The Wageningen C- and D-Series Propellers

J. Dang, MARIN, The Netherlands

H. J. J. van den Boom, MARIN, The Netherlands
J. Th. Ligtelijn, MARIN, The Netherlands

SUMMARY

The Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) has recently started a Joint Industry Project (JIP) on developing
two new propeller series for Controllable Pitch Propellers (CPPs). Following the well known Wageningen B-series and
Ka-series, the new C-series comprise open CPPs whereas the new D-series concern ducted CPPs. The primary objective
of developing the new CPP series is to help the shipbuilding and offshore industries in understanding the off-design per-
formance of the CPPs, for which systematic information was lacking.

CPP blades have been generated for 4- and 5-bladed open propellers and for 4-bladed ducted propellers in two ducts,
representing the most contemporary propeller design practice. Systematic measurements of the propeller and duct
thrusts, the torque and also the blade spindle torque have been carried out for the entire range of operational conditions
and pitch-settings of each propeller. The results of the C4-40 series are presented in this paper as an example case.

1. INTRODUCTION vantage for full power utilization at any circumstances:

The Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN),
former Netherlands Ship Model Basin (N.S.M.B.),
started to develop the well-known Wageningen B-series
Propellers right from the establishment of this institute in
1932 [1]. The first series were published by van Lam-
meren [2] and Troost [3,4], followed by further devel-
opments and expansions of the series over more than 40
years. A major review of the available data was given by
van Lammeren et al [5,6]. The B-series had been further
extended to 6 and 7 bladed propellers in the 1970s. To-
tally, 20 series with more than 120 propellers were tested
over that period.
Systematic series have also been developed for ducted
propellers since 1954 [7]. A major amount of data of the
Ka-series were published by Oosterveld [8]. In the mean-
time, other systematic propeller series were also devel-
oped worldwide, such as the Taylor- [9], Gawn- [10],
(M)AU- [11] and SSPA- [12,13] series. However, in prac-
tise the B-series data are among the most widely used in
the industry.
Besides that most of the propeller characteristics (the
thrust and the torque) of the series in design operation
condition have been made available by model tests be-
tween J=0 and KT=0, four-quadrant open water character-
istics of some of the propellers in the B-series and the
ducted propellers in the Ka-series were also made avail-
able in the 1980s [14] for off-design conditions. Table 1
provides an overview of the propellers in the B-series, of
which 4-quadrant open water characteristics are avail-
able. For the Ka-series, only Ka 4-70 propellers in 19A
and 37 ducts have been published [1].
Different from Fixed Pitch Propellers (FPPs), Controlla-
ble Pitch Propellers (CPPs) are well-known for their ad-
accelerating and stopping, rapid manoeuvring, dynamic
positioning (DP), etc. For these reasons, CPPs are widely
used for multi-purpose vessels where their propulsors are
often used in off-design conditions.
Table 1 Overview of B-series with four-quadrant open
water characteristics (pitch ratio P/D of the propellers are
listed in the table).
AE/A0 [%] 40 55 65 70 75 80 85 100
Z=3 1.0
0.5, 0.6, 0.8
Z=4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0, 1.2, 1.4
Z=5 1.0
Z=6 1.0
Z=7 1.0
In order to predict the performance of a CPP in off-
design conditions, people have to either carry out dedi-
cated and expensive measurements for a specific propel-
ler design, such as often done for navy vessels [15,16], or
rely on the estimated values from the existing four-
quadrant open water data from the B-series [17], which
were primarily designed for merchant ships with FPP
blade forms. Information for the complete two-quadrant
open water characteristics of CPPs in the public domain
is scarce, especially when the propeller blades are de-
flected away from their design pitch [18,19]. In the
Wageningen series book [1], off-design information is
only available for two CPPs in ahead and astern condi-
tions, one with a design pitch ratio of zero and the other
of one.
With the deployment of more and more vessels with DP-
capability, accurate prediction of the off-design perform-
ance of a propulsor becomes more important than ever.
Dedicated tests for each propeller design is unaffordable
for most of the projects, while the existing limited infor-
mation is far from enough. For this reason there is a
strong demand for systematic data on the performance of
CPPs in off-design conditions.
In addition to these, a CPP blade has a completely differ-
ent blade form than an FPP. This is because more practi-
cal issues need to be considered for a CPP, such as: the
blades must be able to pass each other from positive
pitch to negative pitch, the blade has to be positioned
properly between the bolt holes on the blade foot, the
cavitation performance must be acceptable for a wide
range of operational pitch settings, the blade overhang at
the blade foot should preferably be avoided to prevent
stress concentration; the blade tips must not touch the
inner side of a duct at any deflected pitch angles for the
ducted CPPs. Besides all these constraints, one of the
important and unique issues is the blade spindle torque of
CPPs [20], where very limited information can be found
[19,21,22]. To the knowledge of the authors, there is also
no CPP series with systematic information on the propel-
ler blade spindle torque at all possible blade pitch set-
tings (from full positive pitch to full negative pitch and
over the complete two quadrants). Also no systematic
information is available on blade feathering performance.
In close co-operation with industry and universities
MARIN started to explore the possibilities for develop-
ing new systematic series for both open and ducted
CPPs. In September 2011, a Jointed Industry Project
(JIP) was officially launched, which is called the Wagen-
ingen C- and D-series Propellers for CPPs and ducted
CPPs, respectively. Here the C stands for controllable
and the D stands for ducted.
Conducting conventional open water tests for an exten-
sive propeller series in two quadrants is not economically
feasible as each propeller has to be tested at more than 10
pitch settings between full positive and full negative
pitch. New test technology had to be developed in order
to reduce the test time significantly. This leads to the idea
of a quasi-steady test technique for propeller open water
characteristics which is enabled by the new sensor tech-
nology that allows high frequent dynamic measurement
with rapid response.
Under support of the Wageningen C-series and D-series
JIP, a pilot study has been successfully carried out to
explore the possibility of using this technique. The study
proved that the quasi-steady test results are as accurate as
the conventional steady test results, while reducing the
test time by a factor of 8 to 10 [23]. This technology de-
velopment enabled the JIP to test large systematic series
within reasonable budget.
The propeller series, the blade design methodology, the
parameterization of the propeller geometry, the test pro-
cedures, the data analyses and the presentation of the
results are discussed in the following sections. At the end
of the paper, the complete test results of the C4-40 series
are presented and discussed.
2. DESIGN METHODOLOGY, THE PRO-
PELLER SERIES AND THE TEST MATRIX
In order to obtain systematic information on propeller
open water characteristics, the Wageningen B-series Pro-
pellers were designed in such a way that the number of
blades, the blade area ratio and the pitch-diameter ratio
were systematically varied, while the blade contour, the
skew distribution, the pitch distribution (constant, except
for the 4-bladed), the rake angle (15o), the hub-propeller
diameter ratio (1/6, except for the 3-bladed propellers
which has a ratio of 18%) and the section profiles are all
kept the same for the whole series [1].
While designing the Wageningen C- and D-series propel-
lers, an extensive propeller database search has been car-
ried out first. A large number of practical propeller de-
signs, made with up-to-date hydrodynamic knowledge
was gathered. Studies have been carried out to relate the
propeller main dimensions to the typical applications, so
that each design of the blades reflects a certain scenario
of a typical application. For instance, a 4-bladed CPP
with large blade area and high pitch ratios is often used
for the fast ferries and cruise ships where the comfort is
weighted more than the efficiency; a 4-bladed CPP with
small blade area and low pitch ratios is typically used by
transport ships with a large amount of harbour activities,
such a shuttle tanker, where the propulsive efficiency is
essentially important, rather than the comfort. The 5-
bladed CPP designs are aimed at applications for the
navies.
The statistics from the database also showed that the CPP
hub size changes noticeably with the blade area ratio and
the blade design pitch ratio for open propellers. This is
because these main parameters of a propeller are closely
related to the power density on the blade, which deter-
mines how strong a hub should be and how large the
pitch actuating system should be. However, this tendency
is not found for the ducted CPPs. These findings are ap-
plied to the present series designs where the C-series has
different hub-propeller diameter ratios for each propeller
design; while the D-series propellers have the same hub-
propeller diameter ratio for all designs.
Thereafter, each propeller in the series was designed in-
dividually with the best present design practice with the
compromise between efficiency, comfort and mechanical
requirements, which comprise the blade strength re-
quirements, minimum blade passing distance when going
from positive to negative pitch, fitting the blade root be-
tween the bolt holes, blade root over-hang, tip clearance
in a duct while the pitch is actuated through the whole
stroke, blade spindle torque at all operation conditions,
etc. The compromise has given more weight on:
- propulsive efficiency for low pitch and blade
area ratios;
- comfort (better cavitation performance) for high
pitch and large blade area ratios.
The design methodology and philosophy discussed above and represents the present best practice on hub design
for these C- and D-series propellers can be summarized with smallest achievable hub size. The ratio is
in one sentence: these series represent contemporary and determined by the following quadratic polynomial:
practical CPP designs.

The whole series consist of 20 open propellers and 15 with a hub consisting of a basic spherical form contour
ducted propellers, as listed in Table 2, which were tested connected to two cylinders on the two sides (Figure 1).
for 604 complete two-quadrant open water characteristics
at various pitch settings and duct combinations (Table 3). 3.2 BLADE PARAMETRIC DESCRIPTIONS

Table 2 Overview of the C-series and D-series propeller The radial distribution of the main parameters of the pro-
models (design pitch ratio P0.7R/D of the propellers are pellers (blade chord length ratio C/D, pitch ratio P/D,
listed in the table), in total 35 propeller models. skew ratio S/D, rake ratio X/D, maximum thickness ratio
AE/A0 [%] 40 55 60 70 75
tmax/D and maximum camber ratio fmax/D of the blade
0.8, 1.0, 0.8, 1.0, 0.8, 1.0, sections) are all given in polynomials in the form of:
C4 series 1.2, 1.4 1.2, 1.4 1.2, 1.4
1.0, 1.2, 1.0, 1.2,
C5 series 1.4, 1.6 1.4, 1.6
0.0, 0.8, 0.0, 0.8, 0.0, 0.8, where s is the non-dimensional radius defined as:
D4 series 1.0, 1.2, 1.0, 1.2, 1.0, 1.2,
1.4 1.4 1.4

Table 3 Overview of the test matrix, in total 604 com- and r is the radius. At the blade tip when r=D/2, s=0. At
plete two-quadrant propeller open water tests. the blade root when r=d/2, s=1. The coefficients a
Propeller design pitch ratio P0.7R/D depend on the design pitch of the propeller p by
settings P0.7R/D
tested pitch

D4-40 D4-40 quadratic polynomials defined as:

C4-40
C5-60 D4-55 D4-55
C4-55
C5-75 D4-70 D4-70
C4-70*
in No.19A duct in No. 37 duct
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 By integrating the chord length of the propeller blades
-1.4 from the blade root to the tip, as given in Equation (3)
-1.2
-1.0
and (4), the blade area can be easily derived and
-0.7 expressed also in parametric formula.
-0.4
-0.1 3.3 BLADE SECTION PROFILES
0.0
0.1
The NACA 66 (MOD) thickness distribution and the
0.2
0.5 NACA a=0.8 meanline have been used for all of the pro-
0.8 peller blades for the present propeller series. The thick-
1.0 ness distribution is, however, applied perpendicular to
1.2 the nose-tail line of the section profile.
1.4
1.6 In order to prevent very thin blade trailing edges in
1.8
* model scale, the trailing edges of the propeller model

* blades are thickened to minimal 0.4 mm, starting gradu-
blade feathering tests, in both positive & negative advance directions.
ally from the maximum thickness of the profile to the
3. PROPELLER GEOMETRY trailing edges by a parabolic distribution.

After the initial design of each propeller of the series, the
main parameters of every propeller were fitted with
polynomials and the propeller models were manufactured
according to the parametric descriptions. In order to
reduce the influence of the blade weight on the
measurements, all propeller blades and hubs were made
of aluminium with anodized final surface treatment.
3.4 PITCH DEFINITION
The design pitch is defined based on the nose-tail line of
the blade section profile. At off-design condition, the
pitch setting refers to the pitch of the blade at 0.7R which
is based on the nose-tail line of the section profile at that
pitch setting (R is the propeller radius at design pitch).

3.1 HUB-PROPELLER DIAMETER RATIO 3.5 TIP FORM, BLADE ROOT FILLETS AND
ANTI-SINGING EDGE
The hub-propeller diameter ratio is determined first,
which varies with the design pitch ratio at 0.7R of the A non-ice-strengthened tip form and composite blade
propeller, defined as: root fillets are applied to all of the model propellers. The
composite blade root fillets consist of two fillet radii, the
larger one has a radius of 3Tmax and the small one has a
radius of Tmax/3, where Tmax is the blade maximum thick-
ness at the blade root. Due to the fact that the propeller
model blades are too thin to make anti-singing edges, no
anti-singing edges are applied.
4. TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURES
4.1 TEST SET-UP
The test set-up is the same as used and discussed in Ref-
erence [23] with a dummy test hub and force transducers
as shown in Figure 1. The thrust and torque are measured
on the shaft next to the propeller and the blade spindle
torque is measured inside the test hub.
Figure 1 Test set-up and propeller shaft thrust and torque
sensors and blade spindle torque sensor.
4.2 TEST PROCEDURES
In a conventional propeller open water test from J=0 to
KT=0, the propeller shaft rotational rate is often kept con-
stant while the advance speed of the propeller varies.
During propeller four-quadrant open water tests, like
done for FPPs, both the advance speed and the shaft
rotational rate have to vary and change directions, be-
cause only a finite towing speed of the carriage can be
achieved. However, most controllable pitch propellers
will never rotate reversely. This practice has been also
used here during the model tests, where only one rota-
tional direction (positive rotational direction) has been
tested. Therefore, only two-quadrant (the first and the
fourth quadrant) open water characteristics have been
measured.
At propeller off-design conditions, the propeller hydro-
dynamic pitch angle is often used, instead of the ad-
vance ratio J, to define the operation condition of the
blades,
Under this definition, a complete set of two-quadrant
open water characteristics of a controllable pitch propel-
ler covers the range -90o +90o.
A quasi-steady open water test is, in principle, an un-
steady model test by continuously varying the advance
speed and/or the rotational rate in such a way that the
steady state performance of the propeller for the com-
plete range of conditions can be derived. For the whole
C- and D-series two-quadrant tests, the following four
test runs have been used, as listed in Table 4.
Table 4 Quasi-steady test runs for the complete 2-
quadrant open water characteristics of a controllable
pitch propeller.
run shaft rotational rate advance speed range
1 constant +900RPM 0 to +4m/s to 0 0 o to ~+30o to 0 o
2 0 to +900RPM to 0 constant +4m/s +90o to ~+30o to +90o
3 constant +900RPM 0 to 4m/s to 0 0 o to ~ 30o to 0 o
4 0 to +900RPM to 0 constant 4m/s 90o to ~ 30o to 90o
This makes it possible to test the complete two-quadrant
open water characteristics of a propeller in only 4 test
runs, using 2 runs by varying the towing speed of the
carriage and 2 runs by varying the shaft rotational rate.
From the first two runs - No. 1 and No. 2, the results in
the first quadrant for from 0 to +90 degrees can be ob-
tained. From the last two runs - No. 3 and No. 4, the re-
sults in the fourth quadrant for from 0 to -90 degrees
can be obtained.
A sinusoidal variation as sketched in Figure 2 has been
used for the variations of the carriage (advance) speed
and the propeller rotational rate during the tests.
Figure 2 Sketch of the sinusoidal variations for towing
speed and propeller shaft rotational rate.
For the first quadrant (test runs No. 1 and No. 2), the
towing carriage is travelling in the normal towing direc-
tion, which we call the positive direction as shown in
the sketch in Figure 3.
+n
+Va
Figure 3 Sketch of test set-up for the first quadrant tests.
For the fourth quadrant (test runs No. 3 and No. 4), the
same set-up used for the first quadrant test but towed by
the carriage in the reverse direction, see Figure 4. The
advantage of this method is that the whole set-up remains
the same as for the first quadrant, except for the towing
direction of the carriage. The drawback is that the flow
goes first over the open water test POD housing and strut
before it reaches the propeller. The influence of the wake
from the strut was found to be very limited and has been
carefully corrected for.
 +n
-Va

Figure 4 Sketch of test set-up for the fourth quadrant

tests.

More details of the quasi-steady propeller open water test (11)

procedures are given by Dang et al [23].
5. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
The measured propeller shaft thrust and torque, and the
blade spindle torque, are non-dimensionalized by the
relative velocity to the blade at 0.7R radius defined as,
with the propeller thrust coefficient defined as,
6. C4-40 SERIES
As an example case, the test results of the C4-40 series
are presented in this section.
The C4-40 series propeller model are shown in Figure 6
with MARINs propeller numbers and their design pitch
noted in the figure. The propeller diameters vary between
230.37mm to 242.81mm with hub diameter of 58.0mm.

the propeller torque coefficient defined as,

and the blade spindle torque coefficient defined as,

where, the positive directions of the propeller shaft

thrust, torque and the blade spindle torque are shown in
Figure 5. The positive blade spindle torque is defined as Model No. 7189 (P0.7R/D = 0.8) Model No. 7190 (P0.7R/D = 1.0)
the direction that tends to drive the propeller to a larger
pitch.

Model No. 7191 (P0.7R/D = 1.2) Model No. 7192 (P0.7R/D = 1.4)
Figure 6 C4-40 series propeller models with aluminium
blades on the dummy hubs at design pitch settings.

During the test runs, the blade Reynolds number varies

Figure 5 Definition of positive directions for the thrust,
torque and the blade spindle torque.
All coefficients provided above are hydrodynamic coef-
ficients. The spindle torque induced by the centrifugal
force of the model blade has been subtracted.
Each set of data - the propeller thrust coefficients, the
propeller torque coefficients and the blade spindle torque
coefficients - was fitted with one of the following Fourier
series respectively. The Fourier series coefficients were
determined up to the order of 40, truncated from the 31st
harmonic gradually (linearly) until completely at the 40th
harmonic.
with the variation of the propeller advance speed and the
shaft rotational rate, which depends on the chord length
of the propeller blades. Table 5 provides the range of the
Reynolds numbers based on 0.7R chord length and local
inflow velocity during the tests for the C4-40 series,
where the Reynolds number is defined as,
The open water characteristics of these series propellers
in the first quadrant are plotted in Figure 7 in KT, 10KQ,
~ J diagram. Their two-quadrant open water characteris-
tics are plotted into diagrams on Figure 9 through Figure
20. These values are all in model scale without any cor- losses of a real propeller (such as the rotational losses,
rections for the Reynolds numbers, which varies during friction losses, non-uniform losses due to finite number
the quasi-steady open water tests. of blades, vortex losses, etc.). An offset of the efficiency
of about 0.15 has been found for the C4-40 series, which
Table 5 Blade chord Reynolds numbers during test runs. is regarded as excellent designs. The same results are
Blade chord Reynolds number Re 10-5 also found for the other C-Series Propellers.
Propeller Nos. 1.00
Runs
7189R 7190R 7191R 7192R Ideal Efficiency
0.95
min. 4.4003 4.2608 4.1291 4.0043 B4-40 P/D=0.8
Run No. 1, 3 B4-40 P/D=1.0
max. 4.9185 4.7799 4.6490 4.5252 0.90
min. 2.1975 2.1663 2.1364 2.1078 B4-40 P/D=1.2
Run No. 2, 4 0.85
max. B4-40 P/D=1.4
5.0062 4.8645 4.7307 4.6041

PROPELLER OPEN WATER EFFICIENCY

0.80 C4-40 P/D=0.8
1.2 C4-40 P/D=1.0
0.75
C4-40 P/D=1.2
0.70 C4-40 P/D=1.4
1.1

0.65
THRUST COEFFICIENT KT, TORQUE COEFFICIENT 10KQ, EFFICIENCY

1.0
0.60

0.55
0.9

0.50
P0.7R/D=1.4
0.8 P0.7R/D=1.2
0.45
P0.7R/D=1.0

P0.7R/D=0.8 0.40
0.7

0.35
0.6
0.30
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PROPELLER THRUST LOADING COEFFICIENT C T=8/p KT/J2
0.5
Figure 8 Comparison of open water efficiency with the
0.4
ideal efficiency.

0.3
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
Figure 7 Open water characteristics of C4-40 series.
To make an assessment on the C4-40 series propeller
blade designs, a comparison has been made for the open
water efficiency to the propeller ideal efficiency, together
with the B-series for the same blade area ratio and the
same pitch ratio. The comparison is based on the propel-
ler thrust loading coefficient CT, as shown in Figure 8.
It should be noted that the present series were carried out
at a shaft rotational rate of 900 RPM with a chord Rey-
nolds number Re at 0.7R radius between 0.4106 and
0.5106 (Table 5) for C4-40 series, while the B-series
were tested at much lower shaft rotational rate and the
results were later corrected to a standard chord Reynolds
number of 2.00106 on 0.75R chord [5]. A direct, quanti-
tative and fair comparison of these two series is therefore
difficult.
However, for a qualitative assessment on C4-40 series,
Figure 8 can be used. The offsets between the ideal effi-
ciency and the measured open water efficiency is often
used to evaluate a propeller design, which contains all
Two new propeller series The Wageningen C- and D-
Series Propellers have been developed within a Joined
Industry Project (JIP), with both industry and govern-
ment funding. The series represent the most contempo-
rary controllable pitch propeller design practice, both for
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ADVANCE COEFFICIENT J
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 open and ducted propellers, with balanced compromise
between efficiency and comfort, while also observing
practical and mechanical constraints. Compared to the
ideal efficiency, the C-series propellers show good effi-
ciency values.
The complete two-quadrant open water characteristics of
those propellers at all practically-used pitch settings have
been tested, which provide a huge database with com-
plete information on the off-design performance of con-
trollable pitch propellers. They are the first and the only
series with blade spindle torque information for a com-
plete range of operational conditions and pitch settings.
All results are shared with the participating organisations
in this JIP. Furthermore, the data will be implemented in
software for practical use by all participants.
In addition, it has been also planned to test the C4-70 and
C5-75 series for blade spindle torque in cavitating condi-
tions, the C4-70 and C5-75 series for cavitation inception
characteristics at one pitch ratio, and the D4-70 series in
No. 37 duct for thrust breakdown due to excessive cavi-
tation in bollard pull and free running conditions.
 90

90
P/D = -1.0 P/D = -1.2
P/D = -0.7

75

75
P/D = -1.0
P/D = -0.4 P/D = -0.7
P/D = -0.1
P/D = -0.4

60

60
P/D = 0.0
P/D = -0.1
P/D = 0.1
P/D = 0.0
P/D = 0.2

45

45
P/D = 0.1
P/D = 0.5
P/D = 0.2
P/D = 0.8

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]
P/D = 0.5
P/D = 1.0

30

30
P/D = 0.8

P/D = 1.0

15

15
P/D = 1.2

P/D = 1.4

0
-15

-15
-30

-30
-45

-45
-60

-60
-75

-75
-90

-90
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
PROPELLER THRUST COEFFICIENT CT PROPELLER THRUST COEFFICIENT CT
Figure 9 Thrust coefficient CT at various pitch settings Figure 11 Thrust coefficient CT at various pitch settings
for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=0.8. for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=1.2.
90

90
P/D = -1.0 P/D = -1.2
P/D = -0.7 P/D = -1.0
75

75
P/D = -0.4 P/D = -0.7
P/D = -0.1 P/D = -0.4
60

60
P/D = 0.0 P/D = -0.1
P/D = 0.1 P/D = 0.0
P/D = 0.2 P/D = 0.1
45

45
P/D = 0.5 P/D = 0.2
P/D = 0.8 P/D = 0.5
HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

P/D = 1.0 P/D = 0.8
30

30
P/D = 1.2 P/D = 1.0
P/D = 1.2
15

15
P/D = 1.4
P/D = 1.6
0

0
-15

-15
-30

-30
-45

-45
-60

-60
-75

-75
-90

-90
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

PROPELLER THRUST COEFFICIENT CT PROPELLER THRUST COEFFICIENT CT

Figure 10 Thrust coefficient CT at various pitch settings Figure 12 Thrust coefficient CT at various pitch settings
for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=1.0. for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=1.4.
 90

90
P/D = -1.0 P/D = -1.2

75
75
P/D = -0.7 P/D = -1.0

P/D = -0.4 P/D = -0.7

P/D = -0.1 P/D = -0.4

60
60
P/D = 0.0 P/D = -0.1

P/D = 0.1 P/D = 0.0

45
45
P/D = 0.2 P/D = 0.1

P/D = 0.5 P/D = 0.2

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]
P/D = 0.8 P/D = 0.5

30
30
P/D = 1.0 P/D = 0.8
P/D = 1.0

15
15
P/D = 1.2
P/D = 1.4

0
0

-15
-15

-30
-30

-45
-45

-60
-60

-75
-75

-90
-90

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

PROPELLER TORQUE COEFFICIENT 10CQ PROPELLER TORQUE COEFFICIENT 10CQ

Figure 13 Torque coefficient CQ at various pitch settings Figure 15 Torque coefficient CQ at various pitch settings
for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=0.8. for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=1.2.

90
90

P/D = -1.0 P/D = -1.2

P/D = -0.7 P/D = -1.0

75
75

P/D = -0.4 P/D = -0.7

P/D = -0.1 P/D = -0.4

60
60

P/D = 0.0 P/D = -0.1

P/D = 0.1 P/D = 0.0
P/D = 0.2 P/D = 0.1

45
45

P/D = 0.5 P/D = 0.2

P/D = 0.8 P/D = 0.5

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

P/D = 1.0 P/D = 0.8

30
30

P/D = 1.2 P/D = 1.0

P/D = 1.2
15
15

P/D = 1.4
P/D = 1.6
0
0

-15
-15

-30
-30

-45
-45

-60
-60

-75
-75

-90
-90

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

PROPELLER TORQUE COEFFICIENT 10CQ PROPELLER TORQUE COEFFICIENT 10CQ

Figure 14 Torque coefficient CQ at various pitch settings Figure 16 Torque coefficient CQ at various pitch settings
for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=1.0. for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ratio P0.7R/D=1.4.
 90

90
P/D = -1.0 P/D = -1.2

75

75
P/D = -0.7 P/D = -1.0

P/D = -0.4 P/D = -0.7

P/D = -0.1 P/D = -0.4

60

60
P/D = 0.0 P/D = -0.1

P/D = 0.1 P/D = 0.0

45

45
P/D = 0.2 P/D = 0.1

P/D = 0.5 P/D = 0.2

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

P/D = 0.8 P/D = 0.5

30

30
P/D = 1.0 P/D = 0.8
P/D = 1.0

15

15
P/D = 1.2
P/D = 1.4

0
-15

-15
-30

-30
-45

-45
-60

-60
-75

-75
-90

-90
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0
PROPELLER BLADE SPINDLE TORQUE COEFFICIENT 100CQblade PROPELLER BLADE SPINDLE TORQUE COEFFICIENT 100CQblade
Figure 17 Blade spindle torque coefficient CQblade at vari- Figure 19 Blade spindle torque coefficient CQblade at vari-
ous pitch settings for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ous pitch settings for propeller C4-40 with design pitch
ratio P0.7R/D=0.8. ratio P0.7R/D=1.2.
90

90
P/D = -1.0 P/D = -1.2
P/D = -0.7 P/D = -1.0
75

75
P/D = -0.4 P/D = -0.7
P/D = -0.1 P/D = -0.4
60

60
P/D = 0.0 P/D = -0.1
P/D = 0.1 P/D = 0.0
P/D = 0.2 P/D = 0.1
45

45
P/D = 0.5 P/D = 0.2
P/D = 0.8 P/D = 0.5
HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

HYDRODYNAMIC PITCH ANGLE [degrees]

P/D = 1.0 P/D = 0.8
30

30
P/D = 1.2 P/D = 1.0
P/D = 1.2
15

15
P/D = 1.4
P/D = 1.6
0

0
-15

-15
-30

-30
-45

-45
-60

-60
-75

-75
-90

-90
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

PROPELLER BLADE SPINDLE TORQUE COEFFICIENT 100CQblade PROPELLER BLADE SPINDLE TORQUE COEFFICIENT 100CQblade
Figure 18 Blade spindle torque coefficient CQblade at vari- Figure 20 Blade spindle torque coefficient CQblade at vari-
ous pitch settings for propeller C4-40 with design pitch ous pitch settings for propeller C4-40 with design pitch
ratio P0.7R/D=1.0. ratio P0.7R/D=1.4.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank all participants in The Wageningen C-
and D-Series Propellers JIP: Advance Gearbox, Andritz
(Escher Wyss), Bluewater, Bruntons Propellers (Stone
Marine), Brunvoll, Caterpillar (Berg Propulsion),
CSDDC, CSSRC, Damen, DNV, DSME, GL-Group (Fu-
tureShip), Hundested, Hyundai, Kamome, Kawasaki,
MAN, MARIN, Nakashima, NGC, Niigata, Rolls-Royce,
Royal Netherlands Navy, Scana Volda, SMERI, SMMC,
TU Delft, Wrtsil and ZF Marine. In addition, this JIP is
also supported by UDP-JIP, SPA-JIP and STA-JIP.
9. REFERENCES
1. G. Kuiper, The Wageningen Propeller Se-
ries, MARIN Publication 92-001, pub-
lished on the occasion of its 60th anniver-
sary, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 1992.
2. W.P.A. van Lammeren, Resultaten van
Systematische Proeven met Vrij-varende 4-
bladige Schroeven, type A4.40, Het Schip
18, No. 12 pp. 140-144, N.S.M.B. publica-
tion No. 21, 1936.
3. L. Troost, Open water Test Series with
Modern Propeller Forms, Transactions of
North East Coast Institute of Engineers and
Shipbuilders, pp. 321, N.S.M.B. publication
No. 33, 1938.
4. L. Troost, Open water Test Series with
Modern Propeller Forms, Part 2, Transac-
tions of North East Coast Institute of Engi-
neers and Shipbuilders, pp. 91, N.S.M.B.
publication No. 42, 1940
5. W.P.A. van Lammeren, J.D. van Manen
and M.W.C. Oosterveld, The Wageningen
B-screw Series, Transactions of SNAME,
Vol. 77, pp. 269-317, 1969.
6. W.P.A. van Lammeren, J.D. van Manen
and M.W.C. Oosterveld, The Wageningen
B-screw Series, Schip en Werf, No. 5, pp.
88-103 and No. 6 pp. 115-124, 1970.
7. J.D. van Manen, Open Water Test Series
with Propellers in Nozzle, International
Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 1, 1954.
8. M.W.C. Oosterveld, Wake Adapted
Ducted Propellers, Thesis of Technical
University Delft, N.S.M.B. Publication No.
345, 1970.
9. D.W. Taylor, The Speed and Power of
Ship, Second edition, 1953.
10. R.W.L. Gawn, Effect of Pitch and Blade
Width on Propeller Performance, Transac-
tions RINA, 1952.
11. A. Yazaki, Design Diagrams of Modern
Four, Five, Six and Seven-bladed Propellers
Developed in Japan, 4th Naval Hydrody-
namics Symposium, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington DC, USA, 1962.
12. H. Lindgren, Model Tests with A Family
of Three and Five Bladed Propellers,
SSPA paper No. 47, Gteborg, Sweden,
1961.
13. H. Lindgren and E. Bjrne, The SSPA
Standard Propeller Family - Open Water
Characteristics, Gteborg, Akademifor-
laget/Gumperts, 1967.
14. MARIN, Vier_kwadrant Vrijvarende-
Schoef-Karacteristieken voor B-series
Schroeven, Fourier-Reeks Ontwikkeling en
Operationeel Gebruik, 1984.
15. G.A. Hampton, Four Quadrant Open Wa-
ter Characteristics of Controllable Pitch
Propeller 4739 Designed for LSD-41
(Model 5367), DTNSRDC/SPD-0049-12,
1980.
16. C.G. Queen Four Quadrant Open Water
Characteristics of Controllable Pitch Pro-
peller 4837 Designed for MCM (Model
5401), DTNSRDC/SPD-0983-04, 1981.
17. R.F. Roddy, D.E. Hess and W. Faller,
Neural Network Predictions of the 4-
Quadrant Wageningen Propeller Series,
NSWCCD-50-TR-2006/004, April, West
Bethesda, Maryland, 2006.
18. A. Yazaki, Design Diagrams of Four-
Bladed Controllable-Pitch Propellers,
Journal of Zosen Kyokai, Vol. 112, No-
vember, 1962.
19. C. Chu, Z.L. Chan, Y.S. She and V.Z.
Yuan, The 3-bladed JD-CPP series Part
1, Proceedings of the 4th LIPS Propeller
Symposium, Drunen, The Netherlands,
1979.
20. C. Pronk, Blade Spindle Torque and Off-
Design Behaviour of Controllable Pitch
Propellers, Dissertation to the Technical
University Delft, The Netherlands, 1980.
21. M. Ito, S. Yamasaki, M. Oku, H. Koizuka,
M. Tamashima, and M. Ogura, An Ex-
perimental Study of Flow Around CPP
Blade (3rd Report): Measurement of CPP
Blade Spindle Torque, Journal of the Kan-
sai Society of Naval Architects, No. 192,
pp.81-91, 1984.
22. S. Jessup, M. Donnelly, I. McClintock and
S. Carpenter, Measurements of Controlla-
ble Pitch Propeller Blade Loads under
Cavitating Conditions, Proceedings of the
First International Symposium on Marine
Propulsors, Trondheim, Norway, June,
2009.
23. J. Dang, J. Brouwer, R. Bosman and C.
Pouw, Quasi-Steady Two-Quadrant Open
Water Tests for the Wageningen Propeller
C- and D-Series, proceedings of the 29th
ONR, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August,
2012.