which tunnels to measure the flowfield.
can vary in different model tests, and in
different towing tanks, influences the measured ! $"%" &
thrust too.
Having been involved to some extent
The error can be up to 10% dependent on [Riijarvi et al. 1994] with testing and
the propeller loading, the pod-geometry, the computational work on trochoidal propellers,
width of the gap and other reasons. The we agree that Reynolds number scale effects
measured unit thrust is not affected by this are very important in the extrapolation of open
problem because the force in the gap is an inner water and self propulsion data on these
force of this unit. My proposal is to use the propellers. As the discussor explains, large
measured unit-thrust as the basis for the angles of attack do occur on the blades of a
estimation of the so called “small figures” like trochoidal propeller, both during each
thrust deduction fraction, effective wake revolution and at low advance ratios of
fraction, propulsor efficiency… in pod operation. Work has shown, in fact, a sort of
propulsion only. critical advance ratio below which stall
effectively reduces both the thrust and torque
coefficients of the propeller.
A multiple stream tube theory [Bose,
1987] using experimental lift/drag coefficients
! " # at different Reynolds numbers for the foil
sections in a quasi steady manner can be used
First of all, we would like to thank Dr. Liu to predict the performance of a trochoidal
for his very supportive comments on the propeller in a way that models this behaviour
Committee’s efforts and his discussion. The and this critical advance coefficient, at least in
most difficult problem for the Committee was a qualitative way. A more accurate method
to identify reliable model/full-scale data for any would require experimental characteristics for
unconventional propulsor. In almost every case the foil sections during dynamic stall from
these databases are incomplete for the oscillating foil tests for the appropriate
calibration and validation of computer codes; conditions and over a range of Reynolds
however, it is very important to note that only numbers.
model-scale data exists for most
unconventional propulsors. We could not References:
identify any experimental database that
includes details of the local steady/unsteady Riijarvi, T., Li, J., Veitch, B.J., Bose, N., 1994,
pressure and velocity fields associated with the Experimental performance and comparison of
unconventional propulsor. In most cases the performance prediction methods for a
unconventional propulsor was designed to trochoidal propeller model, International
improve powering thus only nominal powering Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 41, No. 426, pp.
measurements were made. At this time the 113-136.
Committee could not identify a specific
reference that presents unsteady duct pressure Bose, N., 1987, Rotary foil propellers, Papers
measurement data. of the Ship Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan,
Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 45-67.
We agree that a workshop on CFD
modeling of propellers operating in ducts is
needed. These types of unconventional
5
! '" (
$ As far as the performance prediction of
different types of pods is concerned: whether it
The committee would like to thank Dr. is a pusher or a tractor type, both
Ghassemi for his questions. configurations are unconventional, the latter
being less conventional and hence more
Although the methods for predicting the complex to handle.
drag of the pod housing is not the main concern
of this committee, Dr. Ghassemi is asking for However, if the performance prediction is
the committee’s opinion on this issue. He is based on model test procedures, it would not
particularly interested in the pulling (or tractor) make much difference to look for fundamental
type in which case the pod housing will be in differences in the approaches depending on the
the wake of complex propeller flow. type of the propulsor. This is because the
current procedures, which are not in the public
As reported in Section 4.8 of this domain although they are outlined in Section
committee’s report, studies due to Rains et al. 5.9 based on the best of our knowledge, utilize
(1981) and Minsaas (1988) include some standard tests of the resistance open water and
information on the drag characteristics of self-propulsion. In any case, these tests will be
pusher and tractor type propulsors. In the performed for both types in a similar fashion,
method for the tractor type, Minsaas neglects although the scale effect correction for the pod
the effect of cavitation and propeller induced drag (due to low Rn) will be more complex for
drag, and provides a semi-empirical formulae the tractor type.
for the viscous drag of the housing components
depending upon whether the component is in or However, our recommendation to the
outside the propeller’s slipstream. ITTC as outlined in Section 7, is that the
On the other hand, amongst the reported extrapolation of podded propulsors should be
computational methods, one can mention done based on a self-propulsion test which
studies e.g. Dumez (1997) (reported in Le includes the hull, pod and propeller as unit and
magazine du Bassin d’Essais des Carenes) and not by breaking the test up into components
Korpus et al (1998) (reported in PRADS `98). such as open water, resistance etc.
The former of these studies is based on the
panel technique while the later utilized a References:
RANS technique. There is also a recent useful
work reported by Vartdal et al (1999) Dumez, F-X, 1997. PODS, some encouraging
(published in the CFD `99 workshop, Norway) conclusions, Le magazine du Bassin d’Essais
comparing these two procedures on a tractor des Carenes, No. 7, January.
type pod drive.
Korpus, R. et al., 1998. Hydrodynamic design
In the light of this information, the of integrated propulsor/stern concepts by
committee feels that panel methods are Reynolds – Averaged Navier – Stokes
adequate to model the potential flow effects techniques. PRADS ’98, The Hague
taking into account the influence of the
propeller's vortex wake. However, the major Vartdal, L., et al, 1999. On the use of CFD
contribution due to the viscous effects still Methods in Developing the Azipull Podded
remains as the problem which will require Propulsion System, CFD Conference ’99,
complex boundary layer and even separated Ulsteinrik, Norway
flow models. For these, the committee
recommends use of RANS techniques, as Minsaas, K.J., 1988. Propulsion Systems for
successfully applied by Korpus et al (1998), High Speed Marine Craft, MARINTEK A/S
including the effect of the propeller. Report, May issue.
6
! +" $,