See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235935061

Performance Prediction of a Nozzle Propeller

Conference Paper · August 2012

CITATION READS
1 1,175

3 authors:

Liming Xia Johan T.E. Lundberg

Peraglobal Rolls-Royce AB
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    4 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rickard E. Bensow
Chalmers University of Technology
176 PUBLICATIONS   1,349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RoughProp, Tip vortex mitigation by roughness! View project

Ph.D. Thesis: Numerical Analysis of Pump Installations for Marine Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rickard E. Bensow on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

Performance Prediction of a Nozzle Propeller

L. Xia1, J. Lundberg2, R.E. Bensow1
(1Chalmers University of Technology, 2Rolls-Royce Hydrodynamic Research
Centre)

Abstract propeller open water characteristics and cavitation

behaviour. Finally, simulating the effect of cavitation
Nozzle, or ducted, propellers are most commonly
on a propeller is not yet a mature technology.
used when high efficiency is required at low speed of
This paper intends to investigate common
the vessel. However, normally with a nozzle fitted
industrial methods of predicting a nozzle propeller’s
that accelerates propeller inflow, its blades take a
performance both in fully wetted open water and in a
larger risk of cavitation. This paper examines the
gradually cavitating state. Reynolds-averaged Navier-
performance of a nozzle propeller configuration in
Stokes Computational Fluid Dynamics (RANS CFD)
terms of open water and thrust breakdown
and Experimental Fluid Dynamics (EFD) methods
characteristics by both experimental and conventional
have been examined. CFD results were analyzed
RANS CFD methods. Combining the merits of EFD
against tunnel test results made at Rolls-Royce
and CFD, the results reveal some promising features
Hydrodynamic Research Centre (RRHRC)
as well as challenges in performance predictions of
Kristinehamn, Sweden. Accuracy and limitations of
nozzle propellers.
these methods were studied.

Introduction
Experimental results
Nozzle, or ducted, propellers are most commonly
used when high efficiency is required at low speed of
Geometric representation
the vessel, typically for tug boats or certain types of
A four-bladed propeller with a full scale diameter of
off-shore vessels. An accelerating nozzle, which will
6000 mm, as shown in Figure 1, was provided in
contribute to the total thrust at low speed, is then
model scale (229.7 mm in diameter) by the RRHRC.
fitted around the propeller (Tornblad, 1993).
Around the propeller a nozzle was mounted with a tip
However, by increasing the inflow velocity to the
clearance of 25 mm (~1 mm in model scale). One
propeller, the pressure around the propeller is
special feature of this nozzle is the elevated trailing
lowered which increases the risk of cavitation. One
edge with enlarged radius, which is a common
positive effect of the nozzle is to suppress the
compromise when performance in astern operation
formation of blade tip vortices thus also reducing
needs to be accounted for. Hydrodynamically, this
some further losses.
means that a noticeable recirculation zone can be
These effects form several challenges when
seen in some conditions, where the forces and
analysing nozzle propellers by CFD, Computational
circulation on the nozzle might significantly
Fluid Dynamics. Firstly, the relative motion between
influence the interaction with propeller and thus the
the propeller and the nozzle needs to be considered.
propulsion unit (Oosterveld, 1970).
Secondly, interaction between nozzle wake and
propeller slipstream as well as tip vortices affects
Test facilities
performance of the assembly. Thirdly, the small tip
RRHRC has two cavitation tunnels: one free surface
gap between the propeller and the nozzle, together
tunnel and one conventional closed section tunnel. In
with high skew and sweep of today’s marine
this project, propeller characteristics are mapped in
propellers, makes the meshing procedure difficult. A
open water tests by the closed section tunnel (T-32).
good mesh quality and resolution in this region is
In the free surface tunnel (T-31) propellers
crucial to correctly capture the tip vortex, an
are tested in a simulated wake field behind an after-
important feature to predict in order to assess both the
body ship dummy. Cavitation, pressure pulses and

Figure 1: Propeller Geometry
Figure 2: Nozzle geometry
Figure 3: Model test setup in RRHRC T-32
cavitation tunnel
propeller noise are measured for propellers with
highest comfort and noise requirements for the world
cruise fleet and naval vessels. The free surface tunnel
is also an ideal test facility to test waterjet units. Here
the water is sucked through the inlet from below the
hull and expelled above the water surface through the
vessel transom, still within the depressurized
cavitation tunnel. The efficiency of the waterjet unit
is measured as well as pressure and flow distributions
with the objective of mapping the internal forces and
loads within the unit. Also, hydrodynamic
characteristics of azimuth thrusters, PODs and tunnel
thrusters have been developed in these cavitation
tunnels.
29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012
A comprehensive range of test equipment is
available, including in-house made multi-component
dynamometers measuring propeller, pump, blade,
rudder and nozzle steady and unsteady forces.
Equipment is available for measuring and analysing
pressure pulses and hydroacoustic noise. Laser
Doppler Anemometry (LDA) as well as pitot tubes
are used for water velocity measurements.
Test contents and uncertainties
A series of tunnel tests have been carried out in
HRC’s T-32 cavitation tunnel. The test section has
the dimensions of 800 x 800 mm. The objectives of
the model tests were to produce data including:
Ÿ Open water characteristic (KTP, KTT,, KQ and
η at pressure-elevated condition and
depressurised conditions).
Ÿ Thrust breakdown curves (KTP, KTT as
function of σ).
Ÿ Picture and video of cavitation pattern both
at pressure side and suction side.
Ÿ Propeller induced velocity field.
Figure 3 visualizes the model test setup in the tunnel
T-32, where the shaft is upstream of the propeller
(water inlet at the left side). A dynamometer is placed
close above the nozzle at the end-plate of the stay.
The dynamometer is covered by a shield mounted
with a small gap close up the nozzle. This
methodology gives separated nozzle forces into the
nozzle dynamometer. Transversal structures support
the nozzle from below to avoid excessive transversal
vibration through critical tunnel velocities.
To analyse the induced velocity field LDA
measurements were made at Section1, 50.2 mm
upstream the nozzle leading edge and Section2, 15
mm downstream the trailing edge, see Figure 3.
Uncertainties, represented from a bottom up
perspective, of measured non-dimensional force-
coefficients are a function of tunnel operating
condition and sensor designs. The model test
uncertainties are estimated, specific for this
geometrical model setup, based on 95 % probability
and measured interval of J=0.33 to 0.85. Figure 4.
We, naturally, find increased uncertainties for high J-
values as an effect of decreased levels of measured
forces. Moreover, the uncertainties increase also for
low J-value, but now the reason is that since the
propeller and nozzle induced forces increase a lower
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

Measurement of total efficiency tunnel water velocity is needed to avoid overloaded

0,6 6
dynamometers. At J=0.44 one can therefore observe
a jump in uncertainty caused by a step change in

Uncertainty in Eta_tot ± (%)

0,5 5

0,4 4 tunnel water velocity. There is no linear correlation

Eta_tot (---)

Eta_tot (---) Uncertainty in Eta_tot (%)

0,3 3 between the estimated relative uncertainties and J-
0,2 2
value. At zero thrust-coefficient, which appears
0,1 1
approximately at J~0.85, the relative uncertainties
0,0 0
therefore reach infinity.
0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 Contributing factors included in the
J (---)
estimations are dynamometers, water density,
Measurement of propeller torque rotational speed, propeller diameter, tunnel pressure
0,06 6
and velocity.
KQ (---) Uncertainty in KQ (%)
0,05 5 The open water characteristics as well as

Uncertainty in KQ ± (%)
0,04 4 LDA measurements will be presented together with
CFD predictions
KQ (---)

0,03 3

0,02 2

0,01 1

0,00 0
Numerical predictions
0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90
J (---)
Meshing methodology
Measurement of propeller thrust The complex geometries gives difficulties in meshing,
0,6 6
especially the combination of small tip clearance and
high blade skewness. Given the pros and cons of
Uncertainty in KT_prop ± (%)

0,5 5

KT_prop (---) Uncertainty in KT_prop (%)

0,4 4 different mesh topologies (Ferziger, and Perić, 2002),
KT_prop (---)

0,3 3 a block-structured grid and an unstructured one were

0,2 2
used and compared.
0,1 1
The complete computational domain is
shown in Figure 9. In contrast to the test section, it is
0,0 0

0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 designed to simulate an open environment;
J (---)
complexities such as hub gaps and boss cap were
Measurement of total thrust
removed as well as the nozzle support in the belief
0,6 6
that these discrepancies were of minor effects. The
KT_tot (---) Uncertainty in KT_tot (%)
complete domain is then split into two, with a smaller
Uncertainty in KT_tot ± (%)

0,5 5

0,4 4 section around the propeller, with upstream and

KT_tot (---)

0,3 3
downstream boundaries just aft and fore of the nozzle
0,2 2
leading and trailing edges respectively. This is done
in order to handle the rotation of the propeller relative
0,1 1

to the nozzle either by an MRF, Multiple Frame of

0,0 0

0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 Reference, or a sliding mesh approach. In general, the
J (---)
two meshes were designed to have a wall y+ value in
the range of 30~60 so that they were suitable for
Figure 4: Total relative uncertainties of efficiency, RANS computation with wall functions.
thrust and torque coefficient The block-structured blade mesh, denoted
Grid 1 hereafter, was built by a Rolls-Royce in-house
meshing code called PADRAM (PArametric Design
and RApid Meshing system), and joined into the
outer, also block-structured, computational domain
created in Gridgen by Pointwise®. Figure 5 shows
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

one of the 2-D sections of the PADRAM mesh,

Figure 5: A 2-D section of PADRAM blade mesh
blocked in a conventional way; a number of these
sections are then stacked up by a radial distribution
function to form the complete blade mesh as shown
in Figure 6.
The unstructured mesh, denoted Grid 2
hereafter, were generated by using Pointwise® T-Rex
technique. It resolves the near wall flow while the
compatibility of tetrahedron cells to incorporate
complex geometries is maintained (Steinbrenner and
Abelanet, 2007). Wall-adjacent tetrahedrons
presented in Figure 8 were, in a later stage, merged
into prismatic layers.

Figure 8 Vertical slices of Anisotropic Tetrahedral

mesh in tip-gap region (Grid2)

Figure 6: Blade mesh in Grid 1

Figure 9: Computational domain

Table 1: Summary of grid sizes

Grid Rotational Stationary Total
domain domain
Grid 1 4.5M 11M 15.5M
Figure 7: Blade mesh, Grid2
Grid 2 8.5M 8M 16.5M
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

Simulation of open water characteristics

The open water characteristics were computed using
FLUENT 14’s coupled solver. Rotational movements
were handled by multiple reference frame (MRF)
technique. Re-Normalisation Group (RNG) k-ε
turbulence model was considered a good compromise
between computational cost and accuracy for this
specific situation where the rapid strain rate and
highly swirling flow must be considered, especially
in the tip region (Andersson et al., 2010; Xia, 2011).
Figure 10: Open water characteristics The open water characteristics of Total
Thrust (KTT), Propeller Thrust (KTP), Torque KQ and
Efficiency (Eta) are shown in Figure 10. The
Coefficients are computed at 5 advance ratios (J):
J=0.15, 0.35 0.5, 0.65 and 0.8. The J-values are
compensated for the boundary layer development
along the upstream shaft. Simulations show good
agreement at low and intermediate J-value, but show
increased discrepancy after passing the efficiency
maximum. Corresponding relative deviation from
experiments are summarized in Table 2. In addition,
another important character of nozzle propellers,
Figure 11: Nozzle thrust ratio nozzle thrust ratio τ,  defined as  
Table 2: Relative deviations from tunnel test
  , (1)
Grid1 is plotted in Figure 11.
J KTT KTP KQ η Figure 11 suggests the severe deviation at
0.35 0.6% 1.0% -0.2% 1.3% high J-values between CFD simulations and tunnel
0.5 2.9% 2.6% 1.0% 1.4% test can be related to an incorrect nozzle thrust, since
it is clearly seen that the nozzle continues to produce
0.65 9.3% 8.9% 9.0% 0.5%
thrust in simulations while this thrust is lost much
0.8 108.9% 50.6% 35.3% 56.8% earlier in the tunnel test. Given that an enlarged
Grid2 nozzle trailing edge was featured, the discrepancy is
J KTT KTP KQ η believed to be strongly affected by the flow
0.35 3.1% 5.6% 4.1% -0.3% separation level at the trailing edge of the nozzle. The
separation point, especially at the outside of the
0.5 0.9% 0.8% 1.8% -1.0%
nozzle, is Re-number dependent in experiments.
0.65 12.3% 10.3% 10.3% 1.5%
Comparisons of normalized computed wake
0.8 126.4% 58.6% 41.7% 62.0% profile with that from LDA measurements were
carried out at J=0.65 where the deviation in thrust
ratio commences, and are presented in Figure 12. It is
observed that the flow separation level was greatly
under-predicted. CFD-predicted location as well as
strength of separation results in an attached but
incorrect flow around the nozzle, thus the nozzle
loses its thrust in a much slower way. One can note
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

that this would produce different values of circulation

around the duct and consequently also shift the
propeller’s operation condition (Oosterveld, 1970).
In general, CFD results with different grid
were relatively close to each other, however with
distinctive difference in the wake fields, as visualized
in Figure 13. The block-structured grid, contrary to
r'=r/D

its counterpart, displays a propagating vortex system

as well as a contraction in the slipstream. This is
nozzle  TE   believed to be a consequence of meshing
methodology and cell distribution, and is expected to
differ in transient computations.

Simulation of thrust break-down

In consideration of computational cost and the
expected extent of cavitation, the mixture multiphase
V=Vx/V0 approach (Andersson et al., 2010), together with the
LDV Grid1 Grid2
Schnerr and Sauer mass transfer model (Sauer and
Schnerr, 2001), was chosen. Integrated forces were
Figure 12: Normalized wake velocity profile at recorded during a procedure of decreasing the
Section 2, J~0.65 cavitation number, σ, by gradually adjusting the
vaporization pressure in the cavitation model, instead
G of decreasing the reference pressure as is done in
rid1 experiments.
We’ve here only performed computations on
Grid 2. The open water performance were
comparable, but the mesh in the gap region show a
higher quality and the meshing procedure to handle
the gap is less cumbersome using the Pointwise® T-
Rex meshing approach.
G The thrust breakdown curves for the
rid2 simulations and the experiments are shown in Figure
14. Measurements were performed only for three
points, σ=8, 6, and 4, while CFD was performed for
every 0.5 value of σ between 4 and 7.5, as well as for
σ=10. It can be noted in Figure 14 that the resulting
simulated thrust display a significant rising thrust
before breakdown starts. This rise is mainly
concentrated to σ-values between 8 and 6, with the
peak occurring at σ = 7, and thus happens in between
Figure 13: Axial velocity distribution in the wake measurement points so it’s not captured in the tunnel
with visualization of vortices, J=0.65 test. There is a small indication of increased
measured thrust of the propeller at σ = 8 but not on
the nozzle. However, already at this σ the simulated
thrust is overpredicted; possible reasons for this
discrepancy will be discussed in the following
paragraphs. We note though the fast decrease of
thrust appear to happen at similar σ-values in both
experiments and simulations.
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

Figure 15 demonstrates the cavitation

pattern at σ=4 in both CFD and experimental
environment. Similar locations of cavitation inception
normalized  thrust    
CFD,
K+  
were observed at blade leading edge (LE), trailing
HRC
,K+   edge (TE), tip and rear part of root radii.
CFD,   Together with Figure 16, one can note a
Ktp  
HRC clear shift of stagnation points at LE as well as large
,Ktp   extent of change in pressure distribution and flow
separation caused by the cavitation. This strongly
affects the propeller performance.
σ In the simulation, the visualized cavities at
the tip-gap region appear not to be attached to the
Figure 14: Thrust break down curves, normalized by nozzle shroud. If this is a correct physical behaviour
respective open water thrust or not cannot be deduced from the present
experiments, and to design an experiment to
determine this will indeed form a difficult task.
We also note that the absolute velocity in the
gap is low which indicates a decrease in the overflow
from pressure side to suction side. This increases the
pressure difference and thereby the thrust from the
blade (Figure 19 and Figure 20). This is a plausible
effect, and would be even more exaggerated if the
cavity was attached to the shroud.
The sheet cavity that covers the outer part of
the suction side of the propeller blade changes the
effective blade profile and “camber” of the blade, as
can seen from the streamlines plotted in Figure 17
and Figure 18. This is also represented through a
change in stagnation point moving from the very
outer leading edge toward the pressure side of the
blade (Figure 16). This will also effectively increase
the thrust in cavitating conditions.
Another behaviour observed in simulations
is the apparent disappearance of the tip vortex, energy
contained in which was consequently recovered or
not lost, Figure 21, once again increasing the thrust.
We note here first the purely numerical artefact of the
tip vortex being lost across the MRF interface,
perhaps most clearly seen in Figure 15 where the
cavitating trailing structure is suddenly cut off. But
more interesting is that the sheet cavity at the blade
tip seems to prevent the overflow from pressure to
suction side to form a tip vortex, Figure 20&21, or at
Figure 15: Cavitation pattern at σ=4, vapour fraction least greatly reduce its strength.
α=0.95 There seem thus to be several factors that
indicate that the increase in KT and KQ close to σ=7,
as seen in Figure 14, should occur. However, CFD
probably overestimates this hump. The flow in this
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

σ No   σ No
=4 Cavitation =7 Cavitation

σ
=4

Figure 16: Pressure distribution and surface Figure 19: Pressure distribution across the tip gap
streamlines on a blade
σ No
σ No =7 cavitation
=7 cavitation

σ
σ
=4
=4

Figure 20: Absolute velocity vector across the tip

Figure 17: Relative velocity streamlines at 0.95 gap
propeller radius
σ No
σ No =7 cavitation
=7 cavitation

σ
σ
=4
=4

Figure 21: Tip vortex visualized by streamlines,

Figure 18: Relative velocity streamlines at 0.7 velocity swirling strength scale: 0~3e10+3
propeller radius

region and in these conditions is very complex and
challenging from a numerical point of view, due to
both the difficulties in resolving the flow in the tiny
gap region as well as the complexities and
uncertainties involved in cavitating flow modelling.
The fact that we deal with relative motion between
the rotating blade and the stationary shroud further
adds to the challenge.
Summary and Conclusions
The performance of a nozzle propeller has been
analysed through experiments, carried out in the
RRHRC T-32 closed-section cavitation tunnel, and
through CFD, using RANS modelling with a mixture
cavitation modelling approach. The main objectives
were to investigate different computational
procedures to analyse the performance of the
propulsions system and how well they compare with
the standard experimental procedures at RRHRC. In
addition, improved knowledge has been gained of
flow features involved in the performance of a nozzle
propeller.
In summary, the CFD predictions show
agreement in some areas, but also show some
significant discrepancies of which some can be
explained and some not. The open water
characteristics are well predicted in the low to
medium J-range, while for higher J-values, CFD does
not predict the same separation behaviour as the
experiments causing an over predicted thrust and
torque. Regarding the thrust breakdown curves, CFD
results display a trend with an increase in thrust
before breakdown occurs. The analysis shows that
this is qualitatively plausible but can not be verified
due to a lack of measurement points. Even so, the
thrust is probably overpredicted for unknown reasons.
Cavitation inception and extent are fairly well
captured.
In the study two mesh methodologies are
presented, both with strength and weaknesses.
Besides the merits of common structured counterparts
in terms of vortex propagation and stream-wise
discretization, the RR in-house structured
methodology gains smooth cell distribution and a
high degree of mesh control. However, the structured
topology will inevitably lead to a loss of cell quality
and thus reduced discretisation accuracy at the blade
29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012
tip region. The unstructured method is more general
and is known to process the ability of representing
complex geometries and proximities more accurately,
thus the tip-region is treated more efficiently;
moreover this is done with less manual labour and
skill needed. However, it is expected that a
tetrahedral grid will suffer in accuracy in representing
the propeller induced velocity field behind the
propeller. This could be compensated for by a local
increase in grid density in the wake, but at a higher
computational cost. Both meshes produced similar
results with respect to open water characteristics, and
thus for the thrust breakdown study, only the
unstructured mesh was used.
The possibility to combine results based on
true physics in the cavitation tunnel with the
possibilities created by the full access to the flow
field from a CFD solution is very powerful. While the
CFD modelling contains approximations leading to
significant discrepancies in performance predictions
compared with the experiments, the qualitative
analysis of the hydrodynamics gives useful insight
for the designer that would be near impossible to
achieve by experimental techniques only. Future
work includes studying the effects of transitional
modelling and Reynolds number effects in the CFD,
Moreover, performing transient simulations with a
sliding mesh approach are of interest in order to
determine how this affects the wake behaviour and
thus the performance prediction. Experimental
studies should focus on the challenging task to
determine how the cavitating flow influences the
overflow in the tip gap and the formation of the tip
vortex.
Acknowledgement
The authors are especially grateful for the help and
enlightening conversations received from their
colleagues, Anders Kämpeskog (RRHRC), Prof.
Göran Bark (Chalmers), PhD. Wei Zhang (Chalmers)
and PhD. Urban Svennberg (RRHRC), and appreciate
their generosity in sharing their expertise. The work
was performed in collaboration between Rolls-Royce
and Chalmers within the framework of the Rolls-
Royce University Technology Centre in
Computational Hydrodynamics at Chalmers. The
computations were performed on resources provided
 29th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Gothenburg, Sweden, 26-31 August 2012

by RRHRC and the Swedish National Infrastructure

for Computing (SNIC) at C3SE.

References
Andersson, B., et al., Computational Fluid Dynamics
for Chemical Engineers, 6th ed., Gothenburg, 2010.
Bertram, V., Practical Ship Hydrodynamics, Oxford :
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.
Brennen, C. E., Fundamentals of Multiphase Flow,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
Brennen, C. E., Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
d'Agostino, L. and Salvetti, M. V. ed., Fluid
Dynamics of Cavitation and Cavitating Turbopumps,
SpringerWienNewYork, Udine, 2007.
Ferziger, J. H. and Perić, M., Computational Methods
for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd ed., Springer,
Berlin;Heidelberg;New York;Barcelona;Hong
Kong;London;Milan;Paris;Tokyo, 2002.
Hoffmann, K. A. and Chiang, S. T., Computational
Fluid Dynamics, 4th ed., Vol. 3, Engineering
Education System, Wichita, 2000.
Oosterveld, IR.M.W.C.; “Wake Adapted Ducted
Propellers”, 1970, Netherlands Ship Model Basin,
Wageningen.
Sauer J. and Schnerr G.H., “Development of a new
cavitation model based on bubble dynamics”,
Zeitschrift für angewandte mathematik und mechanic,
Vol. 81, 2001, pp. S561 -S562.
Steinbrenner J.P. and Abelanet J.P., “Anisotropic
Tetrahedral Meshing Based on Surface Deformation
Techniques”, AIAA, no. 2007-0554, 2007.
Tornblad, J., Fartygspropellrar och Fartygs Framdrift,
KaMeWa, Kristinehamn, 1993.
Xia L., “Cavitation Investigation of a Nozzle
Propeller”, Aug. 2010, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg.

View publication stats