Presentation in Skibsteknisk Selskab

12 November 2012

Evaluation of Fuel Saving

Devices
Claus D. Simonsen,
FORCE Technology, Denmark

www.force.dk
Overview of presentation

• Background, motivation, approach and method

• Study of potential power saving between a

conventional rudder-propeller configuration and a
PROMAS solution

• Study of the influence of distance between rudder

and propeller on propulsive power

• Study of the influence of rudder type on propulsive

power and rudder steering force

• Study of potential power saving when adding pre-

swirl devices to conventional rudder propeller config

• Summary and conclusion

Background

• The project is run under the Danish Centre for

Maritime Technology (DCMT). Sponsored in parts by
the Danish Maritime Foundation through DCMT

• FORCE has conducted the hydrodynamic study

based on CFD modelling of the flow around ship
plus the model testing required for validation of the
computations.

• Grontmij | Carl Bro has provided the considered hull

form with the initial or base propulsion system.
Rolls Royce in Denmark has provided a PROMAS
design and Becker Marine Systems in Germany has
provided two different rudder designs.

• Reports describing the work in more detail are

posted on the DCMT website
 Motivation

• One possible way for ship owners to save fuel is to equip their ships with fuel
saving devices, in terms of rudder, propeller and flow guide designs that are
more efficient than conventional rudder-propeller configurations

• New devices can either be retro fitted to existing ships or applied on new
buildings. In both cases it is interesting to rank their performance and know
how much the device can save in order judge the ROI or payback time for
the new device.

• Therefore, it is important to be able to quantify the performance of the

conventional and new devices on the ship of interest

• The most commonly used method for checking hull-propeller configurations

is self-propulsion test conducted in the towing tank.
 Motivation

• However, model testing is costly with several rudder-propeller configurations,

particularly for retro fitting where the hull model typically is not available.

• So, idea is to investigate if CFD can be used for evaluation of different

rudder-propeller geometries behind the same hull.

• The goal is to check how accurate CFD can predict the performance of the
individual devices compared to model testing, i.e. predict for instance
propeller thrust, torque and power.

• But, also to investigate the potential power savings of different devices

• Additional advantage of CFD is the detailed information it provides about the

flow field. This information can potentially be used to study the flow physics
in the stern region and to understand the principles of the device.
 Approach

• The project focuses on the geometry of a 180m bulk carrier fitted with
different rudder-propeller devices

• To model the fully appended ship with propeller the following approach is
applied:
–First models of the considered propellers in open water configuration are made
–Second a model of the bare hull was made to check resistance
–Third models of hull with different rudders and propellers are made using the
knowledge about the propeller model from the open-water test

• Both open water, resistance and “in behind ship” conditions are compared
with data measured in the towing tank

• Focus in this presentation is on the “in behind ship” conditions

Method

• All simulations are done with RANS CFD code

STAR-CCM+

• Meshing
–Surface wrapper + re-mesher
–Trimmed/polyhedral mesh approach
–Prism layers meshing in boundary layer
–Zonal refinements

• Physics modeling
–Segregated flow
–VOF model for free surface modeling
–Steady and transient calculations depending on model
–RBM used in connection with the propeller model
–Sliding interfaces used for rotating propeller
–k-ω SST turbulence model, all Y+ treatment
Study of conventional vs.
PROMAS solution

• Two rudder-propeller configurations investigated,

“as built” and PROMAS

• Focus on self-propulsion condition. Speed same

as model test. Propeller revolutions found from
CFD solution

• Calculations done for a 7.45m scale model at:

–Froude number equal to 0.173
Study of conventional vs.
PROMAS solution

• Self-propulsion approach similar to the one used

in towing tank, i.e. based on two points: one
RPM above and one below self-propulsion point

• Mesh resolution kept as similar as possible

between configurations

• Original propeller results computed and

measured:
Self prop CFD:
Speed Thrust [N] Torque [Nm] RPM [rpm] P [W]
1.479 43.59 1.28 554.62 74.55
Self prop EXP:
Speed Thrust [N] Torque [Nm] RPM [rpm] P [W]
1.479 44.34 1.33 572.55 79.74
Difference in %:
Thrust Torque RPM P [W]
-1.70 -3.49 -3.13 -6.51
Study of conventional vs.
PROMAS solution

• PROMAS results computed and measured:

Self prop CFD:
Speed Thrust [N] Torque [Nm] RPM [rpm] P [W]
1.479 43.56 1.23 548.74 70.78
Self prop EXP:
Speed Thrust [N] Torque [Nm] RPM [rpm] P [W]
1.479 44.07 1.32 558.01 77.33
Difference in %:
Thrust Torque RPM P [W]
-1.16 -6.92 -1.66 -8.46

• EFD and CFD based power reduction

CFD EXP
% change in P -5.06 -3.03
Study of conventional vs.
PROMAS solution

• On flow field level typical flow features are

observed:

- Low pressure on suction side of propeller

- High pressure on pressure side of propeller
- High blade load in upper position (12 o’clock)
- Higher blade load on starboard side compared
to port side due to wake cross flow direction
and rotational direction of propeller
- Asymmetric pressure signature of propeller swirl
on rudder
Study of conventional vs.
PROMAS solution

• Reduction of power is most likely due to

reduction of hub vortex, which is significantly
reduced with the PROMAS solution

• But, the PROMAS rudder leading edge is also

located closer to the propeller compared to the
original rudder. As shown on the following slides
this may also reduce the power.
 Rudder-propeller distance
study

• A study of the rudder-propeller distance has been

conducted with two different rudders

• The original horn rudder (ORIG) is compared with

a low drag NACA spade rudder at three positions:
original position (BASE) and original position plus
20 and 40mm forward in model scale
ORIG (BASE pos)
• Focus on self-propulsion condition. Speed and
propeller revolutions are taken directly from the
NACA (BASE pos)
model test
Rudder-propeller distance
study

• Results for original propeller

ORIG:
EFD CFD
C/D= 45.5% Rudder C/D (%) RPM T (N) Q (Nm) T (N) Q (Nm)
ORIG 45.5 565.4 42.78 1.333 45.63 1.348
ORIG 37.1 559.2 42.22 1.318 44.87 1.319
ORIG 28.6 559.3 42.97 1.331 45.89 1.339

• Results for NACA rudder

C/D=37.1%
EFD CFD
Rudder C/D (%) RPM T (N) Q (Nm) T (N) Q (Nm)
NACA 44.1 563.4 41.66 1.330 44.80 1.327
NACA 35.7 560.7 41.75 1.323 44.75 1.320
NACA 27.2 557.3 41.95 1.319 44.85 1.314

C/D=28.6%
• Thrust and torque are predicted within a
maximum of 7.5% and 1.1%, respectively, of the
measured values
Rudder-propeller distance
study

• The power seems to depend on the distance between rudder LE and

propeller
• Rudders show different behaviour
• Good agreement between EFD and CFD (P predicted within 1% )
Rudder-propeller distance
study

• Moving the rudder closer to the propeller seems to reduce the power with
around 2.5% for original rudder and 2.0% for the NACA rudder relative to
the base position
• Original rudder has optimum position at mid position, while NACA rudder
has maximum saving closest to the propeller
• CFD predict the trend and the actual power saving quite well
ORIG NACA
Rudder type study

• From the above study it seemed that the rudder type influenced the
propulsive power
• If that is the case it is relevant to check if the manoeuvrability is
influenced by changing rudder
• To get an idea about the manoeuvrability it was decided to determine the
rudder side forces of the different rudders at specified rudder angles
• If the side force is similar to the side force of the original rudder at a given
rudder angle it is assumed that the manoeuvrability is maintained
• The distance study was made with rudders at zero rudder angle and with
rudder, horn and head boxes in one part.
• Steerable rudders were made for the original rudder, the NACA rudder plus
an additional flap rudder
Rudder type study

• A new self-propulsion test at zero rudder angle plus steering force

measurements (±10,20,30 deg.) were made in the towing tank with the
rudder stock in the base position
• Based on the measured self-propulsion points the power was computed
again

EFD
Rudder C/D (%) RPM T (N) Q (Nm) P (W)
ORIG 45.5 564.8 42.42 1.352 80.0
NACA 44.1 563.7 42.27 1.355 80.0
FLAP 38.4 565.6 42.38 1.348 79.9

• Power for original and NACA rudders has increased compared to position
study plus all three rudders gives same power.
• Possible reason is inclusion of gaps between movable parts
Rudder type study

• Concerning the steering forces computation were made ±20 deg. and
compared with the measured data
• NACA rudder generally gives smaller steering force than original rudder
• For angles between -10 and 20 deg. flap rudder lifts more, but stalls due
to high flap angle. (missing measurement for -20 and -30 deg)
• Important to be aware of this even if power is the same
Rudder type study

• Good agreement between measurement and computation for the steering

force, indicating that CFD can address this issue in connection with
evaluation of fuel saving devices

Angle Flap NACA ORIG

deg. diff % D diff % D diff % D
-20 - 2.4 4.7
20 -5.5 -5.7 -0.3
Pre-swirl stator fins

• Last study covers the effect of pre-swirl stator fins

• Pre-swirl stators are included to change the propeller inflow
• Depending rotational direction of the propeller the stator fins will increase
the cross flow where the blade moves downwards and decrease the cross
flow where the blades move upwards. The result is changed loading of the
propeller
Pre-swirl stator fins

• The original rudder propeller configuration was equipped with stator fins
• More fins are required to deflect the propeller inflow and reduce the
strong upward cross flow in the wake on port side than to increase it on
starboard side
• Fins gives additional drag so the numbers of fins should be as low as
possible
Pre-swirl stator fins

• Only a limited study was performed with fins, i.e. only computations have
been performed. No measurements were made to generate data for
validation.

RPM Q P
Configuration (rpm) (Nm) (W)
ORIG w/o fin 559.5 1.315 77.02
ORIG w fin, -2 deg 552.9 1.312 75.94
ORIG w fin, 0 deg 550.4 1.313 75.66
ORIG w fin, +2 deg 550.5 1.327 76.51

• The considered fin configuration gives a maximum power saving of 1.8%

at the considered speed
• Performance may vary with speed and ship type and fins need fine tuning
to avoid fin separation and improve performance
• Structural aspects must be considered
Summary and conclusion

• Different fuel saving devices have been simulated with RANS CFD and
results are compared with towing tank data
• The PROMAS solution shows a reduction in power for the considered
ship
• Distance between LE of rudder and propeller influences the power.
Smaller distance results in reduced power
• Different rudders without gaps influences the power
• With gaps the power difference is reduced, but the steering ability
varies
• Pre swirl stators can reduce the power, but needs fine tuning to work
efficiently
• CFD is generally able to rank fuel saving devices and give the trend in the
power change. In absolute terms there is a tendency for CFD to slightly
over predict the savings, but it is still possible to get a fairly good idea
about the saving potential of a fuel saving device
Questions?

Thank you for your attention!

Questions?