5 views

Uploaded by Liladhar Ganesh Dhoble

propeller CFD simulation

save

- Turbulence and Its Modelling-1 (2)
- Ship-Theory Propulsion 1
- • Average convection coefficient example • Start of Blasius Solution for flow over a flat plate
- 7.5-02-03-01.4[1]
- DESP.pdf
- body force
- Week 7 Lecture 2 Scale Up 2011.Rotated
- Complex High Performance
- Propeller
- Technical Project Guide Mtu Proj Part 1
- NACA AR 3K11 a Method for Making Quantitative Studies of the Main Spray Characteristics of Flying-boat Hull Models
- Veth Z-Drive Engels
- Blade Strength2
- Self-Propulsion
- Open Water Performance of a Marine Propeller Model Using CFD
- 118403-7272 ijmme-ijens
- vol7no2-10_FangJ
- ahmed body.pdf
- Problems and Solutions
- AE2020 Syllabus
- InterPhasChangeFoam and PANS
- cfd
- CFD Model For Swirling Flows AIAA-2007-5755.pdf
- 284103381-AE2020-Syllabus.pdf
- Savitsky - On the Subject of High Speed Monohulls
- FSI of WT Airfoils
- COMPAC Conversion
- Vintage Airplane - Nov 1984
- Ch8 Viscous Flow in Pipes
- Tenta-101023
- is.iso.20283.2.2008.pdf
- C08 Fish Farm
- survitec_group_calm_buoy_brochure.pdf
- dm26_5.pdf
- 100 OE4626 Case Study 1(1)
- MAXSURF_ProductLineBrochure.pdf
- Marine Knowledge IA Study_Final Report_03.04.13
- Rope_Users_Manual_WEB.pdf
- Tysons
- Document 1
- COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION.pdf
- EHP-QuickStartGuide
- bradney-mooring-and-anchoring-leaflet.pdf
- Bollard Pull Code
- lec12
- Aeorodynamics of Rotor Blades.pdf
- General Laying Procedures
- bradney-mooring-and-anchoring-leaflet-1.pdf
- General Laying Procedures
- SubmPowCables FINAL 10jun13 Engl
- Exhibitor List SMM 2016
- is.808.1989
- 400 12 Geometry
- iwwwfb22_38
- marine-products-and-systems-catalogue_RR.pdf
- JSW JPL Draft Report 2015
- PDF
- Von Mises Yield Criterion - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
- 5350
- Coefficient of Friction

You are on page 1of 11

smp’09, Trondheim, Norway, June 2009

**CFD Investigation in Scale Effect on Propellers with Different Magnitude
**

of Skew in Turbulent Flow

Vladimir Krasilnikov1, Jiaying Sun2 and Karl Henning Halse3

1

**Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute (MARINTEK), Trondheim, Norway
**

2

Offshore Simulator Centre AS, Ålesund, Norway

3

University College in Ålesund, Ålesund, Norway

ABSTRACT

**Scale effect on characteristics of marine propellers
**

remains the problem to be investigated. The present paper

considers the analysis of scale effects by a RANS method,

and it is focused on the aspects related to the influence of

blade skew, propeller loading, and blade area ratio. The

flow is assumed to be fully turbulent and the blade surface

is smooth. The differences in forces and relevant scale

effects on propellers with different magnitude of skew are

demonstrated and explained through the analysis of flow

patterns around the blades and through the estimation of

pressure and friction force contributions.

Keywords

**Skew propellers, Scale effect, CFD, RANS.
**

1 INTRODUCTION

**Nowadays, one can find an impressively large variety of
**

propeller designs used on commercial vessels. Blade skew

is one of the important characteristics determining the

levels of periodic forces, cavitation, noise and vibration

on marine propeller, as well as its structural strength.

While blade designs with different magnitudes – and

distributions – of skew have been used for decades, the

information about scale effect on skewed propellers is still

limited. It has become a commonly accepted fact that

traditional scaling methods (such as, for example, ITTC78

performance prediction method) do not reflect correctly

the effect of Reynolds number on propeller

characteristics, in particular, as far as high skew and

balanced skew propeller designs are concerned. CFD

methods offer wide possibilities to get an insight in scale

effect mechanism and to quantify skew contribution in

scale effect problem. One of the pioneering efforts to

study on scale effect on skewed propellers using a RANS

code was made by Stanier (1998) who calculated the two

propellers – one designed with symmetric blades and

another with skewed blades (balanced skew, 45 deg) – at

a number of advance coefficients around the design point

and looked at the pressure distribution and velocity field

around the blades in model and full scale. The referred

work clearly demonstrated that scale effects on symmetric

blade propeller and skewed blade propeller are different.

**The problem of scale effect analysis on open propellers is
**

also addressed in (Funeno, 2002), (Haimov et al, 2007)

and (Koushan and Krasilnikov, 2008). In application to

ducted propellers, it is studied in (Abdel-Maksoud, 2002)

and (Krasilnikov et al, 2007). Prior to CFD studies one,

however, should clearly identify different sources of scale

effect and evaluate the capability of current CFD methods

to deal with them.

First of all, there is the effect of Reynolds number on

open water propeller characteristics. In the simplest

manner, it is explained by the fact that both the lift and

drag of blade sections are functions of Re . In lifting line

theory, the expressions for propeller thrust and torque can

be written through the lift and drag of cylindrical sections,

as follows:

R

⎛ F

⎞

(1)

T = Z ⋅ ∫ FL ⋅ ⎜⎜1 − D ⋅ tgβI ⎟⎟ ⋅ cos βI ⋅ dr ,

⎝ FL

⎠

rH

R

⎛

F

Q = Z ⋅ ∫ FL ⋅ ⎜⎜1 + D ⋅ ctg β I

FL

⎝

rH

⎞

⎟⎟ ⋅ sin β I ⋅ r ⋅ dr ,

⎠

where FL is the section lift, FD is the section drag,

(2)

βI

is

**the section hydrodynamic pitch angle and Z is the
**

number of blades. From these equations one can see that,

with the change of Re , thrust and torque will be affected

differently. With Re increasing the section lift and the

term containing drag/lift ratio in Equation (1) will both

increase, and thrust is expected to increase. The term

containing drag/lift ratio in Equation (2) will, however,

decrease and, in the case of torque, we will have opposite

contributions. These contributions are functions of

propeller loading and, therefore, scale effect on propeller

characteristics is loading dependent. Besides that, the

changes in lift and drag with Re depend on local loading

of blade sections.

In reality, these simple considerations are significantly

complicated by the local flow phenomena (leading edge,

blade tip, trailing edge), which are manifest in different

ways on propellers with different magnitudes and

different distributions of skew. Also, one can not discard

the possibility of other local effects influencing propeller

the authors explored the possibilities of automated mesh generation to provide engineers with a simple tool to build mesh and initialize the simulation with such complex geometry as marine propeller. e.g. these are RANS methods) imply fully turbulent flow. influencing propeller forces. The effect of Re is studied on a series of three propellers with systematically varied skew. in model scale laminar flow separation can develop at the leading edge under some conditions. The discretized equations are solved using the Gauss-Seidel iterative procedure. In the present paper. Apart from the main objective to study on scale effect. thus. inlet located at 4 propeller diameters upstream. The mesh generation technique is independent on propeller blade and hub geometries. For this purposes the authors employ a RANS solver of the commercial CFD code FLUENT and the original pre-processing code customized for modeling of marine propulsors. Using common designer terminology. The sector domain is divided into the 6 blocks. The trailing edge flow is also subject to scale effect. (4) ( ⎡ ⎛ ∂u ∂u j 2 ∂u ⎞⎤ ∂ − δ ij l ⎟⎥ + − ρ ui'u 'j ⎢ µ ⎜⎜ i + ⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi 3 ∂xl ⎟⎠⎥⎦ ∂x j ) where ui is the i-th Cartesian component of the absolute velocity vector. radius equal to 4 propeller diameters. The Reynolds stress must be modeled to close the governing equation by using an appropriate turbulence model. and used with some confidence for certain types of blade material (Krasilnikov et al. the advantages of this model are seen in its ability to handle simultaneously lower-Re and higher-Re zones in the flow.characteristics. and − ρ u i' u 'j is the Reynolds stress. µ is the molecular viscosity. scale effect is expected to be manifest in effective wake influenced by scale effect on both the hull and propeller. for painted or coated blades these correction factors should be revised. the estimation of roughness effects in full scale is reduced to correction factors accounting for roughness effects on section lift and drag. Open water propeller analysis in straight flow is a steady state problem. 2 NUMERICAL METHOD The governing equations of the method to be solved are written in the following form: ∂ρ ∂ ( ρu i ) (3) + = 0. In the present work. Applying CFD methods to the analysis of scale effects on propeller characteristics in open water one should be aware that in model scale laminar flow domains can exist on propeller blades and influence blade force measured during the tests. The extent of laminar flow domains and zones of laminar separation varies with blade configuration (first of all. Krasilnikov et al (2007) and Krasilnikov & Sun (2008) describe the employed mesh generation technique in details. the SST k-ω model shows lower accuracy in resolving flows near and inside vortical structures compared to second-moment closure RSTM models. Capturing these effects in RANS simulation would require a reliable transition model. However. 2006). skew) and loading distribution along the radius. These can be introduced into a RANS. although. while diffusion terms are discretized using a second order central scheme. δ ij is the Kronecker delta. For example. Application of CFD results in full scale to practice may be obscured by roughness effects. outlet located at 6 propeller diameters downstream. The above considerations are important when modeling model scale propellers and model and full scale propellers operating at heavy loading. Consequently. It is recognized that trailing edge features. The SST k-ω model is currently one of the most widely used turbulence models for blade row machinery applications. Therefore. finite thickness blunt trailing edge or anti-signing trailing edge. propeller design should be performed in “effective” wake field. play their role in formation of trailing free vortices. which may exist in model scale and be significantly reduced or disappear altogether in full scale. and to predict more accurately non-equilibrium regions in the boundary layer with adverse pressure gradients such as observed when separation occurs. As far as the subject of the present research is concerned. Open water propeller characteristics alone are insufficient for an adequate propeller design which should account for the interaction between propeller and ship hull. or even a panel method code. the convection terms in the RANS equations are discretized using a second order upwind scheme. the SST (Shear Stress Transport) kω turbulence model is chosen for turbulence closure. counting from propeller plane) by the planes passing through the reference lines of the two consecutive blades. When setting up the solver. One blade passage sector is cut from the 360-degrees domain (cylinder. the smallest part of the complex scale effect problem is addressed – the effect of Reynolds number on open water propeller characteristics in fully turbulent flow. Earlier works by Zhang et al (2007). probably. and mesh fineness is regulated by a single mesh factor. only the first and. and one can benefit from employing a Moving Reference Frame (MRF) approach to solve the equations in the reference frame rotating together with propeller. only one blade passage can be included in the simulation domain provided appropriate periodicity conditions on the side boundaries of the passage sector. In addition. as any isotropic twoequation turbulence model. Overall solution procedure is based on a SIMPLE-type segregated algorithm. ∂t ∂xi ∂ ( ρui ) ∂ ( ρui u j ) ∂t =− + ∂x j ∂p ∂ + ∂xi ∂x j = . In the block surrounding propeller and hub. an unstructured grid is built. flow separation under offdesign conditions. One can also expect more adequate location of vortical structures such as leading edge vortex and tip vortex. In most cases. Furthermore. p is the static pressure. and the algebraic multigrid method is used to accelerate the solution convergence. only the main features will be repeated below. while most of CFD methods available for engineers (mainly. Mesh generation in this block begins with discretization of the blade and hub surfaces by triangles with sides equal to .

the comparison between the numerical predictions and experimental data are presented in Figures 3 to 5.) studied in (Blaurock and Lammers. some near-wall resolution is compromised.25 m. The general view of propeller geometries and their main elements are given in Figure 2. 2122 2121 2133 Skew 0° Skew 31° Skew 62° D=0. Tetrahedral mesh is built in the remaining part of propeller block using volume size function which creates a mesh of cells whose size increases gradually outwards reaching 3 ⋅ k MF ⋅ 0. Z=4. 2133 (skew angle 62 deg. The discretization convergence study resulted in recommended values of the mesh factor k MF = 1. From the point of view of the analysis of propellers with different amount of skew.005 ⋅ D (uniform surface mesh). and k MF is the mesh factor to regulate mesh fineness. skew 62 deg.0 are feasible on machines having 4GB RAM. Only skew was varied in this series. Computations with the mesh factor k MF = 0. It has to be noted that propellers of this series can not be considered as propeller “designs”. while other geometrical elements were kept identical except section thickness at the outer radii of the propeller 2133 with highest skew.5-1.0 to be used in simulations of model propellers with the diameter of 0.5 may require resources greater than ordinary office computers. which might be significant if completely structured meshes are used. The example of mesh around a high-skew propeller is shown in Figure 1.20-0. If the prismatic layer generation fails.0 and k MF = 0. . This mesh was generated with the mesh factor k MF = 1 as used in the analysis of full scale propeller. converged behaviour in full scale with only minor differences in integral propeller characteristics between k MF = 1. since in the design procedures pitch and camber distributions are defined depending on given skew distribution.5-2.7)/D=0. the use of unstructured grid in the propeller block has the advantage that meshes remain topologically similar regardless blade configuration. Figure 1.). AE/A0=0. in strict sense. while computations with the mesh factor k MF = 1. where D is the propeller diameter. tetrahedral cells are used instead. at the rate of revolution n = 15Hz.0.50.9035 Figure 2.26m.632×106. an attempt is made to grow the 4 layers of prismatic cells of the same height outward of propeller surface. In the latter case.). in spite of relatively high + wall Y values. Examples of surface and volume meshes around the high skew propeller 2133. The open water characteristics of model scale propellers were analysed.k MF ⋅ 0. firstly. P(0. but. This reduces the effect of mesh topology on comparative results. which was increased to avoid blade deformations under heavy loadings. which corresponded to Reynolds number nD 2 ⎛ AE Re P = 5 ⋅ ⋅⎜ ν ⎜⎝ A0 ⎞ 1 ⎟⎟ ⋅ = 0.5. the results show consistent. 3 ANALYSES WITH A SERIES PROPELLERS IN MODEL SCALE OF SKEW The series of three propellers with systematically varying skew 2122 (skew angle 0 deg.005 ⋅ D at the outer boundaries of propeller block. Firstly. 1988) was chosen to investigate in the effect of skew on propeller characteristics under different scale factors. Structured grids consisting of prismatic and hexahedral cells are built in the outer blocks. Formal verification of the method has been presented in (Krasilnikov & Sun. 2008) where discretization convergence and iterative convergence studies are performed for a moderately skew propeller in model and full scale and the error and uncertainty estimations are given. For full scale propellers having diameter 10 times larger the authors arrived at the values of mesh factor k MF = 0. The series of propellers with varying skew (general view and main elements). In graphic ⎠ Z form. and the error and uncertainty estimates are obtained with lower fidelity than on structured grid. A drawback of unstructured grid approach is that formal verification of the method is more complicated. 2121 (skew angle 31 deg.

5 0. for the advance coefficient J=0. 10KQ.6 0. These tendencies are confirmed by the numerical analyses. at J=0. at the three selected blade sections.4 0.00221 --0.3041 0. 10KQ.175 Calc (Tot) 0. Larger differences between the calculated and measured data can be caused by laminar flow zones on propeller blades existing in the tests.3201 0.Friction -0.8 0.46%.3 0.15%. in the whole range of simulated loading conditions. The friction component is practically independent on skew.5 0.0 Experiment RANSE 0.5 0.3 0.95R.7 0.6 0. Recent measurements indicate that laminar zones are larger for lower skew blades than for higher skew blades. Effect of skew on pressure and friction 0.0 0.3481 -0. Calculated and measured open characteristics of the model scale propeller 2122.60 . Slightly poorer agreement is observed for the propeller 2122 with symmetric blades where the relative differences in forces amounted at J=0.1819 0.1715 -0.00231 0.3462 0. The propeller 2121 (skew angle 31 deg) shows lower pressure on the suction blade side and lower pressure on the pressure side near the leading edge (0≤x/c≤0.0 0. 0.6 0.6 0. 0.0 J=V/(nD) 4.1719 . the pressure and friction components of total forces were studied. while the following increase of skew to 62 degrees results in decrease of propeller forces below the levels of symmetric blade propeller.172 0.8 0. The results for propeller thrust coefficient are given in Table 1.Pressure 0.1 0.7 Experiment RANSE 0.2 0.41%.4 0. still providing good agreement in terms of efficiency.00204 Since the section thickness of the original high skew propeller 2133 was increased.2). The analysis of pressure and friction component of propeller thrust reveals that these changes are due to skew effect on pressure component.7 0.1 0.60%. the observed effects should mainly be attributed to skew.0: ∆K T = -7.4 components of propeller thrust.1 0.1 0.3 0.6: ∆K T = -4. The effects become stronger with increasing propeller loading. η0 0.Pressure 0. while calculations were done under the assumption of fully turbulent flow. 0. downstream of midchord location.7 0. Consequently.330 Calc (Tot) 0. ∆K Q = -2. 10KQ.300 0. Exp 0.1693 1. ∆K Q = -7.3 J=V/(nD) 3.2.0 0.5 Table 1.3 J 0.00191 0. and further reduction of pressure on the pressure side. in the leading edge region (0≤x/c≤0.9 0. water KT.3220 .8 0.20 .2 0.o o 2122 (skew 0 ) 0. The differences are more pronounced at the outer blade sections. Calculated and measured open characteristics of the model scale propeller 2121.4 0. the calculations for this propeller were repeated with the same thickness as that of propellers 2122 and 2121. η0 2133 (skew 62 ) 0.00227 Exp 0. Although the absolute thrust values changed slightly compared to the original geometry.1 0.2 KT 2122 2121 2133 Skew 0° Skew 31° Skew 62° 0. The propeller 2133 (skew angle 62 deg) shows higher pressure on the suction side compared to propeller 2121.350 0. o 2121 (skew 31 ) Experiment RANSE 0.2 0.1840 -0. η0 KT.2 0.00200 2133 Skew 62° (same thickness) --0.00191 0.4 0. Calculated and measured open characteristics of the model scale propeller 2133.180 0.9 1.5 KT. no principal changes in tendencies were found.7 0.9R.3 0.4 0.3168 -0.1725 0.1697 0.0 0.2 0.3061 -0. 0.0 1.00212 0.0 5.9 1. .0 0.6 0. Figure water In order to understand the reasons for the observed behaviours.7 0.5 J=V/(nD) Figure 0.1748 -0.1 0.Friction -0.7R. Figure water It can be seen that a good agreement is obtained for all three propellers of the considered series. The chordwise pressure distributions on these three propellers are compared in Figure 6.6 0.3).3147 0. It is evident from the tests that the increase of skew from 0 to 31 degree results in higher propeller forces.

4 x/c 0.6. Pressure distributions along the blade sections of the propellers 2122. Total velocity vectors on the suction blade side of propellers 2122. to a large extent.2 0.8 1.6 0. From the diagrams of velocity vectors presented in Figures 7 and 8. of these three propellers. this flow is marked by velocity vectors of orange and red colours where the radial velocity component reaches its maximum values.95 2122 skew 0 2121 skew 31 2133 skew 62 6 2 -Cp=2(P-P0)/[ρ(nD) ] 0. Figure 7. and it becomes stronger with increase of skew (hence observed changes in pressure distributions on the pressure side in the leading edge region).2. a flow along and over the leading edge takes place on the blades of propeller 2121 beginning from the radius 0. at J=0.0 2133 (skew 62 deg) r/R=0. at J=0.0 8 0.8 1. and one can conclude that the difference in pressure at the outer sections is the main cause of the observed changes in forces.70 2122 (skew 0 deg) 2122 skew 0 2121 skew 31 2133 skew 62 2 -Cp=2(P-P0)/[ρ(nD) ] 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 0.7R and on the blades of propeller 2133 beginning from the radius 0.6R. At the blade sections r / R ≤ 0.4 x/c 0. the differences in pressure distributions are much smaller.90 2122 skew 0 2121 skew 31 2133 skew 62 6 2 -Cp=2(P-P0)/[ρ(nD) ] 4 2 0 -2 -4 0. the velocity vectors on the propeller 2121 are aligned closet to the tangents to . in this case of heavy loading. 2121 and 2133.0 2121 (skew 31 deg) r/R=0. (coloured by the magnitude of radial velocity component) On the diagrams.2 0.20. it can be seen that.4 x/c 0. In their turn.8 4 2 0 -2 -4 0. Evidently. the differences in pressure are caused by varying flow patterns around the outer portion of the blade and.4 r/R=0.0 0.0 0. Different are also the flow patterns on the suction blade side in the midchord and trailing edge regions.6 0.6 1. by the leading edge flow phenomenon occurring on skewed blades. 2121 and 2133. The leading edge flow is especially pronounced on the pressure side of the blade.0 Figure 6.2 0.

at J=0. Total velocity vectors on the pressure blade side of propellers 2122. Both the integral value of loading and its distribution on the blade surface influence these local flows. Its intensity increases with increase of loading. and they depend strongly on blade geometry.2. Formation of the tip vortex on propellers 2122. 2122 (skew 0 deg) 2121 (skew 31 deg) 2121 (skew 31 deg) 2133 (skew 62 deg) 2133 (skew 62 deg) Figure 8.2. as well as blade loading. as well as it is absent on the other two propellers. Outward midchord flow observed on propeller 2122 exists only at low J values corresponding to heavy loading and it is not evident at J values near design point. Instead. they tend to deviate outwards over a large part of the outer blade region. except the very blade tip downstream of the midchord location. at J=0. On the propeller 2133 with highest skew. The trailing edge flow near the blade tip observed on propeller 2133 is associated only with heavy loading conditions.2122 (skew 0 deg) flow is present on both propellers 2121 and 2133. 2121 and 2133. inwards. on this propeller a local trailing edge flow develops in a small domain in the vicinity of root and midspan sections. This phenomenon is not seen on the other two propellers. (coloured by the magnitude of velocity angle) . the velocity vectors deviate. on the contrary. the leading edge Figure 9. On the symmetric blade propeller 2122. The outward directed flows are the consequence of centrifugal effect in the boundary layer. 2121 and 2133. For example. and a local flow directed outwards is formed along the trailing edge. practically in the whole range of studied J values. (coloured by the magnitude of radial velocity component) cylindrical blade sections. and it is not present near the design point.

Relative difference (in %) between full scale and model scale thrust coefficient of the propellers 2122 (0 deg skew). at heavier loading they are more pronounced. to some degree.2.5R downstream of propeller plane. The comparison between calculated full and model scale open water propeller characteristics was made in the form of relative difference in percent ( (K S − K M ) / K M × 100 . the propellers 2122. 4 SCALE EFFECT ON CHARCATERISTICS OF SKEW PROPELLERS In order to investigate in scale effect on characteristics of propellers with different magnitude of skew. 2121(31 deg skew) and 2133 (62 deg skew).7434Hz. On the 62 deg skew propeller 2133.998×107. Along with RANS analyses. 11 and 12 for thrust coefficient. which is illustrated in Figure 9 where the flow streamlines released from the outer part of the bladed are coloured by the magnitude of velocity angle defined as β VR = arctg (VRθ / VRX ) . However. The strongest is the tip vortex on the 0 deg skew propeller 2122 and the weakest is the one on the 61 deg skew propeller 2133. However. Figure 12.The formation of the tip vortex also reveals some differences on propellers with different magnitude of skew. torque coefficient and efficiency. Thrust coefficient of all propellers experiences larger increase in full scale than . Relative difference (in %. While the flow along the leading edge is present on this propeller on the large part of blade span. 2121(31 deg skew) and 2133 (62 deg skew). Unfortunately. are also observed at higher J values. full scale propeller characteristics were estimated using the ITTC78 scaling method without accounting for roughness effects. there is no evidence of streamlines rollup into a leading edge vortex. 2121(31 deg skew) and 2133 (62 deg skew). On the 31 deg skew propeller 2121. insufficiently fine mesh. and it is presented in Figures 10. the tip vortex is detached from the very blade tip. on the symmetric blade propeller 2122. by tracking the streamlines released from the blade tip and also visualizing the vorticity field. and Reynolds number Re P = 1. The effects concerning the tip vortex formation. it is possible to estimate the slipstream contraction. These results are in qualitative agreement with experimental findings in (Blaurock and Lammers. as described above for the loading conditions corresponding to J=0. From the analysis of comparative results the following conclusions can be drawn.975R affecting the suction blade side in that region. The rate of revolution of “full scale” propellers was defined based on Froude number identity resulting in n = 4. the present RANS method can not resolve accurately the flow around vortices as a result of turbulence modeling and. the tip vortex detachment is observed again closer to the blade tip than on the propeller 2121. Relative difference (in %. plotted with opposite sign) between full scale and model scale torque coefficient of the propellers 2122 (0 deg skew). respectively. plotted with opposite sign) between full scale and model scale efficiency of the propellers 2122 (0 deg skew). The present calculations show that largest slipstream contraction is observed for the symmetric blade propeller. which is confirmed by the estimated levels of vorticity magnitude at the section x=0. 2121 and 2133 were analyzed with the diameter sized 10 times larger than in model scale. 1988). The fluid properties were kept identical in model and full scale calculations. the detachment of the tip vortex and its rollup begin from the blade section 0. Figure 11. and the smallest for the 61 deg skew propeller. Large negative values of the velocity angle indicate streamlines engaged into rollingup tip vortex flow. Figure 10. Comparing these three propellers one can notice that. This is in spite of that the 31 deg skew propeller 2121 shows the heaviest loading.

According to Equation (1). which is explained by larger relative contribution of viscosity in lift and drag. addressing only its effect on drag. It can be seen that. in this regard.05R. In order to understand the differences shown by propellers with different magnitude of skew one can consider the diagrams of axial velocity at several transverse sections of the blade ( x = -0.05R. for the 62 deg skew propeller) presented in Figures 13. The density of contour lines towards the blade surface gives an idea about thickness of boundary layer. Contours of axial velocity at several transverse blade sections of propeller 2121. Besides that. as described in Section 3.6. propeller thrust is 2122 (skew 0 deg). at J=0. Model scale ⎛F ⎞ affected by the quantity 1 − ⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟ ⋅ tgβ I . are thought to be responsible for this result. it was found that the patterns of pressure distribution on the blade surface did not undergo principal changes with scale. the largest part of thrust change comes due to the reduced pressure at the outer blade sections. Model scale 2121 (skew 31 deg). However. which ⎝ FL ⎠ increases in full scale together with lift FL resulting in significant increase of thrust. 0. are the results obtained for the 62 deg skew propeller 2133 as shown in Figure 16. at J=0. the boundary layer on symmetric blade propeller 2122 appears noticeably thinner than on the two skew propellers. Full scale Figure 14.1R and. at the outer sections. 0. These diagrams were obtained by clipping the range of axial velocity variation by a constant value of 2 m/s.5%). and largest for the 62 deg skew propeller 2133. Comparing relative changes in boundary layer thickness with scale. in model and full scale. the lift increases in full scale. while for the skewed propellers it is. 0. 0. influenced by the changes in leading edge overflow. pressure distribution changes slightly near the leading edge. Pressure is decreasing on the suction side. larger. for symmetric blade propeller. which explains the observed tendencies in thrust change with scale. Contours of axial velocity at several transverse blade sections of propeller 2122. it is justified to say that the greatest part of scale effect on thrust is associated with its pressure component. ⎠ 2121 (skew 0 deg). and it changes insignificantly on the pressure side. . and this is primarily due to the reduction of boundary layer thickness in full scale. Full scale Figure 13. For the 62 deg skew propeller. Since the contribution of friction forces into thrust is comparatively small. the relative increase of thrust is.predicted by the ITTC78 method. in model and full scale. the quantity ⎛F 1 + ⎜⎜ D ⎝ FL ⎞ ⎟⎟ ⋅ ctgβ I decreases. At the same time.15R. generally. loading dependent. additionally. Three dimensional effects in the boundary layer. 14 and 15.0. the increase of thrust in full scale shows weak dependency on propeller loading (remaining at the level of 1-1. 2121 (skew 31 deg). it can be concluded that they are smallest for the symmetric blade propeller 2122. The reason lies in the fact that ITTC78 method does not take into account the effect of Re on section lift. apparently. in model scale. such as leading edge and other outward directed local flows. Propeller torque experiences the two opposing influences with scale variation.6. larger for the 31 deg skew propeller 2121. At lighter loadings (higher J values). This increase becomes larger with larger magnitude of skew. As in the case with thrust. Representative. Generally.

Its absolute values show relatively weak dependence on propeller loading.0 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0. in particular.e. At lighter loadings (higher advance coefficients). the increase of efficiency in full scale shown by the RANS method is larger.2133 (skew 62 deg). and they are valid for both thrust and torque.0 0.2 0.6. 2121 and .95 6 Model scale Full scale 5 2 -Cp=2(P-P0)/[ρ(nD) ] Compared to thrust.5 0.6 0. 0. Generally. than the one predicted by the ITTC scaling method.70 2.2 0. where the increase of lift dominates. calculations were carried out with the three propellers similar to propeller 2122. In order to investigate in scale effects on propellers with larger blade area ratio.0 r/R=0.0 r/R=0.2 0. and the largest increase is seen on the 62 deg skew propeller. For the skewed propellers. the friction contribution to torque is much more significant. Thus.6 0.0 0. the decrease of torque at low J values is much smaller than predicted by the ITTC78 method.5 2133 (skew 62 deg). At heavier loadings (lower advance coefficients). the torque decrease is smaller. The smallest increase of efficiency is seen on the symmetric blade propeller. The described effects on thrust and torque account for the change of propeller efficiency with scale.4 x/c 0. in model and full scale. for all propellers. the decrease of friction component in full scale is smaller than for skewed propellers. where the friction contribution is relatively larger. for the 62 deg skew propeller 2133.0 Figure 15. the main differences in torque changes with scale shown by these propellers should. the same phenomenon as that affecting propeller thrust. In full scale.0 1.0 -1. again. at J=0.8 r/R=0.5 Model scale Full scale 2 -Cp=2(P-P0)/[ρ(nD) ] 2.0 -0. at J=0. i. Full scale -2. This is explained by the larger increase of lift on these propellers due to larger changes in thickness of boundary layer.0 0. These values are comparable for all three propellers of the considered series. It is seen that the ITTC78 scaling method captures the changes in full scale torque of symmetric blade propeller fairly well. Model scale 3. Comparison of pressure distributions along the blade sections of the propeller 2133.4 x/c 0. the following conclusions can be made.20. Regarding the friction component. in model scale.5 -1. because of the smaller absolute torque values.0 6 0. be attributed to the variation of the pressure component. Contours of axial velocity at several transverse blade sections of propeller 2133. one observes a noticeable decrease of full scale torque due to lower drag.6 0. For the symmetric blade propeller.4 x/c 0. and. in model and full scale.0 Figure 16.90 Model scale Full scale 5 4 2 -Cp=2(P-P0)/[ρ(nD) ] 1.8 1. 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 0. the friction component decreases to comparable levels on propellers with 32 deg skew and 62 deg skew.5 1.8 1. increasing slightly when loading decreases.

Respectively. in particular.07856 0. pitch. which may change quite differently with scale factor. scale effect on thrust was not influenced significantly by loading. AE/A0=0. in fully turbulent flow. RANS 0.70 in model and full scale reveals that.04458 0. 2-3 times larger than on propellers with blade area ratio 0. The dependencies of scale effect on thrust and torque on propeller loading are. camber. The analysis of propellers with blade area ratio 0. relative increase of torque is larger than increase of thrust. As well as in the case of the present series. in increase of thrust and torque. they show larger scale effect on both thrust and torque in comparison with the original propellers with blade area ratio 0.072684 0. as one can see from Table 2. which result. CONCLUSIONS A RANS method with automated hybrid mesh generation has been applied to the analysis of scale effects on a series of three propellers with systematically varying skew. Tendencies in thrust and torque with the increase of blade area ratio at constant section thickness. thickness and chord length distributions determine a unique flow pattern around the blade. For example. as illustrated in Figures 17 and 18. Relative differences (in %) between full scale and model scale thrust coefficient of the propellers 2122 (0 deg skew). it can be noticed that relative changes in thrust. without inclusion of roughness effects.34623 0. similar to those of the B-series propeller with close pitch ratio. in (Koushan & Krasilnikov. except for the skewed propellers 2121 and 2133 at lower J values where it is slightly smaller than on propellers with blade area ratio 0.8 AE/A0=0.5 J 0.9. the tendencies due to the increase of blade area ratio in model scale were expected to resemble those of B-series propellers. consequently. Different flow patterns on the outer part of the blade and.50. similar to those of propellers with smaller blade area ratio. generally.2 0.01672 0. In particular. At the same time. Relative difference (in %. The relative decrease of torque is. Indeed. strong dependence of scale effect on torque on propeller loading was demonstrated. thrust and torque coefficients of the propeller with larger blade area ratio increase at lower J values. the method have reflected correctly the changes in propeller forces with increasing magnitude of skew measured in the tests. were kept the same as those of the original propellers.047748 0. on efficiency) are geometry dependent. generally. than decrease of torque. experiment 0. and decrease at higher J values. There are results from other studies by different authors indicating torque increase in full scale for some propeller designs. This is analogous to blade area variation in the Wageningen B-series. The combination of skew.04743 0.08853 0. Besides.32257 0. 2008) a moderately skew propeller was simulated using the same RANS method as in the present paper showing increase of torque at lower advance coefficient in full scale compared to model scale values. Figure 17.014337 B-series propeller. in model scale. 2121(31 deg skew) and 2133 (62 deg skew): Effect of blade area ratio. according to Equations (1) and (2). at lower J values. Consequently.043009 0. instead of its decrease. rake. lift decreases while drag increases resulting in lower thrust and torque. At higher J values. including thickness distributions. it has to be noted that scale effects on propeller thrust and torque (and. torque and efficiency with scale are larger at lighter loadings (higher advance coefficients). P/D=0.50.01522 KT When the blade area ratio increases. All the other geometrical elements. but the relative decrease of thrust is larger. propeller efficiency experiences greater increase. Table 2.361469 0.8 0. Z=4.7 KQ KT KQ Propeller 2121.70. In model scale.08944 0. the outward leading edge flow occurring on skewed propellers is . but with increased chord length to provide the value AE / A0 = 0.2 0. The relative increase of thrust in full scale is larger.015932 0. in average. plotted with opposite sign) between full scale and model scale torque coefficient of the propellers 2122 (0 deg skew).34189 0. 2121(31 deg skew) and 2133 (62 deg skew): Effect of blade area ratio.2133. both the lift and drag of blade sections experience increase. Figure 18.50. Concerning the results described above. in this case.

West Mekan Produksjon AS. Koushan. D.. France. Proceedings of the International Conference SuperFAST’2008. Three dimensional effects in the boundary layer. Part 2: Scale effects’. Servogear AS.238. Zhang. no. (1998). Seoul. (2007). ‘Mesh generation technique for the analysis of ducted propellers using a commercial RANSE solver and its application to scale effect study’.S. The changes in thrust and torque account for the increase of efficiency in full scale which becomes larger with increasing magnitude of skew. For the symmetric blade propeller the changes in boundary layer thickness and in the pressure component of blade forces are the smallest. The relative increase of thrust in full scale becomes larger with increase of skew. & Sun. This change is found to be largest for the propeller with largest magnitude of skew on which the boundary layer thickness decreases most significantly in full scale. Korea.) ‘Scale effects on ducted propellers’. ‘Experimental and numerical investigation of open thrusters in oblique flow conditions’.I. A. July. F. Nogva Motorfabrikk AS. J. Finnøy Gear & Propeller AS. Report and user’s guide’. (2007). Heimdal Propulsion Norway AS. which makes it an important task to develop further and apply CFD methods to scale effect studies including the effects of surface roughness and laminar/turbulent transition. Stanier. MARINTEK. no.I. Zh. The relative decrease of torque in full scale becomes smaller with increase of skew. V. Proceedings of the 10th Numerical Towing Tank Symposium (NuTTS’07). St Petersburg. Helseth AS. ‘PreFluP – Preprocessing program for the RANSE simulation of marine propulsors. M. Journal of Kansai Society of Naval Architects. Berg.. Zh.. Ponkratov. D. larger on propellers with larger blade area ratio. (2008). (2008). H. Krasilnikov. The dependence of scale effect on propeller loading is explained by the variation in magnitude of relative contributions of pressure (lift) and friction (drag) components into blade forces. A. & Hong. Russia.found to be responsible for these changes. and it is smaller at heavier loadings. (2002). ‘Possibilities of a Viscous/Potential Coupled Method to Study Scale Effects on Open-Water Characteristics of Podded Propulsors’. Wärtsilä Norway AS. V. J. Proceedings of the 24th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics..253-265. Krasilnikov V. Krasilnikov. M. Brest. Hamburg. I. Hong. . such as leading edge. pp. ‘On viscous flow around marine propellers – Hub vortex and scale effect’.I. Det Norske Veritas. (2002. Fukuoka. J. Scale effects on propeller characteristics are. midchord and trailing edge local flows of outward direction are thought to be responsible for different magnitude of scale effects. Scana Volda. primarily. Japan. Scale effects on open water propeller characteristics are shown to be dependent on blade geometry and propeller loading. IRENav. October. International Shipbuilding Progress. July. Proceedings of the 27th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Zhang.. & Krasilnikov.I.V. REFERENCES Abdel-Maksoud. Germany. due to the change of the pressure component of blade forces with Reynolds number. ‘Verification of an unsteady RANSE method for the analysis of marine propellers for high-speed crafts’.-J. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The present research was conducted within the frameworks and with financial support of the joint industry project Norwegian Propeller Forum Phase II with the following members: Brunvoll AS.. The dependence of scale effects on blade geometry significantly complicates the development of “universal” scaling procedures for engineering purposes. 45. (2006). Achkinadze. September. CSSRC Report. ‘Investigation into propeller skew using a RANS code. The obtained trends concerning the influence of skew on scale effects are. F. When applied to the analysis of propellers with increased blade area ratio.443. V. & Heinke. Funeno. the method has demonstrated tendencies in thrust and torque observed on Wageningen B-series propellers with corresponding variation of blade area ratio. and it is larger at lighter loadings. Sun.. & Tang. K. generally. December. October 3-5. and Sun. Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Technological Advances in Podded Propulsion..

- Turbulence and Its Modelling-1 (2)Uploaded byms280674
- Ship-Theory Propulsion 1Uploaded byGoutam Kumar Saha
- • Average convection coefficient example • Start of Blasius Solution for flow over a flat plateUploaded bymsnaghavi
- 7.5-02-03-01.4[1]Uploaded bypramodkb_cusat
- DESP.pdfUploaded byqasali1
- body forceUploaded bySattar Al-Jabair
- Week 7 Lecture 2 Scale Up 2011.RotatedUploaded byNajwaKamilah
- Complex High PerformanceUploaded byDaniel Wiese
- PropellerUploaded byBerk Ertürk
- Technical Project Guide Mtu Proj Part 1Uploaded byIlter Kocaman
- NACA AR 3K11 a Method for Making Quantitative Studies of the Main Spray Characteristics of Flying-boat Hull ModelsUploaded byMark Evan Salutin
- Veth Z-Drive EngelsUploaded byJosepxo Varvete
- Blade Strength2Uploaded byBuvana Iyer
- Self-PropulsionUploaded bysafari
- Open Water Performance of a Marine Propeller Model Using CFDUploaded byClinton Estacio Gomez
- 118403-7272 ijmme-ijensUploaded byYulius Widiardi Pw
- vol7no2-10_FangJUploaded byGian Carlos Perea Diaz
- ahmed body.pdfUploaded byNevil Benjamin
- Problems and SolutionsUploaded byNaresh Joseph Christy
- AE2020 SyllabusUploaded byadam g
- InterPhasChangeFoam and PANSUploaded byNajim Monssif
- cfdUploaded byAkhilesh Sasankan
- CFD Model For Swirling Flows AIAA-2007-5755.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- 284103381-AE2020-Syllabus.pdfUploaded byPrabhat Singh
- Savitsky - On the Subject of High Speed MonohullsUploaded bysearchile
- FSI of WT AirfoilsUploaded byIva Hrgovan
- COMPAC ConversionUploaded byAhmed Magdy
- Vintage Airplane - Nov 1984Uploaded byAviation/Space History Library
- Ch8 Viscous Flow in PipesUploaded byAsif Sunny
- Tenta-101023Uploaded byTaher Aly

- is.iso.20283.2.2008.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- C08 Fish FarmUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- survitec_group_calm_buoy_brochure.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- dm26_5.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- 100 OE4626 Case Study 1(1)Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- MAXSURF_ProductLineBrochure.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Marine Knowledge IA Study_Final Report_03.04.13Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Rope_Users_Manual_WEB.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- TysonsUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Document 1Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- EHP-QuickStartGuideUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- bradney-mooring-and-anchoring-leaflet.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Bollard Pull CodeUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- lec12Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Aeorodynamics of Rotor Blades.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- General Laying ProceduresUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- bradney-mooring-and-anchoring-leaflet-1.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- General Laying ProceduresUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- SubmPowCables FINAL 10jun13 EnglUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Exhibitor List SMM 2016Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- is.808.1989Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- 400 12 GeometryUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- iwwwfb22_38Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- marine-products-and-systems-catalogue_RR.pdfUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- JSW JPL Draft Report 2015Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- PDFUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Von Mises Yield Criterion - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- 5350Uploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Coefficient of FrictionUploaded byLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble