Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40997-017-0108-y
RESEARCH PAPER
Effect of Rake and Skew on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics
and Noise Level of the Marine Propeller
Mohsen Gorji1 • Hassan Ghassemi2 • Jalal Mohamadi1
Received: 18 January 2016 / Accepted: 24 August 2017 / Published online: 5 September 2017
 Shiraz University 2017
Abstract The research performed in this paper is con-
ducted to predict the hydro-acoustics of the ship propeller
by Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes solver in various
skew and rake angles. Those angles may cause changes in
pressure fluctuations and have effect on the propeller noise
level. The two-step Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings
equations are used to calculate hydrodynamic pressure and
its performance as well as sound pressure level (SPL) at
various points around the propeller. Comparison of the
numerical results shows good agreement with the previous
works. Based on these results, propellers skew and rake
angles have effect on the noise sources. Many results for
the pressure distribution, hydrodynamic performance and
SPL at different rake and skew angles are presented and
discussed.
Keywords Skew and rake angles  Pressure distribution 
Sound pressure level  Hydrodynamic performance
1 Introduction
Various factors including environmental and structural
factors play an important role in the generation of under-
water noise. Ship’s propeller creates noise from its work
behind the ship to make the thrust overcome the resistance
at designed speed. Noise generated by the propellers in
& Hassan Ghassemi
gasemi@aut.ac.ir
1
Department of Marine Engineering, Malekashtar University
of Technology, Shahinshahr, Iran
2
Department of Maritime Engineering, Amirkabir University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran
terms of intensity and spectrum has been a strategic issue
for warships and military designers over the years. The
generated sound can be heard for hundreds of meters below
the surface and may be detected by sonar. In the design
process, for marine propellers specifically to reach lowest
noise possible (Carlton 2013). Conventional procedures to
study the propeller unsteady force are the lifting surface
and the panel methods. Kerwin and Lee (1978) applied the
unsteady vortex lattice technique to formulate the unsteady
propeller. Hoshino (1993) employed the panel method to
simulate unsteady flow on propeller. These methods do not
account for viscous effects, such as the boundary layer and
separation flow and usually repair results with empirical
treatments. To overcome the deficiency of potential
methods, RANS model has been successfully employed for
marine propellers. Funeno (2002) studied unsteady flow
around a high-skewed propeller in non-uniform inflow. Hu
et al. (2009) applied RANS model to simulate the test case,
DTMB 4119, the propeller worked on non-uniform inflow
conditions. Li and Yang (2009) investigated numerical
prediction of flow around a propeller. Numerical simula-
tion of tonal and broadband hydrodynamic noises of non-
cavitating underwater propeller was carried out by Kher-
admand et al. (2014). The FW-H model was used to find
spectral distributions of flow noise for different advance
coefficients. Seol et al. (2005) presented a numerical study
on the non-cavitating and blade sheet cavitation noises of
the underwater propeller. The noise is predicted using time-
domain acoustic analogy and Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings
formulation for far-field acoustics, while the flow field is
analyzed with potential-based panel method. Park et al.
(2009) numerically analyzed the tip vortex cavitation
behavior and sound generation. In their work, they used
hybrid method which integrates RANS solver and dissi-
pation vortex model for flow field. Seol et al. (2002) used
123
76 Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85

boundary element method (BEM) to predict the non-cavi- post-processing calculation of the data are performed with
tation noise of a ducted propeller in various operating the commercial software ANSYS 14.0.
conditions and configurations. The flow field is analyzed
with potential-based panel method, and then, the time-de-
pendent pressure data are used as the input for Ffowcs 2 Governing Equation
Williams–Hawkings formulation to predict the far-field
acoustics. Wang et al. (2006) carried out an extensive and In the hydrodynamic analysis of the flow, the flow field can
precise study in 2006 on the effects of the propeller’s be predicted by solving the continuity and momentum
trailing edge on the radiated noise. In this study, using equations.
numerical simulations, optimization of the trailing edge oq d
geometry was investigated. Jang et al. (2014) analyzed þ ðqui Þ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
ot dxj
blade passing frequency (BPF) noise of a propeller com-
prised of the thickness and loading noises on non-cavitat- o d
d dp
ðqui Þ þ qui uj ¼ sij  þ qgi  pui uj ð2Þ
ing marine propeller. Numerical methods for prediction of ot dxj dxj dxi
the propeller BPF noise have been developed by using
where ui are velocity components of water, q is density, P
Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings (FW-H) equation.
is pressure, s is the shear stress tensor, and pui uj is Rey-
Generally, there are two main sources of noise; one is
nolds stress tensor.
due to mechanical elements like engine, and second one is
The problem of estimating the distribution of Reynolds
due to hydrodynamic source, i.e., by the propeller (Malcom
stress throughout the flow field has been the subject of
1997). Research is needed on the noise sources in order to
numerous investigations. The k - e model is the most
reduce the noise and increase performance quality by
frequently used model in present-day engineering compu-
making minimal changes in the vessels elements.
tations. In k - e, model one solves two separate modeled
Propeller noise usually includes a series of periodic parts
transport equations, one for turbulent kinetic energy and
or tones at blade rate and its multiples. These periodic
the other for its dissipation rate. The modeled equations for
unsteady forces impose discrete tonal noise at the blade
k and e are as described below:
passing frequency (BPF) and turbulence interaction with   
blade and vortex shedding at the trailing edge, and the tips Dk o lt ok
q ¼ lþ þ Gj þ Gb  qe  Ym ð3Þ
impose broadband noise spectrum. A small-scale part of Dt oxi rk oxi
turbulent eddies in the wake causes unsteady blade forces.   
De o lt oe e
Besides, the boundary layer separation and blades vortex q ¼ lþ þ C1e ðGk þ C3e Gb Þ
Dt oxi re oxi k
shedding also cause fluctuating forces. Shedding vortex e2
will happen at the area of trailing edge and tip of rotating  C2e q : ð4Þ
k
blades. Induced pressure pulses by the propeller may be
considered one of the important sources in the SPL (Pan The first and most accomplished research in acoustic waves
and Zhang 2010). Some parameters like skew and rake has been done by Lighthill (1952). Two basic governing
angles may cause hydrodynamic and acoustic changes in equations of the continuity and momentum are employed to
propeller characteristics. Rake angle is a parameter which obtain overall sound production relationship by writing the
determines the blades position against the flow direction. If continuity equation as follows:
the blades are mounted perpendicular to the hub, then the Dq oq oðqui Þ
propeller would have zero rake angle, but as the blades þ divðqu
~Þ ¼ þ ¼q ð5Þ
Dt ot oxi
incline toward or against the flow direction, negative or
positive rake appears, respectively (Hayati et al. 2011). It is where q is the mass production rate per unit volume. The
shown that when the skew angle is increased, hydrody- momentum equation is expressed as
namic characteristics change (Ghassemi 2009). oðqui Þ oðqui uj Þ op os
To the best of our knowledge, there is no study on the þ ¼  qg þ fi ð6Þ
ot oxi oxi oxi
noise effect of propeller skew and rake angles. The
objective of the current study is to conduct a numerical where fi represents the body forces. From Eqs. (5) and (6),
simulation of the acoustic pressure generated by a marine Eq. (7) is obtained in the following form:
propeller (DTRC4119) in different skew and rake angles. o2 q o2 ðTij Þ
2 2
The far-field radiation is predicted by integral formula FW- þ c 0 r q ¼ : ð7Þ
ot2 oxi xj
H equation, with the solution of the RANS solver. The
hydro-acoustic performances of propeller are compared Here, C0 is the sound speed and Tij is the Lighthill stress
with previous study. All flow and acoustic simulations and tensor. It is expressed as

123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85
Fig. 1 Different geometries of the propellers
Tij ¼ qui uj þ dij ðp  qc20 Þ þ sij :
First term of RHS of Eq. (8) is the turbulence velocity
fluctuations (Reynolds stresses), the second term is due to
changes in pressure and density, and the third term is due to
the shear stress tensor.
A generalization of Lighthill’s theory to include aero-
dynamic surfaces in motion proposed by Ffowcs Williams–
Hawkings (1969) has provided the basis for a significant
amount of analysis of the noise produced by rotating
blades, including helicopter rotors, propeller blades and
fans. The Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings (FW-H) theory
includes surface source terms in addition to the quadru-
pole-like source introduced by Caridi (2007). The surface
sources are generally referred to as thickness (or mono-
pole) sources and loading (or dipole) sources. This equa-
tion is presented as follows (Ffowcs Williams and
Hawkings 1969):
1o p2 0
o 2  o 
 r2 p0 ¼ Tij H ð f Þ  Pij nj þ qui ðun  vn Þ dð f Þ
c20 ot2 x i xj oxi
o
þ ð½q0 vn þ qðun  vn ÞÞdð f Þ:
ot
The terms at RHS are named quadruple, dipole and
monopole sources, respectively. p is the sound pressure at
the far field (p0 = (p - p0)). C0 is the far-field sound
speed, and Tij is the Lighthill stress tensor defined in
Eq. (8). Also, f is a function defined based on surface
reference system, and H(f) and d(f) are Heaviside and Dirac
delta functions, respectively. There are various ways to
evaluate the Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings equation. Faras-
sat proposed time-domain formulation that can predict
arbitrary-shaped object in motion without the numerical
differentiation of the observer time. The formulation of
Farassat is very convenient in embodying the time-domain
77
ð8Þ analysis of Ffowcs Williams–Hawkings equation (Seol
et al. 2005). In the Farassat formulation, the pressure field
is defined by Eq. (10).
0 0
P0 ð~;
x tÞ ¼ PT ð~;
x tÞ þ PL ð~;
x tÞ ð10Þ
0 0 0
where P is the acoustic pressure; PT and PL describe the
acoustic pressure field resulting from thickness and load-
ing, corresponding to the monopole and the dipole sources,
e.g., blade rotation and unsteady sheet cavitation on blades
are defined as monopole sources and fluctuation pressure
on the blade surface is defined as a dipole source (Bagheri
et al. 2014).
By solving this equation, pressure variation and SPL
(measured in dB) are calculated by Eq. (11) as follows:
Prms
SPL ¼ 20 log10 ð11Þ
Pref
where prms is the root-mean-square sound pressure and p0 is

the reference sound pressure, both measured in Pa.
3 Numerical Modeling
ð9Þ
3.1 Geometry and Boundary Conditions
To evaluate skew and rake angles effect, the different rake
and skew angles are chosen in fixed pitch as shown in
Fig. 1. In order to study the propeller performance in
uniform flow and applying open water condition, a periodic
cylindrical control volume in Fig. 2 was considered around
propeller with velocity inlet, pressure outlet and periodic
boundary conditions. The domain distances were consid-
ered sufficiently large to keep away from blockage effects
on the propeller hydrodynamic performance characteris-
tics. Computational domain is defined at 5D for upstream,
123
78 Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85

Fig. 2 Periodic boundary condition and domain length

Fig. 3 The generated

unstructured grid on propeller

15D at downstream and 10D for side one (D is propeller
diameter).
3.2 Mesh Generation and Its Dependency
An unstructured hybrid mesh was applied for grid gener-
ation. Triangular cells are used for blades and hub surfaces.
A fine grid was used for near wall to capture the flow in this
region. The grid aspect ratio is gradually increased to
decrease solution costs. About two million cells have been
created for whole domain grid, as demonstrated in Fig. 3.
The study of grid independency for result validation was
carried out in J = 0.833, and the results are presented in
Table 1. It is shown that the second configuration has the
best efficiency in the prediction of thrust coefficient and
computational costs.

123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85 79

Table 1 Grid independency and computational effort chart in Hydrodynamic characteristics of the propeller at various
J = 0.833 operating conditions are shown in Fig. 5 and compared
Row Mesh cell Kt (Num) Kt (Exp) Error (%) with experimental data (Jessup 1989). The trends with
changing advance coefficients are so well predicted. Effi-
1 1,200,000 0.145 0.175 16
ciency is low for heavy load condition, and when it
2 2,000,000 0.164 0.175 6 becomes light condition, the efficiency increases.
3 3,200,000 0.165 0.175 5.7 The pressure distributions on the propeller blade sur-
faces in J = 0.833 are shown in Fig. 6. The static pressure
distribution on the blade surface at the suction side exhibits
3.3 Modeling and Domain high-pressure area at the leading edge. This property is due
to the place of the blade leading edge on the hub and the
The SIMPLE algorithm is used for pressure–velocity direction of the propeller rotation.
coupling equation and second-order upstream discretiza- Figure 7 shows comparison of the pressure distribution
tion for momentum equations. Realizable k - e model is at r/R = 0.7 and J = 0.833. In this figure, there is a good
used to model turbulence with time step equal to 1e-4 and agreement between simulation and experimental results
second-order upstream discretization for FW-H equation. (Wang et al. 2010).
To capture sound, the receivers are adjusted in 12 points Also, the pressure coefficient plots for back and front in
above and behind the propeller at z- and y-axes (y/D = 1, skew and rake angles are shown in Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and z/D = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) as shown in the and 13 at three radial sections (r/R = 0.3, 0.6, 0.9) on the
coordinate system in Fig. 4. It is shown that the z-axis is blade. The fluctuations in the pressure coefficient as the
downstream propeller and y-axis is top side. flow moves forward from the leading edge (x/c = 0) to the
trailing edge (x/c = 1) are principally because of the
changes in the flow regime and boundary layer effects in
4 Results and Discussion the direction of the blade section. By comparing Figs. 8
and 9, it is concluded that the difference between the
The simulation of DTMB 4119 propeller has turned into a pressure coefficients is much greater on the far sections
common benchmark that has been widely used for data (Fig. 9) compared to the near sections (Fig. 8).
validation, due to the well-documented experiment. The Pressure distribution is shown in Fig. 14. Maximum
test case is a three-blade propeller with zero rake and skew pressure happens at the blade tip and pressure side. Mini-
angles. mum pressure occurs at the blade root and suction surface.
Also, there is a pressure drop region in downstream.

Fig. 4 Position of hydrophones for all models (z-axis is shaft direction, and y-axis is top side)

123
80 Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85

Fig. 5 Hydrodynamic
characteristics of the propeller
compared with experimental
result. Experimental data are
found in (Jessup 1989)

Fig. 6 Pressure distribution (Pa) in J = 0.833. a Suction side and b pressure side

Fig. 7 Comparison of pressure coefficient distribution in numerical

and experimental results for r/R = 0.7 in N = 900 (rpm), V = 3.6 m/
s. Experimental data are found in (Wang et al. 2010) Fig. 8 Pressure coefficient distribution on blade section for different
skew angles, for r/R = 0.3 in N = 120 (rpm), V = 0.48 (m/s)

123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85 81

Fig. 9 Pressure coefficient distribution on blade section for different Fig. 11 Pressure coefficient distribution on blade section for different
skew angles, for r/R = 0.6 in N = 120 (rpm), V = 0.48 (m/s) rake angles, for r/R = 0.3 in N = 120 (rpm), V = 0.48 (m/s)

Fig. 12 Pressure coefficient distribution on blade section for different

rake angles, for r/R = 0.6 in N = 120 (rpm), V = 0.48 (m/s)

Fig. 10 Pressure coefficient distribution on blade section for different

skew angles, for r/R = 0.9 in N = 120 (rpm), V = 0.48 (m/s)

Figure 15 illustrates two views of distribution axial

velocity, where propeller is rotating with a constant rota-
tional velocity of 120 rpm. The figure shows the flow field
in which blade tip produces high-speed backward flow
(regions marked red). At the same time, a forward flow
with lower axial velocity is also generated. These two
reverse flows stimulate a vertical flow around the blade tip.
The streamlines around the propeller blades are pre- Fig. 13 Pressure coefficient distribution on blade section for different
rake angles, for r/R = 0.9 in N = 120 (rpm), V = 0.48 (m/s)
sented in Fig. 16. The deformed curve tip vortex is

123
82
Fig. 14 Pressure distribution in J = 0.833 at downstream
Fig. 15 Axial velocity distribution in blade section and downstream in J = 0.833
obvious. As seen, the flow is accelerated by the propeller
and each blade causes a tip vortex which is transported
backward and takes the shape of a helix.
4.1 SPL Around the Propeller
In the preceding section, the fine description of the flow
around the rotating blades that provide the strength of the
noise sources was given and acoustic analogy approxi-
mation can be used to assess the numerical broadband
noise.
123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85
The density and sound speed in water are 1000 kg/m3
and 1480 m/s. The reference pressure for SPL is 1.0 lPa.
The SPL has been figured to be fairly complex due to
complicated physics of viscous influence and vortex man-
ner in the flow above propeller blades. SPL is compared
with results found by Seol et al. (2005) and Bagheri et al.
(2014) at z/D = 5 for J = 0.833 as shown in Fig. 17. Good
agreement is seen between results in low-frequency noise.
The effect of skew and rake angles is important on the
hydrodynamic characteristics. Lower skew gives slightly
larger fluctuations than the highly skewed propeller.
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85
Fig. 16 The streamlines around the propeller blades and deformed
curve tip vortex
Fig. 17 Comparison of the SPL spectrum versus frequency domain at
J = 0.833 for z/D = 5. Bagheri et al. (2014) and Seol et al. (2005)
Fluctuating forces induced by a rotating marine propeller
are major sources exciting the hull vibration which radiates
unwanted underwater noise. Therefore, the use of skew is
much more important on the reduction in propeller-excited
vibrations on the full body. Also, when the propeller skew
angle is increased, blade thrust is reduced.
Sound pressure level (SPL) in various skew and rake
angles is illustrated in Figs. 18, 19, 20 and 21. As shown in
Table 2, by increasing rake and skew angles both torque
and thrust coefficients are diminished.
83
Fig. 18 SPL spectrum extract from numerical results in frequency
domain for receiver in z/D = 1 and J = 0.833 for different rake
angles
Fig. 19 SPL spectrum extract from numerical results in frequency
domain for receiver in z/D = 3 and J = 0.833 for different rake
angles
Also, SPL is reduced by growth angle, except in 75
skew angle. In this situation, unexpected jump is observed.
Strong dipole loading noise can cause strong SPL.
Rake angle equal to 30 and skew angle equal to 45
have the lowest SPL, and efficiency coefficient peaks in
10 rake angle and 45 skew angle.
In order to equal rotational speed and blade number, no
change is made in thickness and harmonic noise, but the
differences arise from loading and broadband trailing edge
noise that is dipole and quadrupole. Nonlinear effects may
become insignificant at low-speed propeller.
123
84 Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85

Table 2 Hydrodynamic and acoustic properties comparison chart in

J = 0.833
10 Kq Kt SPL (50 Hz) Geometry

0.36 0.164 94 DTMB 4119

0.343 0.16 88 Skew = 15
0.329 0.1557 84 Skew = 30
0.323 0.146 78 Skew = 45
0.318 0.138 104 Skew = 75
0.33 0.16 83 Rake = 10
0.304 0.145 81 Rake = 20
0.287 0.135 78 Rake = 30

around 6–7 dB (Tian et al. 2014). As shown in the figure,

SPL for z/D = 1 and z/D = 3 is varied about 21 dB.

Fig. 20 SPL spectrum extract from numerical results in frequency

domain for receiver in z/D = 1 and J = 0.833 for different skew
5 Conclusions
angles
This paper is presented the effect of the rake and skew
angles on the propeller hydrodynamic performance and
sound pressure level prediction. The results for the
numerical simulation of the acoustic pressure generated by
the propeller DTRC4119 are obtained. Based on the
numerical results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Good agreement is found between numerical results
and experimental data for the hydrodynamic character-
istics of the propeller.
• Pressure distributions on the different radius of the
blade are shown at various rake and skew angles.
Comparison of the pressure distribution shows good
compliance with experimental data.
• The thrust and efficiency decrease when the rake and
skew of the propeller are increased.
• The SPL shows that when rake is increased, SPL
decreased. For the skew, the SPL is also increased
when skew increased, but up to 45. At skew of 75,
Fig. 21 SPL spectrum extract from numerical results in frequency SPL is changed and gives significant differences. In this
domain for receiver in z/D = 3 and J = 0.833 for different skew situation, unexpected jump is observed.
angles

Also the tonal peaks at multiples of the blade passing

frequency (BPF) can be observed clearly on the spectrum
plat.
In addition, the overall SPL decreases as the distance
from the sound source increases. In the far field where
sound propagates as spherical waves and kr  1 (k is the
wave number and r is the distance to sound source), sound
pressure follows the inverse square law with respect to the
distance. This means that, in the far field, the overall SPL is
identified with the reverse square of the distance. For
instance, if the distance doubles the overall SPL reduces
References
Bagheri MR, Seif MS, Mehdigholi H (2014) Numerical simulation of
underwater propeller noise. J Ocean Mech Aerosp Sci Eng 4:1–6
Caridi D (2007) Industrial CFD simulation of aerodynamic noise.
Ph.D. thesis, Aerospatiale Department, Napoli University
Carlton JS (2013) Marine propeller and propulsion, 3rd edn. Elsevier,
Amsterdam
Ffowcs Williams JE, Hawkings DL (1969) Sound generated by
turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Philos Trans R Soc
264(1151):321–342

123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng (2019) 43:75–85
Funeno I (2002) Analysis of unsteady viscous flows around a highly
skewed propeller. J Kansai Soc Nav Archit 237:39–45
Ghassemi H (2009) The effect of wake flow and skew angle on the
ship propeller performance. Sci Iran Mech Eng 16(2):149–158
Hayati AN, Hashemi SM, Shams M (2011) A study on the effect of
the rake angle on the performance of marine propellers. J Mech
Eng Sci Part C 226(4):940–955
Hoshino T (1993) Hydrodynamic analysis of propeller in unsteady
flow using a surface panel method. J Soc Nav Archit Jpn
74:71–87
Hu XF, Huang ZY, Hong FW (2009) Unsteady hydrodynamics forces
of propeller predicted with viscous CFD. J Hydrodyn
24(6):734–739
Jang JC, Kim HT, Joo WH (2014) Numerical study on non-cavitating
noise of marine propeller. In: INTERNOISE 2014—43rd
international congress on noise control engineering: improving
the world through noise control, Melbourne, Australia, 16–19
November
Jessup SD (1989) An experimental investigation of viscous aspects of
propeller blade flow. Ph.D. thesis, School of Engineering and
Architecture, The Catholic University of America (1989)
Kerwin JE, Lee CS (1978) Prediction of steady and unsteady marine
propeller performance by numerical lifting-surface theory. Soc
Nav Archit Mar Eng Trans 86:218–253
Kheradmand S, Rahrovi A, Mousavi B (2014) Numerical simulation
of tonal and broadband hydrodynamic noises of noncavitating
underwater propeller. Pol Marit Res 21(3):46–53
85
Li W, Yang C (2009) Numerical simulation of flow around a podded
propeller. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth international
offshore and polar engineering conference, Osaka, Japan, June
21–26
Lighthill M (1952) On sound generated aerodynamically, I. General
theory. Proc R Soc Lond 20:1952
Malcom JC (1997) Encyclopedia of acoustics. Wiley, London
Pan YC, Zhang HX (2010) Numerical hydro-acoustic prediction of
marine propeller noise. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 15(6):707–712
Park K, Seol H, Choi W, Lee S (2009) Numerical prediction of tip
vortex cavitation behaviour and noise considering nuclei size
and distribution. Appl Acoust 70:674–680
Seol H, Jung B, Suh JC, Lee S (2002) Prediction of non-cavitating
underwater propeller noise. J Sound Vib 257(1):131–156
Seol H, Suh JC, Lee S (2005) Development of hybrid method for the
prediction of underwater propeller noise. J Sound Vib
288:345–360
Tian J, Yan H, Zhang Z, Yuan G, Rao Z, Hua H (2014) LES-based
numerical analysis of surface-pressure fluctuations and unsteady
thrust of a marine propeller. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-
CON congress and conference proceedings, Melbourne,
Australia
Wang M, Marsden AL, Moin P (2006) Computation and control of
trailing-edge noise. In: Proceedings of the 26th symposium on
naval hydrodynamics, Rome, Italy
Wang Chao, Huang Sheng, Chang Xin, He Miao (2010) Applying
periodic boundary conditions to predict open water propeller
performance. J Marine Sci Appl 9:262–267
123