Comparative Study of FPP vs.

CPP for an All-Electric Naval Combatant

Mr. Devin Witt & Prof. Y.L. (Julie) Young, Dept. of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, University of Michigan
Objectives
-Identify the advantages and disadvantages of fixed pitch propellers (FPP) vs. controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant. -Compare the performance of a FPP vs. CPP for a notional all-electric naval combatant. -Discuss related total ship architecture and integration issues for an allelectric naval combatant.

FPP and CPP Performance

-Performance and structural analysis was conducted using a 3D coupled boundary element method-finite element method in uniform wake. -Analysis provided evidence that the optimal pitch setting for the CPP was from = 5 to = 0 over the ships operational speed range. Pitch Type Fixed Controllable Optimal 0.7R 40.1 38.7 0,average 0.72 0.73

FPP and CPP Stress Analysis

-A stress analysis was conducted on both the FPP and the CPP over the ships operational range. The stresses are over-estimated at the blade root because the blades are assumed to be cantilevered and the effect of the fillet has been neglected.

Advantages and Disadvantages of FPPs and CPPs

Fixed Pitch Propeller Advantages Disadvantages -Performance degrades rapidly at offdesign conditions, where the vessel (with -Simple construction and less broad operating profile, e.g. naval maintenance than CPPs. combatant) may operate majority of the -No support system needed. time. -Smaller propeller hub leading to -Potential cavitation, strength, & stability increased open water efficiency. issues at highly loaded off-design conditions. Controllable Pitch Propeller Advantages Disadvantages -Pitch schedule can be optimized over operational range. -Ability to mitigate and reduce cavitation and blade stress as well as increase overall efficiency. -Ability to produce forward or reverse thrust while continuing to rotate in the same direction. -Requires a support system to operate properly which will entail more electrical power and maintenance. -More complex and expensive than a FPP. -Larger propeller hub leading to decreased open water efficiency.

Ship Architecture and Integration Issues

Provided Thrust and Power vs Ship Speed
3000 2500 Force (kN) 2000 40 Delivered Power (MW) RPM, Cavitation Volume (10000*Vol./R3) 35

1500
1000 500 0

t = 0.095 w = 0.031 Thrust = RT/[2*(1-t)] Va = Vs*(1-w)

30 25

-There are significant differences between mechanical ships and all-electric ships (AES) that affect the propulsion system and the propeller design. -On mechanical ships, the propellers minimum revolution rate is typically 30 40% of the prime movers maximum speed, while an AES can operate the propeller from zero revolutions to the electric motors maximum rate, and therefore can be more efficient at very low RPMs.

20
15 10 5 0

Ship and Propeller Specifications

-The all-electric naval combatant was based on a modified DTMB 5415 hull: length=162.5m, displ.=15,263 ton, top speed=30 knots, and shaft depth=5m. -The propeller was based on a five-bladed DTMB 5168, which was modified to include a NACA 16A thickness distribution with a zero trail edge thickness, and a NACA a = 0.8 camber distribution. Characteristic Propeller Diameter (m) rhub/R Propeller Material Density (kg/m3) 0.2% Yield Strength (MPa) Fatigue Strength at 108 Cycles (MPa) Value DTMB 5168 5.5 0.282 nickel-aluminum-bronze 7580 205 79.3

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Vs (Knots) Ship Resistance FPP Power FPP Thrust CPP Power CPP Thrust Electric Motor Limit 140

FPP vs. CPP Performance

0.74
Open Water Efficiency, 0 120

0.72
0.70 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.60

100
80 60 40 20 0

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Vs (kn)
FPP Efficiency CPP RPM CPP Efficiency FPP Cav. Volume FPP RPM CPP Cav. Volume

-Development is still needed to enhance variable speed drives which control the revolution rate and torque output of the large electric propulsion motors for pairing with CPPs. -Other integration issues is the control of the pitch setting on the propeller to keep the blades at optimal pitch settings while at specific ship speeds. -Due to losses associated with all-electric systems, further work is needed on total fuel consumption and maintenance requirements for both propeller systems. -An investigation of off-design conditions (crashback, crashforward, etc.) is needed to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of both systems. -Maintenance and reliability issues of the two propeller types is a major concern when determining which propeller to integrate. FPPs are relatively low maintenance, while its not uncommon to have an expensive systems overhaul of a hydraulically actuated CPP every couple of years requiring dry docking.