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

net/publication/257760083

Hydrodynamic efficiency improvement of the High Skew Propeller for the

underwater vehicle under surface and submerged conditions

Article  in  Journal of Ocean University of China · December 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s11802-011-1797-2

CITATIONS READS

5 1,049

2 authors:

Hassan Ghassemi Parviz Ghadimi

Amirkabir University of Technology Amirkabir University of Technology
256 PUBLICATIONS   1,147 CITATIONS    179 PUBLICATIONS   1,344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

problem solving factors View project

‫ ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟‬View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hassan Ghassemi on 23 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research)
DOI 10.1007/s11802-011-1797-2
ISSN 1672-5182, 2011 10 (4): 314-324
http://www.ouc.edu.cn/xbywb/
E-mail:xbywb@ouc.edu.cn

Hydrodynamic Efficiency Improvement of the High Skew

Propeller for the Underwater Vehicle Under Surface
and Submerged Conditions
Hassan Ghassemi*, and Parviz Ghadimi

Department of Marine Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

(Received October 11, 2010; revised January 24, 2011; accepted August 14, 2011)
© Ocean University of China, Science Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Abstract An algorithm based on the Boundary Element Method (BEM) is presented for designing the High Skew Propeller (HSP)
used in an Underwater Vehicle (UV). Since UVs operate under two different kinds of working conditions (i.e. surface and submerged
conditions), the design of such a propeller is an unwieldy task. This is mainly due to the fact that the resistance forces as well as the
vessel efficiency under these conditions are significantly different. Therefore, some factors are necessary for the design of the opti-
mum propeller to utilize the power under the mentioned conditions. The design objectives of the optimum propeller are to obtain the
highest possible thrust and efficiency with the minimum torque. For the current UV, the main dimensions of the propeller are pre-
dicted based on the given required thrust and the defined operating conditions. These dimensions (number of blades, pitch, diameter,
expanded area ratio, thickness and camber) are determined through iterative procedure. Because the propeller operates at the stern of
the UV where the inflow velocity to the propeller is non-uniform, a 5-blade HSP is preferred for running the UV. Finally, the propel-
ler is designed based on the numerical calculations to acquire the improved hydrodynamic efficiency.

Key words underwater vehicle; propeller design factors; high skew propeller; surface and submerged conditions; hydrodynamic
propeller efficiency

the production of the high skew angle of the propeller is

1 Introduction
The most widespread marine propulsion system is a
propeller which works behind an UV in order to over-
come the resistance and generate the required thrust. The
flow entering the propeller is non-uniform and unsteady
due to the existence of a boundary layer and the interac-
tion with other devices such as the hull, bridge and the
hydroplanes. The hydroplanes are installed at the stern
and close to the propeller in the form of a plus (+) mark.
The inflow wake into the propeller is altered by the hy-
droplanes. Therefore, the interaction between the propel-
ler and the hydroplane is of great consequence in the
propeller design. Here, two significant factors should be
noted, one being the choice of the propeller’s blade num-
ber and the other the stern wake flow field of the vessel
that mostly depends on the hull form which mandates
every vessel to adopt its own special wake flow. Another
essential factor in the design of a UV propeller is the
measure of its capability in preventing or diminishing the
cavitation and vibration in order to make the UV un-
traceable. The last factor to be considered is the fact that
* Corresponding author. Tel: 0098-21-64543112
E-mail: gasemi@aut.ac.ir
strongly affected by the appropriateness of the design of a
UV propeller. In view of all the cited important factors, to
achieve a better hydrodynamic performance, the efficient
design of the propeller becomes highly decisive. Predic-
tion or calculation of the performance of the marine pro-
pellers which operate in a non-uniform flow field is a
very important matter for hydrodynamic specialists and
designers, because these calculations and predictions play
important roles in attaining the beneficial design speed of
the vessels. The most important criteria for the propeller
design are the maximum required thrust and efficiency,
minimum torque and the least negative pressure coeffi-
cient to avoid or mitigate cavitation (Breslin and Ander-
sen, 1994; Carlton, 2007; Burcher and Rydill, 1994).
Propeller is a lifting body that generates thrust to over-
come resistance. The major component of the thrust is
from the pressure while the effect of the viscosity is much
less. For this reason, the potential theory may be efficient
for the hydrodynamic analysis of the propeller using the
boundary element method. The full prediction by ana-
lytical means of the viscous boundary layer for a propel-
ler is a very complex procedure, and at the present time
only partial success has been achieved using large com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes. It can be said that
the BEM is efficient and cost-effective for lifting body
 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324 315

analysis in which the pressure term is dominant, while the the boundary element method. Numerical computation
CFD is more acceptable and powerful for the non-lifting comprises the pressure distribution and the propeller hy-
bodies where the viscous term is dominant. drodynamic performance. Here, a parametric study was
During the past two decades many researchers have performed to investigate the effect of some factors that
employed the BEM for the lifting bodies of marine ele- involve the propeller selection, and based on the achieved
ments like propeller, hydrofoil, rudder, submarine hydro- results a proper propeller was selected and analyzed.
plane and fin stabilizer. Hsin et al. (1991) employed this The following sections are organized as follows. Oper-
method for the analysis of HSP. Kinnas and Hsin (1992) ating conditions of the UV are described in Section 2. The
applied the BEM for the analysis of unsteady flow around governing equations of the potential-based BEM is de-
the complex propeller geometry. Kim et al. (2009), through scribed in Section 3. The propeller selection parameters
the usage of the BEM and by refining the geometry of a for the UV are given in Section 4. The numerical results
propeller by revising the blade sections, aligned them are presented in Section 5, and Section 6 is given for the
with surface streamlines and used this model to perform conclusions.
numerical simulations and open water tests and reported
an increase in propeller efficiency. On the other hand,
Benini (2004) illustrated the implementation of the com- 2 Operating Conditions of the UV
bined momentum-blade element theory for the light and Various underwater marine vehicles are known, such as
moderately loaded propellers and showed its relevance to submarine, tourist UV, torpedoes and seabed research UV.
the design and analysis procedure. Karafiath et al. (2001) All of them use the propeller for obtaining forward speed.
adopted the 6-blade skew propeller to improve the hy- Submarine is working under both surface and submerged
drodynamic efficiency for the patrol boat. conditions. When it is running in surface condition, the
In this numerical scheme, in comparison with some total resistance includes wave-making resistance, fric-
other methods (finite difference, finite element or finite tional resistance and form resistance; under submerged
volume), element generation is carried out at the bound- condition, the wave-making resistance disappears. Fig.1
ary of the body, which leads to the reduction of comput- demonstrates typical resistance coefficients for the UV
ing time and costs. Application of this method is not lim- under surface condition.
ited to the fields of hydrodynamics and fluid mechanics,
but it is also utilized in other fields of engineering such as
structural mechanics, dynamics, and vibration. In recent
years, this method has been repeatedly used as a compu-
tational tool for the hydrodynamic analysis of the vessels
and is quite capable of performing flow analysis around
any shape of the body (Felice et al., 2009; Andersen et al.,
2009). BEM is also considered to be an acceptable and
appropriate tool for the design and analysis of the lifting
surfaces such as hydrofoils and propellers. In the analysis
of these bodies, Kutta boundary condition is very impor-
tant. This boundary condition indicates that the pressure
difference at the suction and pressure surfaces of the
trailing edge should be zero.
Using the Greens’ theorem, the velocity potential at
every point can be expressed as an integral equation at all
parts of the boundary and subsequently potential field is Fig.1 Typical resistance coefficients for the UV under
determined at each point. Using this method, the surfaces surface condition.
of the propeller and the trailing sheet vortex surface
(helical for a propeller) are divided into hyperboloid- Total resistance coefficient of the UV is the summation
shaped elements, and by considering a doublet and a of three components as follows:
source at each element and solving the resulting system of
equations, the potential and pressure fields are determined. CT ( Fn , R n ) = CW ( Fn ) + C F ( R n ) + C Form ( Fn , R n ) , (1)
In addition, the thrust and torque of the propeller are cal-
where Fn and Rn are the Froude and Reynolds numbers,
culated.
respectively. Form resistance coefficient is determined by
Procedures and the main tasks involved in this method
include the grid generation (element generation), calcula- CForm=kCF .
tion of the integral influence coefficient of the source and
doublet singularities at every element, simultaneous solu- Therefore, Eq. (1) is defined by
tions of the equations involving the singularity strength, CT=CW+ CF (1+k),
local velocities, total pressure, forces and torques. In this
paper, hydrodynamic analysis and design of the propeller where k is the form factor. For the submarine, this factor
for a UV with a displacement of 120 t is computed using is small because the body is slender and separation flow
316 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324

does not take place. The submarine hull is a non-lifting  Z 

∂  1 1  
body and most resistance is due to viscous term, i.e.  Dij =     +  dS j 
  S B ∂n j  Rijk Rijk
k =1  ′ 

CF (1+k). 
To evaluate the resistance of a UV, several options are  Z  
∂  1 1 
available, i.e. model test, practical regression method and Wijl =   S  +  dS j  . (4)
k =1  W ∂n 
j  Rijk ′ 
Rijk  
 
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It is not our task in 
Z   1 
this article to calculate the resistance of the UV by a nu-  1 
merical method. We employed empirical formulae (ITTC  Sij =   S  +  dS j 
′ 
 k =1 

B
 Rijk Rijk 
formula for frictional and form resistance and the Burcher
and Rydill method for wave-making resistance) to deter- For obtaining the above coefficients, which is actually
mine the total resistance. the evaluation of the integrals, a combination of analytical
Design of the propeller for the UV is difficult due to method and special Gauss Quadrature scheme has been
the different conditions involved, including the surface used (Ghassemi and Kohansal, 2009). This system of
condition affecting the propeller performance. This article equations can be expressed in matrix form as
employed the high skew fixed pitch propeller to improve
hydrodynamic efficiency for the UV under both surface  ∂φ 
[2πI − D]N × N {φ } N ×1 = [ S ]N × N   +
and submerged conditions.  ∂n  N ×1
[W ]N × N {Δφ } N ×1 . (5)
3 Potential-Based BEM
Here, I is unit matrix, D, S and W are full matrixes ob-
Using Greens’ theorem, the integral equation of the tained from Eq. (4). ∂φ / ∂n is known
perturbation velocity potential for a field point p on the r r by the kinematic
boundary condition and equals to −VR n . The Kutta condi-
lifting bodies (like propeller) can be expressed as tion must be employed for determining the unknowns
∂G ∂φ Δφ of the doublet strength for trailing sheet vortex sur-
2π φ ( p ) = S φ (q ) d s −  Gds + face. From Eq. (5), the velocity potential φ is calculated
B ∂ nq S B ∂n
q
at each element. Tangential induced velocity ( ∇φ (or vt ) )
∂G
S
W
Δφ (q)
∂nq
ds , (2) can be determined by the derivative of the velocity poten-
tial. It should be mentioned that since the radial and
chordwise directions on the blade are not orthogonal, an
where
emphasis aspect on the vectors of the velocity in both
1 1 directions should be considered to determine the induced
G= +
R ( p, q ) R ′( p, q ′) tangential velocity. Then, using Bernoulli’s equation be-
tween upstream flow and a point on the propeller surface,
is the Green’s function, R (p, q) is the distance between the pressure distributions can be calculated by the fol-
the singular point p (x, y, z) and the point q (u, v, w), lowing equation:
R ′( p, q ′) is the distance between the singular point p (x,
r r rr
y, z) and the image point q ′(u ′, v ′, w′) . Intrinsic coordi-
nate (u, v, w) is defined for the point q where the integral
(
P = 0.5ρ 2VR vt − vt vt . ) (6)
is calculated. The right hand side of Eq. (2) has three
The pressure coefficient can be expressed as
terms. The first two terms are doublet and source on the
body while the third term is the doublet on the trailing P
CP = , (7)
sheet vortex surface (defined only for lifting bodies). 0.5ρVR2
Under submerged condition, the Green’s function does where
not consider the image body.
For a propeller with Z number of blades, the surface VR 2 = VA2 + (2πrn) 2
covering the blades and the hub is discretized into finite  .
VA = VUV (1 − w)
number of elements (N) over which the potential is solved
at every field point. Discretization of Eq. (2) leads to a
Thrust and torque of the propeller with two compo-
linear system of algebraic equations for the unknown
nents of pressure and friction are expressed as follows:
values of φ follows:
 N
T = Z  Pi nxl ΔSi − TF
N
N N
 ∂φ  N W

2πφi =  Dij (φi ) +  Sij   , +  Wijl (Δφ )i ,
 ∂n  j  i =1
j =1 j =1 j =1 l =1
 N
, (8)
Q = Z P (n z − n y )ΔS + Q
i=1, 2, … , N, (3)   i yi i zi i i F
 i =1
where Sij and Wijl , Dij are the doublet and source coeffi-
cients for element j that act on the control point of ele- where TF and QF are the frictional components of thrust
ment i. These coefficients are expressed as and torque of the propeller, respectively. They are deter-
 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324 317

mined by empirical formulae proposed by ITTC. Table 3 Computed total resistance and effective power of the
Finally, the hydrodynamic coefficients of the propeller UV under surface condition
are determined as follows: Total resistance Effective power
VS (knots) Fn
(kN) (kW)
VA T Q J KT
J= , KT = 2 4 , KQ = 2 5 , η = . (9) 0.5 0.01771 0.053183 0.013679
nD ρn D ρn D 2π KQ 1.0 0.03542 0.188111 0.096764
1.5 0.05313 0.396371 0.305840
2.0 0.07084 0.676370 0.695850
4 Propeller Selection Parameters for 2.5 0.08855 1.026640 1.320258
the UV 3.0 0.10626 1.446528 2.232282
3.5 0.12397 1.937174 3.487689
The UV is a vehicle which operates under two operat- 4.0 0.14168 2.501205 5.146479
ing conditions. Main data of the UV is given in Table 1. 4.5 0.15939 3.141824 7.272694
The first step of the propeller design is the calculation of 5.0 0.17710 3.860537 9.929300
the required thrust for overcoming the resistance force at 5.5 0.194809 4.657787 13.17781
a designed speed. Here, considering the desirable quality 6.0 0.212519 5.541023 17.10181
of the empirical method given by Burcher and Rydill 6.5 0.230229 6.525276 21.81791
7.0 0.247939 7.633438 27.48648
(1994) mentioned in Section 2, the vessel resistance was
7.5 0.265649 8.891354 34.30285
calculated and subsequently used for computation of the
2 8.0 0.283359 10.30260 42.39726
total resistance force ( RT = 0.5 ρ CT VUV S wet ) and total 8.5 0.301069 11.85686 51.84292
effective power ( PE = RT VUV ) . This was done at differ- 9.0 0.318779 13.54635 62.71417
ent velocities ranging from 1 to 10 knots and for both the 9.5 0.336489 15.36006 75.06155
submerged and surface (partially submerged) conditions. 10.0 0.354199 17.28024 88.88953
Computed results are given in Tables 2 and 3. Subse-
quently, for the determination of the propeller’s parame- 4.1 Effect of the Blade Number
ters, a parametric study was performed in order to exam-
Generally, the number of the propeller blades of a ma-
ine their effects. These parameters included the number of
rine vehicle ranges from 3 to 7 (3≤Z≤7). The number of
blades, main diameter, pitch ratio, expanded area ratio,
the propeller blades in an underwater vehicle which pos-
skew angle and the blade profile and cross-section.
sesses 4 hydroplanes (2 vertical and 2 horizontal) is re-
Table 1 Main data of the UV stricted to be odd because it has been proved to produce
Parameter Value the least reaction. A 4-blade propeller may not be ac-
cepted because in each rotational cycle, each of the 4
Length-diameter ratio 6.14
Span-chord ratio of hydroplane 1.125
blades is exposed to hydroplanes wake flow simultane-
Hydroplane section NACA0010 ously and as a result the oscillation of the generated thrust
Displacement in fully submerged would be severely high. Accordingly, the blades number
120
condition (ton) could be selected from 3, 5 or 7. The propeller with 7
Table 2 Computed total resistance and effective power of the
blades has high costs and high possibility of torque gen-
UV under fully immersed condition eration; with the 3 blades the possibility of cavitation
occurrence is high; so the best selection is a propeller
Total resistance Effective power
VS (knots) Fn with 5 blades which could provide desirable hydrody-
(kN) (kW)
namic performance.
0.5 0.01771 0.053183 0.013679
1.0 0.03542 0.188104 0.096761
1.5 0.05313 0.395606 0.305250 4.2 Effect of Skew Angle
2.0 0.07084 0.671633 0.690976 In recent years, skew propeller has been enormously
2.5 0.08855 1.013587 1.303473 exploited in UVs and appropriate results have been ob-
3.0 0.10626 1.419581 2.190697 served. Skew angle is like the sweep angle in the hydro-
3.5 0.12397 1.888145 3.399416
foils which is basically the angle that the UV makes with
4.0 0.14168 2.418084 4.975450
4.5 0.15939 3.008397 6.963837
the flow direction so that the entry flow would be gradu-
5.0 0.17710 3.658223 9.408951 ally imposed on the propeller blade while reducing the
5.5 0.194809 4.366813 12.35459 possibility of cavitation phenomenon. In other words, the
6.0 0.212519 5.133501 15.84404 effective center of the hydrodynamic forces becomes closer
6.5 0.230229 5.957692 19.92014 to the root of the blade.
7.0 0.247939 6.838848 24.62532 The advantages of the skew angle include the elimina-
7.5 0.265649 7.776479 30.00166 tion of the cavitation and prevention of the pressure os-
8.0 0.283359 8.770136 36.09087 cillation and sudden load (dynamic) on the blade, con-
8.5 0.301069 9.819404 42.93436
duction of entry flow toward the leading edge, reduction
9.0 0.318779 10.92390 50.57328
9.5 0.336489 12.08326 59.04847
of the fatigue stress and increasing the propeller time en-
10.0 0.354199 13.29715 68.40056 durance (life time), and generation of the non-oscillating
uniform axial force and torque. Allowing for these ad-
318 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324

vantages, the skew angle is enormously important for the

UV propellers. Based on the design criteria described by
Breslin and Andersen (1994) and Ghassemi (2009), the
ideal skew angle is believed to be approximately 50 de-
grees. On the other hand, high skew angle could also re-
duce efficiency.

4.3 Expanded Area Ratio (EAR)

This parameter essentially shows the blade area, which
means it has a direct relation with the blade chord length
ratio (CMax/D=BMAXR). As BMAXR increases, the pro-
peller becomes wider and an increase in the propeller area
is observed. The effect of BMAXR on the hydrodynamic
performance is considerable. It diminishes the possibility
Fig.2 Coordinate system of propeller.
of cavitation with increasing the BMAXR. On the other
hand, it causes the reduction of efficiency due to higher
frictional drag and torque.

4.4 Pitch and Its Influence

Propeller pitch is similar to the angle of attack in a hy-
drofoil. The blade section of the propeller is like a foil
section. Foil characteristics change with the angle of at-
tack while the blade characteristics alter with pitch angle.
Propeller rotates around the shaft and the inflow veloci-
ties onto the blade are composed of the collective axial
and rotational velocities. Fig.2 shows the coordinate sys-
tem of the propeller and its blade section. The velocity
diagram and hydrodynamic forces acting on the blade
section at radius r is shown in Fig.3. Allowing for the
Fig.3 Velocity diagram on the radius r of the propeller.
induced velocities, the resultant inflow velocity to the
blade at radius r is expressed as
be increased and cavitation may occur. Thus, propeller’s
r r r r r r
VR = (VA + u A ) + (ω × r − ut ) , (10) pitch should be optimized in such a way that adequate
thrust is produced while preventing cavitation. For the
r r
where u A and ut are the axial and tangential induced ve- targeted UV, a mean pitch-diameter ratio of 0.6 can be a
locities, respectively. Geometric pitch angle βG (=tan(PG/ suitable choice which brings about a moderate pressure
2πr)) is the summation of the incidence angle α and the distribution on the propeller blade, albeit the blade cross-
hydrodynamic pitch angle βi. It is clear that α is related to section and profile (thickness and camber of blade) highly
the pitch. If the propeller pitch increases, the incidence influence the pressure distribution. Table 4 shows the
angle will increase. As a result, thrust and torque would variation of all the blade section data such as pitch, thick-
Table 4 Skew angle, pitch ratio, chord length and maximum thickness of the HSP-5 Propeller
r/R Thickness ratio (t/D) Chord ratio (c/D) Pitch ratio (P/D) Skew angle (˚)
0.2 0.0415 0.3183 0.5312 -0.6125
0.25 0.0385 0.3478 0.5528 0.1191
0.30 0.0362 0.3750 0.5756 0.6367
0.35 0.0334 0.3998 0.5981 1.5375
0.40 0.0309 0.4218 0.6194 2.7473
0.45 0.0284 0.4409 0.6380 4.2824
0.50 0.0258 0.457 0.6519 6.3509
0.55 0.0233 0.4695 0.6608 8.9890
0.60 0.0208 0.4774 0.6668 11.9707
0.65 0.0182 0.4786 0.6711 15.2075
0.70 0.0157 0.4702 0.6737 18.7624
0.75 0.0132 0.4511 0.6731 22.6375
0.80 0.0106 0.4197 0.6677 26.8360
0.85 0.0081 0.3622 0.6573 31.8412
0.90 0.0056 0.2513 0.6406 38.3590
0.95 0.0044 0.2412 0.6301 43.5812
1.00 0.0031 0.0238 0.6059 46.9725
 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324
ness, chord length and skew angle. Propeller pitch is con-
sidered variant so that the pitch value is small at the blade
tip and is highest at the blade midpoint (at a radius for
which chord length is the highest). This is mostly done
because the lowest load must be exerted on the blade tip
to prevent cavitation while the pitch must be high in the
mid-part of the blade so that the generated load is distrib-
uted on a more expanded area. It should be noted that the
radius r=0.5R ~ 0.7R has the maximum pitch. At this ra-
dius, the corresponding maximum pitch-diameter ratio is
0.67. In the meantime, at the tip of the propeller, the pitch
has the minimum value of 0.53.
4.5 Profile of the Blade Section
Criteria for the design of blade sections may be se-
lected to include minimum thickness and chord, sufficient
camber to generate the design lift, distribution of thick-
ness and camber to avoid boundary layer separation as
well as prevent or alleviate cavitation, having strength
requirements against dynamic forces with adequate safety
factors.
Since the propeller blade at each radius has different
chord length, pitch, skew and inflow velocity, it is very
complicated to define the profile section. The HSP-5
Fig.4 Profiles of blade sections at various radii of the
HSP-5 propeller.
Fig.5 Element arrangement of the HSP-5 propeller.
319
(with blade section HSP-SRI-B) profile section is used
for the present propeller as shown in Fig.4. Allowing for
the effects of all these parameters, the appropriate propel-
ler designed for the targeted UV is shown in Fig.5. When
the propeller rotates with constant speed, the trailing
helical vortex is created at downstream of the propeller.
Fig.6 shows the elements of the propeller built-in helical
trailing sheet vortex. Based on the argued parameters, the
chosen dimensions of the propeller HSP-5 are demon-
strated in Table 5.
Fig.6 Modeling of the trailing sheet vortex surface of the
HSP-5 propeller.
Table 5 Main dimensions of the propeller HSP-5
Propeller type HSP-5
Diameter (D) (m) 1.455
Expanded Area Ratio (EAR) 0.65
Pitch ratio (P/D) Variable
Hub radius to propeller radius 0.15
Blade maximum chord ratio 0.47
Number of blades (Z) 5
Rake angle (˚) 5.0
Skew angle (˚) Variable
Blade section HSP-SRI-B
4.6 Non-Uniform Wake Flow Effect
Viscous nature of the water, the boundary layer devel-
opment and also the shape and form of the hull (main
diameter of the main hull, hydroplanes and cone tail angle)
are the parameters which are effective in the development
of the wake. Every hull shape has a different wake. For
the present UV, the flow near the stern is approximately
uniform except for the conditions such as trim and ma-
neuvering, in which case we would face a complex wake
flow. Fig.7 shows the wake flow around the propeller at
the speed 8 kn.
4.7 Computation Flow Chart
A flow chart for boundary element computation in the
analysis of the propeller of a UV vessel is illustrated in
Fig.8. In this flow chart, the main dimensions of the UV
are introduced as given by the data. Subsequently, the
vessel resistance is calculated in two different cases of
surface and submerged conditions using an empirical
formula. Next, the three-dimensional propeller modeling
is done using the geometric characteristics of the propel-
320 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324

ler (e.g. diameter, pitch, thickness, camber, etc.). Later, a solving the resulting system of equations. The computed
hydrodynamic analysis is performed for the propeller results include pressure distribution, thrust, torque, and
using the BEM. Here an iterative method is used for efficiency of the propeller.

Fig.7 Predicted axial velocity at the stern around the propeller ( Vs = 8kn, w = 0.35, V A = 5.2kn ).

Fig.8 Calculation flowchart for propeller design.

 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324 321

radius ratio r/R=0.7 and for different advanced velocity

5 Numerical Results
5.1 Open-Water Condition
The most important part of hydrodynamic analysis of a
propeller is the judgment of the pressure distribution on its
surface. Under open water condition, the inflow velocity
onto the propeller is uniform and all the blades would
operate under the same condition. Accordingly, a propeller
with one blade of (2Nc×Mc) elements will be considered.
Here, Mc is the number of divisions in the radial direction
while Nc is the number of divisions in the chordwise
direction. Fig.9 shows the comparison of the computed
pressure distribution and that of experimental data at
ratios J=0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9. These experimental results are
related to open water condition and have been reported by
Ukon et al. (1994). The mentioned comparison shows ex-
cellent agreement with the experiments for velocity ratios
0.5 and 0.6 while relative agreement has been demon-
strated for velocity ratio 0.9. This can possibly be accred-
ited to the fact that the propeller is operating at a light
condition, which implies that the possibility of cavitation
occurrence is minimal. Pressure distributions under four
different velocity conditions indicate that this possibility
increases because of the higher negative pressure coeffi-
cient at the suction side. Comparison of the hydrodynamic
coefficients under open water condition with the experi-
mental values demonstrates good agreement (Table 6).

Fig.9 Comparison of the pressure distributions of HSP-5 under open water condition.

Table 6 Comparison of open water characteristics of the HSP-5

J Kt (Comp) 10Kq (Comp) Eta (Comp) Kt (Exp) 10Kq (Exp) Eta (Exp)
0.3 0.342 0.488 0.341 0.360 0.51 0.343
0.4 0.302 0.444 0.432 0.312 0.45 0.438
0.5 0.256 0.394 0.517 0.264 0.42 0.512
0.6 0.206 0.338 0.588 0.212 0.343 0.592
0.7 0.165 0.283 0.649 0.160 0.289 0.617
0.8 0.117 0.227 0.656 0.111 0.22 0.636
0.9 0.071 0.165 0.607 0.054 0.15 0.515

ber of equations is equal to (2Nc×Mc×K). In such case,

5.2. Actual Operating Condition Behind the UV
The propeller operates at the UV stern where the in-
flow is non-uniform due to the wake generated by the hull
and the hydroplanes. Under this condition, all the blades
should be considered in the computation. For the propel-
ler with K blades and Mc and Nc divisions in the radial as
well as chordwise directions, respectively, the total num-
1820 elements are generated for a 5-blade propeller and
400 elements are generated on the hub, resulting in a total
of 2220 elements for the whole body.
Fig.10 illustrates the pressure distribution of HSP-5
behind a UV during one cycle of rotation at J=0.6. These
pressure distributions are shown for the different points at
the face and back sides of the blade. The fluctuation in
322 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324

pressure is due to non-uniform wake.
Computation of the propeller performance is done for
all speeds ranging from 1 to 10 kn with incremental step
of 1 kn. Fig.11 presents the computational results obtained
as part of the hydrodynamic performance of the propeller
under both submerged and surface conditions.
Here, an attempt is made to show how the optimized
speed and efficiency of the propeller are determined when
the propeller performance is known under the surface and
submerged conditions. Using the resistance force and the
total effective power under the surface and submerged
conditions (Tables 2 and 3) and also by the aid of the pro-
peller hydrodynamic performance, the optimized vessel
speed could be obtained.

Fig.10 Pressure distribution of HSP-5 behind the UV during one cycle of rotation at J=0.6.

Fig.11 Hydrodynamic performance of the HSP-5 propeller at a speed of 8 kn under surface and submerged conditions.

As an example, a UV speed of 8 kn is considered with dition. The required thrust (T) for propelling the vessel at
the resistance force being found to be 8.77 kN for the a speed of 8 kn under submerged condition is found to be
submerged condition and 10.3028 kn for the surface con- (assuming t=0.15)
 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324 323

assumed to be axial under both conditions. This assump-

RT 8.77
T= = = 10.3178 (kN) . (11) tion is acceptable because under both conditions, the
1 − t 1 − 0.15 propeller is submerged and the wake factor and the thrust
The rotational speed and the efficiency of the propel- deduction factor are independent of submergence height.
lers can be determined in a way that they can provide the With the values of the required thrust and hydrodynamic
required thrust of the vessel. The following calculated efficiency of the propeller at the back of vessels, values of
results have been obtained for the surface and submerged the delivery power and the engine power have been de-
conditions. termined. Conventional data of mechanical transmission
1) Under fully submerged condition: power efficiency are given in Table 7. In Table 8, the com-
puted values of the power under surface and submerged
Required thrust = 10.3178 (kN) conditions at a speed of 8 kn are presented. The hull effi-
 ciency and the total hydrodynamic efficiency of the pro-
 RPM = 227 .
η = 0.68 peller can be calculated by the following equations:
 B
 1− t
2) Under surface condition: Hull efficiency = η H =
 1− w . (12)
Total hydrodynamic efficiency = η D = η Bη H
Required thrust = 12.120 (kN)

 RPM = 240 .
η = 0.65 Table 7 Conventional data of the mechanical power
 B efficiency

In addition, computations were continued until the hy- Parameters Values

drodynamic efficiency, ηB, at the back of the UV and the Shaft efficiency (ηS) 0.97
rotational velocities were found for all speeds. Note that Gearbox efficiency (ηGB) 0.95
the wake factor (w) and the thrust deduction factor (t) are Miscellaneous efficiency (ηOthers) 0.96

Table 8 Computations of the power under the submerged and surface conditions (UV speed=8 kn)
Parameters Submerged Surface
Required thrust (kN) 10.3178 12.120
Propeller RPM 36.0908 42.3972
Effective power (kW) 227 240
Propeller efficiency behind hull (ηB) 0.68 0.65
Hull efficiency (ηH) 1.307 1.307
Hydrodynamic efficiency (ηD=ηHηB) 0.886 0.882
Mechanical efficiency (ηM=ηSηGBηOthers) 0.89 0.89
Delivered power (PD) (kW) 40.7354 48.0787
Brake power (PB) (kW) 45.7847 54.0295

ture work aimed at precise results.

6 Conclusions
In this article, the boundary element method is applied
Acknowledgements
to evaluate the hydrodynamic performance of the HSP of This research was supported by the marine research
the underwater vehicle. Based on the numerical results, center of Amirkabir University of Technology. The au-
the following conclusions can be drawn: thors wish to thank the reviewers for their valuable com-
1) Comparisons of the computed pressure distribution ments and suggestion.
and hydrodynamic characteristics of the 5-blade skewed
propeller under open water conditions with the experi-
mental data show that the current method may benefit.
Appendix
The propeller efficiency for both submerged and surface CF Frictional coefficient
conditions were found to be 68% and 65%, respectively. CForm Form coefficient
2) Among various propeller geometries, the main di- CT Total coefficient
mensions of the propeller are determined through the CW Wave-making coefficient
numerical iterative procedure (as offered in computational D Propeller diameter
flow chart), while the blade profile sections are arranged Fn Froude number
by usual data. J Advance coefficient
3) It is recommended that for achieving the more accu- H Immersed depth of the UV
rate propulsion results, the assumed data (such as thrust k Form factor
reduction factor and mechanical power efficiencies) K Number of propeller blades
should be replaced by rational data. This will be our fu- Kt Thrust coefficients
 324 Ghassemi et al. / J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research) 2011 10 (4): 314-324

Kq Moments coefficients Breslin, J. P., and Andersen P., 1994. Hydrodynamics of Ship
Mc Number of radial elements Propellers. Cambridge Ocean Technology Series 3, Cambridge
n Number of propeller revolutions University Press, 584pp.
N Total element on propeller Burcher, R., and Rydill, L., 1994. Concepts in Underwater vehi-
Nc Number of chordwise elements cle Design. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Univer-
sity College Press, London.
NW Number of elements on trailing vortex sheet
r Carlton, J., 2007. Marine Propeller and Propulsion (2nd edi-
n =(nx, ny, nz) Outward normal unit vector
tion). Published by Elsevier Ltd., 533pp.
P Pressure on the body surface Felice, F. D., Felli, M., Liefvendahl, M., and Svennberg, U.,
Q Propeller torque 2009. Numerical and experimental analysis of the wake be-
r Propeller radius at each section havior of a generic underwater vehicle propeller. First Inter-
Rn Reynolds number national Symposium on Marine Propulsors Symp’09, June
SB Surface over propeller 2009, Trondheim, Norway.
SW Surface over trailing sheet vortex Ghassemi, H., and Kohansal, A. R., 2009. Numerical evaluation
s/C Fraction of chord of various levels of singular integrals, arising in BEM and its
Tr Propeller thrust application in hydrofoil analysis. Applied Mathematics and
VrA Advance velocity Computation, 213: 277-289.
VR Resultant inflow velocity Ghassemi, H., 2009. Effect of the wake flow and skew angle
VrUV UV speed onto the hydrodynamic performance of ship propeller. Jour-
nal of Scientia Iranica, 16 (2): 149-158.
VW Inflow wake velocity
r Hsin, C. Y., Kerwin, J. E., Kinnas, S. A., 1991. A panel method
vt Tangential induced velocity
for the analysis of the flow around highly skewed propellers.
w Wake fraction
Proceedings of the Propllers & Shafting’91 Symposium, Vir-
ω(=2πn) Angular velocity ginia Beach, VA, USA, No.11, 13pp.
Z Number of blades Karafiath, G., Cusanelli, D. S., and Barry, C. D., 2001. Hydro-
ρ Mass density of fluid dynamic efficiency improvements to the USCG 110 Ft WPB
φ Velocity potential ISLAND class patrol boats. SNAME Transactions, 109: 197-
∂φ / ∂n Normal derivative of potential 220.
Γ Non-dimensional circulation at TE Kim, Y. C., Kim, T. W., Pyo, S., and Suh, J. C., 2009 Design of
propeller geometry using streamline-adapted blade sections.
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 14: 161-170.
References Kinnas, S. A., and Hsin, C.-Y., 1992. Boundary element method
Andersen, P., Kappel, J. J., and Spangenberg, E., 2009. Aspects for the analysis of the unsteady flow around extreme propel-
of propeller developments for an underwater vehicle. First ler geometries. AIAA Journal, 30 (3): 688-696, Doi: 10.2514/
International Symposium on Marine Propulsor Symp’09, June 3.10973
2009, Trondheim, Norway. Ukon, Y., Kudo, T., Yuasa, H., and Kamiirisa, H., 1991. Meas-
Benini, E., 2004. Significance of blade element theory in per- urement of pressure distribution on full scale propellers. Pro-
formance prediction of marine propellers. Ocean Engineering, ceedings of the proepllers/Shafting’91 Symposium, Virginia
31: 957-974. Beach, VA, USA, No. 13, 15pp.
(Edited by Xie Jun)

View publication stats