MODULE COVER SHEET University of Newcastle School: MARINE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Date: 30 September 2014 | Page | of 3 | Lecturer: Prof Mehmet Atlar 224! OS [Sheet Title: HANDOUT -2 © Propeller design review Module Title: Further ship hydrodynamics Module No: MAR3040 Page No:MAIN OBJECTIVES OF PROPELLER DESIGN & ‘STEPS TO ACHIEVE THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVES Propellers are designed to absorb minimum power and to give maximum efficiency as well as to provide minimum cavitation and hull vibration characteristics. These objectives can be achieved in a state-of-the-art approach represented by the following 3 steps (techniques) as practiced in the Newcastle University: STEPS 1. BASIC DESIGN (Step 1) Using standard series model propeller test data, semi-empirical cavitation diagrams and simple beam theory stressing procedure, main characteristics of a propeller (i. Diameter, pitch, Blade Area Ratio -BAR, section profiles, weights etc) are determined for the optimum possible condition. This step is known to be “First level of optimisation” 2. WAKE ADAPTATION (Step 2) Using analytical propeller flow models (e.g. Vortex theory based Lifting Line procedure and simple blade section design methods, the basic design of the propeller (obtained in Step) is further optimised with respect to one dimensional (in longitudinal (x) direction) “radially varying wake distribution”, in which the propeller is assumed to work. This wake information is usually obtained from model tests performing “wake survey”. This step is known to be “Second level of optimisation” 3. DESIGN ANALYSIS (Step 3) Using advanced analytical techniques (e.g. Lifting surface or boundary element (panel) methods) the optimised design (in step 2) is analysed in “circumferentially varying three dimensional wake (in x,y,z direction) distribution”. (Note that Step 2 only considers longitudinal wake component). If this analysis demonstrates unsatisfactory performance of cavitation, fluctuating hull pressures, shaft forces and moments, the blade section geometry is modified (i.e. local modification) by trial & error, until problem is alleviated. )As one would appreciate this step is rather like using a “numerical or digital cavitation tunnel” instead of a physical cavitation tunnel. This is due to practicality and ating cost to be occurred during the trial & error stage. In reality once Step 3 is completed it is best practice to perform actual cavitation tunnel tests to confirm the performance of the final design to remove possible prediction errors which may be associated with the analytical techniques. REVIEW OF PROPELLER FLOW MODELLING METHODS & ‘THEIR RELEVANCE TO PROPELLER DESIGN Considering Step 2 and 3, there is a need for analytical procedures which have been developed and evolved over the years following the below chronological order (i.e. from top to bottom) * Axial momentum theory (later its variations) * Blade element theory * Vortex theory -Lifting line method -Lifting surface method -Boundary element (Panel) method -RANS (Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes) based Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and other advanced CFD methods As far as the above methods are concerned, the Axial Momentum and Blade Element theories are early theories with severe restrictions and hence cannot rationally explain how the lift (or thrust) is generated on a profile (or propeller) while the Vortex Theory clearly does based on sound physical and mathematical principles. However, those early theories have contributed to the development of the modern Vortex theory based methods and therefore worthy to review in the next step.