GridPro Blog (https://blog.gridpro.

com/) 
A New Perspective on Structured Multi-Block Meshing

Meshing Aspects for Open Water Marine Search … SEARCH

Propeller CFD
By Ravindra Krishnamurthy (https://blog.gridpro.com/author/ravindra/) / October 5, 2020
WE OFFER FREE ACADEMIC LICENSES AND
(https://blog.gridpro.com/meshing-aspects-for-open-water-marine-propeller-cfd/)
COMMERCIAL TRIAL LICENSES

 Download GridPro
(https://bit.ly/3MeN6KK)

WE ARE SOCIAL

(https://www.facebook.com/GridProMeshing)
(https://twitter.com/GridProMeshing)



(https://plus.google.com/+GridProMeshing?hl=en)


(https://www.linkedin.com/company/program-
development-company)

SUBSCRIBE FOR POST UPDATES

Figure 1: Structured multiblock grid for a marine propeller.

Email Address
2600 words / 13 minutes read

Introduction SUBMIT

Like any other major engineering machine, ship propellers are always on the design table scrutinized for
ways to improve their performance in terms of efficiency, noise characteristics, and erosion. New models
are designed, performance analyzed, redesigned, and tested again. This cycle goes on, till a satisfactory
CATEGORIES
design is obtained for a specific requirement.

The standard way to know the propeller performance is by model testing and CFD simulations. Called as
Aerospace
open water performance analysis, a propeller is tested under wetted and cavitation (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
(https://blog.gridpro.com/cavitation-in-turbines/) flow conditions. Thrust, torque coefficient, and efficiency meshes-for-aerospace-applications/) (15)
Privacy - Terms
data are generated for various values of advanced ratio. Both experimental and CFD data are compared,
Space
verified, and validated to check the consistency in the data. (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-
block-meshes-for-aerospace-
Compared to wetted flow, cavitation simulation is somewhat complicated due to strong interaction applications/space/) (2)
between numerical aspects such as grid density, timestep, cavitation, and turbulence model. In particular,
modeling tip vortex cavitation is a challenging task, with the abilities of RANS codes tested to their limit
Automotive
while trying to capture the tip vortex flow accurately. (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
meshes-for-automotive-applications/) (3)
The article tries to address the gridding requirement for determining propeller open water and cavitation
characteristics. Irrespective of the CFD solver in use, these gridding insights should aid in providing a better Biomedical
understanding of the relationship between grids, flow physics, and CFD solver. (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
meshes-for-biomedical-applications/) (1)

MARIN - Sheet Cavitation Dynamics Chemical processing

(https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
meshes-for-chemical-processing-applications/)
(2)

General
(https://blog.gridpro.com/category/general/) (1)

Grid generation
(https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
meshes-for-various-engineering-applications/)
(14)

Marine
(https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
meshes-for-marine-applications/) (5)

Misc (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/misc/)
(2)
Video 1: Sheet cavitation dynamics.
New version releases
Domain and BC (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/new-
version-releases/) (2)
Quite often, when not aware of the domain and gridding requirements for propeller simulation, individuals
choose an arbitrary domain size and do multiple refinements to capture local flow dynamics. The Nuclear
refinement zone sizes are chosen based on intuition or prior experience or by trial and error. This arbitrary (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/nuclear/) (3)
approach often leads to unnecessarily large domain and refined zone sizes leading to a large cell count. A
Optimisation
mesh independent study with this set-up ends up being very expensive and time-consuming.
(https://blog.gridpro.com/category/optimisation/)
(4)
Typically, the domain shape chosen for open water propeller testing is cylindrical in nature. Taking the
propeller diameter D as reference length, a cylinder of diameter 5D is constructed. The upstream inlet Turbomachinery
boundary face is placed at around 3D – 5D from the propeller while the downstream outlet boundary face (https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
is positioned at approximately 7D – 10D. meshes-for-turbomachinery-applications/) (15)

Wind energy
(https://blog.gridpro.com/category/multi-block-
meshes-for-wind-energy-applications/) (1)
 LATEST POSTS

The Challenges of Meshing Ice

Accretion for CFD
(https://blog.gridpro.com/the-
challenges-of-meshing-ice-
accretion-for-cfd/)
(https://blog.gridpro.com/the-
challenges-of- July 13, 2022

Challenges in Meshing Scroll

Compressors
(https://blog.gridpro.com/chall
in-meshing-scroll-compressors
(https://blog.gridpro.com/challenges-
March 25, 2022
Figure 2: Size and shape of the computational domain for open water numerical simulations.
Image source ref [2]. Automation of Hexahedral Mesh
Scroll Compressors
The domain dimensions are chosen to achieve a balance between theoretical requirements and evaluation (https://blog.gridpro.com/auto
time. The inlet boundary is moved upstream till a uniform flow ahead of the propeller is achieved, while the of-hexahedral-meshing-for-scr
compressors/)
outlet boundary is pushed downstream to a location where reflections behind the propeller can be avoided (https://blog.gridpro.com/automation-
of-hexahedral- March 25, 2022
and a fully developed flow is established at the outlet.

GridPro Version 8.1 Released

(https://blog.gridpro.com/gridp
version-8-1-release/)
February 16, 2022

Turbopumps – A Unique Rotatin

Machine
(https://blog.gridpro.com/turb
in-liquid-rocket-engines/)
(https://blog.gridpro.com/turbopumps-
December 10, 2021

Figure 3: Quater domain for a single propeller blade configuration. Image source ref [2].

Computations for a single blade are also commonly performed. Propeller blades are periodic in nature and
utilizing the periodic boundary condition, one can build a smaller domain, which significantly reduces the
computational expenses.
 TAGS

airfoils (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/airfoils/)
blocking (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/blocking/)

boundary layer separation

(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/boundary-layer-
separation/)

bow shock (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/bow-

shock/)
Caeses (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/caeses/)

cartesian grids
Figure 4: Propeller geometry attached to a streamlined cylindrical body. The (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/cartesian-grids/)

interface between the propeller and outer domain is shown in yellow. Image cavitation
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/cavitation/)
source ref [11].
CFD (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/cfd/)
Interface Modeling cfd application (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/cfd-
application/)
Usually, for propeller flow field computations the fluid domain is split into 2 zones. A zone closely around
cfd prediction (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/cfd-
the propeller becomes the inner rotating zone and an outer zone called the stationary zone represents the prediction/)
rest of the domain. There are many ways to handle the fluid interaction through the interface between the
compressor blades
two zones, out of which the most common ones are the moving reference frame (MRF) method, the mixing (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/compressor-blades/)
plane (MP) approach, and the sliding mesh (SM) technique.
computational fluid dynamics
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/computational-fluid-
Among these three, the sliding mesh technique being time accurate is considered to provide a completely dynamics/)
strict solution but is unfortunately expensive in nature. Results generated using sliding mesh are in close flow alligned grids
agreement with the experimental data with respect to all integral characteristics. On the other hand, the (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/flow-alligned-grids/)
quasi-steady moving reference approach and the steady mixing plane method can be considered as flow simulation (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/flow-
approximations of the exact time accurate solution. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. simulation/)
Depending upon the simulation goal, time, and computational resources available, an appropriate method fluid dynamics (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/fluid-
is chosen which to a larger or lesser extent meets the objective. dynamics/)

Francis turbine
Simplified methods like MRF and MP have shown to accurately predict the integral forces on the propeller, (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/francis-turbine/)
but fall short in, accurate prediction of the amplitude of fluctuating forces. Further, it is observed that MRF grid (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid/)
and MP methods show sensitivity to the position of the downstream interface between the rotating and
grid blocks (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-
stationary mesh zones. In a nutshell, these simplified approaches provide higher accuracy when the blocks/)
interaction between the rotating and stationary domains are weak, but start to show their limitations in,
grid convergence study
flow conditions where there is heavy propeller loading and high propeller induced velocities in the (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-convergence-
slipstream. study/)

grid family (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-

family/)

grid generation (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-

generation/)
grid independent study
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-independent-
study/)

GridPro (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/gridpro/)
grid quality (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-
quality/)

grid refinement (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/grid-

refinement/)
 Figure 5: Computational domain and boundary conditions. Image source ref Kaplan turbine
TO KNOW MORE ABOUT GRIDPRO
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/kaplan-turbine/)
[6]. 
mesh (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/mesh/)
In MRF and MP methods, the location of the downstream interface has an influence on the computational Visit GridPro Website
meshing (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/meshing/)

results, due to ‘numerical blockage’. If the interface is placed too close to rotating propeller blades, the (https://bit.ly/3MeN6KK)
Multiblock Mesh
interpolation of fluxes across the interface can generate disturbances in the flow, which show up in the (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/multiblock-mesh/)
velocity field of the propeller slipstream. Such disturbances are more noticeable when the mesh topologies Nesting (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/nesting/)
on opposite sides of the interface are different. But when we position the interface sufficiently downstream
nuclear fuel rod bundle grid
of the blade, the disturbances disappear. This is because the vortex sheets leaving the blades now have (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/nuclear-fuel-rod-
sufficient space to develop before coming in contact with the interface. Now, a weak interaction is bundle-grid/)
maintained between the domains separated by the interface and this arrangement improves the flow field optimisation
predictive capability of the approach. (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/optimisation/)

parametric modelling
If one needs to strike a balance between accuracy and evaluation time, then, the moving reference frame (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/parametric-
method is the right one. With no physical movement of the computational grid, the computational time is modelling/)
reduced and the convergence also tends to be faster. The MRF model is a steady-state approximation in polyhedral grids
which individual domain zones move at different translational or rotational speeds. Rotation of rotating (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/polyhedral-grids/)

parts is included in the mathematical model by the addition of the centrifugal and Coriolis force. Unlike the recompression shock
transient simulations with a dynamic mesh, the MRF approach does not account for the relative motion of (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/recompression-
shock/)
the moving zone with respect to adjacent zones (which may be moving or stationary). This means that the
grid remains fixed during the entire computation. It is for this reason that MRF is often referred to as the sequential grids
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/sequential-grids/)
‘frozen rotor approach’.
shock (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/shock/)

Some researchers feel that although transient simulation is more accurate for propeller open water tests, structured grids
they are of lesser importance since those results need to be averaged out in order to maintain the mean (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/structured-grids/)

thrust and torque values required for open water curves. But for cavitation prediction, it is always better to topology (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/topology/)
go with transient simulation in order to achieve realistic results. turbine blades
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/turbine-blades/)

Turbo machinery
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/turbo-machinery/)
unstructured grids
(https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/unstructured-grids/)

Volutes (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/volutes/)
wing (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/wing/)

y plus (https://blog.gridpro.com/tag/y-plus/)

Figure 6: Sequential structured grids for a marine propeller. Image source ref [4].

Meshing Aspects for Marine Propeller

Once the domain dimensions and zone construction is complete, the focus can shift to discretizing the flow
field.

Most propeller CFD analysis has a few things in common – a structure/unstructured/cartesian grid is
generated, the grid is further refined sequentially or adaptively, and finally deployed for CFD computations.
But the key element is, the solution accuracy largely depends on the adequate geometric representation
and grid sensitivity in critical regions. Some researchers even go on to say that, if a mesh is defined
appropriately, even the choice of the turbulence model has less of an impact on the final outcome.
A very common approach to propulsion prediction studies is to maintain a coarse mesh at the domain
extremes and perform local refinement around the blades and in the axial direction in a cylindrical form
with a diameter slightly larger than that of the propeller. Next, a grid-independent study is undertaken to
ensure that the final solution is not dependent on the grid size. In this study, a gradual reduction in mesh
size is made until the difference in thrust and torque coefficient values between two subsequent refined
grids becomes small. Even the difference in the drag coefficient is also monitored until it is below 0.005 or
less than 5 percent. However, sadly, even such a systematic gridding exercise may not certify that an
optimum domain and refinement zones have been reached, but definitely improves the predictive quality
of the whole CFD process.

When we look into the literature for the type of grids used for propeller analysis, we can observe that all
gridding approaches from structured to unstructured to polyhedral and cartesian are regularly used for
propeller domain discretization. The choice of the approach is usually based on the software usage skill,
grid generator availability, time period allotted for meshing, and the level of accuracy expected. One or a
combination of these factors influences the final decision-making process.

Nevertheless, irrespective of the approach, the fundamental gridding needs remain, the same – an
adequate resolution to discretize the geometry features, proper resolution of the boundary layer, gradually
coarsening of cells from the geometry towards the domain boundaries, and local refinement in regions of
critical flow physics.

Figure 7: Different types of propeller cavitation. Image

source ref [12].

In marine propellers, the leading edge, the tip, trailing edge, and blade root are the critical regions, where
important flow features develop and evolve. Sheet cavitation develops from leading-edge, tip vortex
cavitation from blade tip, root cavitation from the root, etc, to name a few. Figure 7 shows all possible
locations of cavitation for a typical propeller. So, the appropriate choice of mesh size, mesh type, and mesh
structure, all become important in capturing these flow-rich regions.
 Figure 8: Structured and unstructured grids with tip refinement. Image source ref [2].

Grid refinement can be done globally through generating sequential grids or it can be achieved locally
through adaptive grid refinement. Local refinement allows for computationally efficient steady-state
simulation.

In order to make optimized refinement, avoiding fine grids in unnecessary regions, local refinement is
done. The leading edge, trailing edge and the tip of propeller blades have high curvature and are hence
meshed with fine cells. This helps in capturing the geometry as well as the leading-edge suction peak.
Further, the grids on the upper part of the blade as shown in figure 8 are refined as these areas tend to be
of utmost importance when evaluating performance and analyzing cavitation. Also, in order to predict the
tip vortex cavitation shape and extent more accurately, grid refinement is made in regions behind the
blade, where cavitation rope is expected.

Marine propeller edges and tips are very thin with low radius and maintaining grid quality is a stiff
challenge especially for structured grid-generators as it often results in the creation of highly skewed and
twisted elements. So considerable attention needs to be given to mesh these tricky regions.

Figure 9: Finely resolved boundary layer padding for a marine propeller.

Adequate resolution of the boundary layer is also essential. For accurate flow prediction near the walls,
boundary layer clustering with 30-40 layers is done with a fine first cell spacing with a y+ less than 1. Care
should be taken to ensure that additional grid quality parameters like orthogonality and skewness are well
within acceptable limits.
 Figure 10: Grid in the wake of a marine propeller. Image source ref [9].

Wake refinement is done to capture the tip vortex. It is a recommended practice to do axial refinement
along the propeller axis spanning the length of the domain with a diameter of 1.5D to 3D. Some
researchers even go one step ahead and do an additional mesh refinement spanning the diameter of the
external domain and extending axially for 0.5D to 2D, concentric to the propeller. Figure 10 shows wake
grid refinement done for a marine propeller.

Figure 11: Helical tube around the propeller’s tip. Image source ref [6].

The mesh for the propeller performance prediction under cavitation conditions is more refined than that
used for open water testing. For vortex cavitation cases with tip and hub vortex, further mesh refinement is
necessary. One of the ways to do local refinement is by making use of a helical tube around the propeller’s
tip as shown in Figure 11. Further, to capture the hub vortex accurately, another cylinder geometry can be
used to create a volumetric control for capturing the extension of the hub cavitation as well. Figure
12 shows this refinement zone.
 Figure 12: Grid Generation with refinement using helical tube geometry. Image source ref
[6].

Performance of Structured and Unstructured Grids

Research shows that, in a certain range of advance ratios, structured and hybrid grids provide similar
results, but at low and high ratios, structured grids tend to provide more accurate results.

Figure 13 – 14 shows the results of thrust and torque coefficients obtained on various meshes. For the
advanced ratio in the range of 0.1 to 1.0, the numerical results are close to each other and compare well
with experiments. The difference between results obtained using various meshes is less than 3 – 4 percent.

Figure 13: Relative errors in performance predictions for grids used in open water grid sensitivity study. Image
source ref [2].

Overall results suggest that for a first cut quick numbers hybrid meshes are adequate to do performance
prediction. But when a detailed investigation of the flow field is needed, hybrid meshes are not the right
choice since they introduce excessive diffusion in the solution.
 Figure 14: Open water results using SST k – omega turbulence model: a. structured, b. unstructured grids.
Image source ref [2].

Both structured and unstructured grids can predict comparable levels of accuracy. So, depending on the
requirements, one can opt for either of the two. If one is looking for speed and meshing simplicity then tet
grids are the right choice. When using tets, it is essential to cross-verify whether the results are an outcome
of cumulative numerical errors and incomplete geometric representation. An imposed grid size cap can
lead to deficiencies, which might show up as numerical errors. However, the limitations of tet grids can be
overcome by using hex-dominant or polyhedral unstructured grids.

If solution accuracy is the primary objective then structured grids are the preferred choice. With a
structured approach, gridding challenges are easily eclipsed by multiple benefits – they are robust, an
attribute clearly seen in cavitation tests, better geometric feature capturing capability with fewer cells, and
are simpler to numerically solve leading to a significant reduction in overall computational time. Therefore,
many recommend them as the right choice for marine propeller analysis.

Wrapping Up
With this, we come to the end of this article on gridding needs for open water propeller analysis. In the next
article on marine propellers, we try to cover aspects of how the flow field prediction varies with grids,
uncertainty analysis of wetted and cavitation flows, grid refinement study involving sequentially refined
grids and adaptively refined grids, vapor volume uncertainty analysis, model vs full-scale performance
analysis, etc.

Further Reading

1. Multiblock meshing of Ship Propeller (https://blog.gridpro.com/multiblock-meshing-of-ship-

propeller/)
2. Influence of Mesh in Open Water Propeller CFD (https://blog.gridpro.com/influence-of-mesh-in-open-
water-propeller-cfd/)
3. CFD Modelling of Submarine (https://blog.gridpro.com/cfd-modelling-of-submarines/)
4. Cavitation in Turbines (https://blog.gridpro.com/cavitation-in-turbines/)

References
1. “Comparison of Hexa-Structured and Hybrid-Unstructured Meshing Approaches for Numerical Prediction
of the Flow Around Marine Propellers (https://www.marinepropulsors.com/proceedings/2009/TA3-2-
Morgut%20-%20Comparison%20of%20Hexa-Structured%20and%20Hybrid-Unstructured%20M.pdf)”, Mitja
Morgut et al, First International Symposium on Marine Propulsors smp’09, Trondheim, Norway, June 2009.

2. “Grid Type and Turbulence Model Influence on Propeller Characteristics Prediction

(https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7100374)”, Ante Sikirica et al, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 374.

3. “Numerical simulation of propeller open water characteristics using RANSE method

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.05.005)”, Tran Ngoc Tu, Alexandria Engineering Journal, (2019) 58, 531–
537.

4. “Computational fluid dynamics prediction of marine propeller cavitation including solution verification
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316240685_Computational_fluid_dynamics_prediction_of_marine_propeller_cavitation_including_solution_verification)”,
Thomas Lloyd et al, Fifth International Symposium on Marine Propulsors smp’17, Espoo, June 2017.

5. “Improving accuracy and efficiency of CFD predictions of propeller open water performance
(https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/JNAME/article/download/34756/31258/)”, M. F. Islam et al, Journal of
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, June, 2019.

6. “An Investigation into Computational Modelling of Cavitation in a Propeller’s Slipstream

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317619705_An_Investigation_into_Computational_Modelling_of_Cavitation_in_a_Propeller's_Slipstream)”,
Naz Yilmaz et al, Fifth International Symposium on Marine Propulsion smp’17, Espoo, Finland, June 2017.

7. “A Numerical Study on the Characteristics of the System Propeller and Rudder at Low Speed Operation
(https://www.marinepropulsors.com/proceedings/2011/TA1-1_Krasilnikov.pdf)”, Vladimir Krasilnikov et al,
Second International Symposium on Marine Propulsors smp’11, Hamburg, Germany, June 2011.

8. “Numerical characterization of a ship propeller (https://foam-extend.fsb.hr/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/Seb_Master_2017.pdf)”, Borna Seb et al, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and
Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, 2017.

9. “Scale Effects on a Tip Rake Propeller Working in Open Water

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337121235_Scale_Effects_on_a_Tip_Rake_Propeller_Working_in_Open_Water)”,
Adrian Lungu et al, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2019, 7, 404.

10. “Cavitation on Model- and Full-Scale Marine Propellers: Steady and Transient Viscous Flow Simulations
at Different Reynolds Numbers (https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8020141)”, Ville Viitanen et al, Journal of
Marine Science and Engineering, 2020, 8, 141.

11. “Energy balance analysis of a propeller in open water (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.067)“,

Jennie Andersson et al, Ocean Engineering, 158 (2018) 162–170.

12. “Developing Computational Methods for Detailed Assessment of Cavitation on Marine Propellers
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281278681_Developing_Computational_Methods_for_Detailed_Assessment_of_Cavitation_on_Marine_Propellers)“,
Abolfazl Asnaghi, Thesis for the degree of Licentiate of Engineering, Department of Shipping and Marine
Technology, Chalmers University Of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden 2015.
 (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8HnWszI85FsZhRcYrZ-
(https://www.linkedin.com/company/program-
(https://www.facebook.com/GridProMeshing)
(https://twitter.com/GridPro_Mesher)
development-company)
6ew)

Subscribe To GridPro Blog

By subscribing, you'll receive every new post in your inbox. Awesome!

Email Address

SUBSCRIBE

ADAPTIVE GRID REFINEMENT (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/ADAPTIVE-GRID-REFINEMENT/) BLOCKING

(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/BLOCKING/) CAVITATION
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/CAVITATION/) CAVITATION VORTEX
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/CAVITATION-VORTEX/) CFD
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/CFD/) CFD APPLICATION (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/CFD-
APPLICATION/) COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/COMPUTATIONAL-
FLUID-DYNAMICS/) DOMAIN BOUNDARIES (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/DOMAIN-
BOUNDARIES/) FLOW ALLIGNED GRIDS (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/FLOW-ALLIGNED-
GRIDS/) FLOW SIMULATION (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/FLOW-SIMULATION/) FLUID DYNAMICS
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/FLUID-DYNAMICS/) GRID
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/GRID/) GRID CONVERGENCE STUDY
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/GRID-CONVERGENCE-STUDY/) GRID GENERATION
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/GRID-GENERATION/) GRID INDEPENDENT STUDY
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/GRID-INDEPENDENT-STUDY/) GRID REFINEMENT
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/GRID-REFINEMENT/) GRIDPRO
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/GRIDPRO/) HUB VORTEX (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/HUB-
VORTEX/) LEADING EDGE VORTEX (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/LEADING-EDGE-VORTEX/) MARINE
PROPELLER (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/MARINE-PROPELLER/) MESH
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/MESH/) MESHING
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/MESHING/) MIXING PLANE (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/MIXING-
PLANE/) MOVING REFERENCE FRAME (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/MOVING-REFERENCE-
FRAME/) NEAR BLADE CAVITATION (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/NEAR-BLADE-CAVITATION/) OPEN
WATER PROPELLER (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/OPEN-WATER-PROPELLER/) PROPELLER
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/PROPELLER/) PROPELLER FULL SCALE MODELING
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/PROPELLER-FULL-SCALE-MODELING/) PROPELLER MODEL SCALE
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/PROPELLER-MODEL-SCALE/) PROPELLER SIMULATION
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/PROPELLER-SIMULATION/) ROOT CAVITATION
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/ROOT-CAVITATION/) SEQUENTIAL GRIDS
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/SEQUENTIAL-GRIDS/) SHEET CAVITATION
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/SHEET-CAVITATION/) SLIDING MESH
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/SLIDING-MESH/) STRUCTURED GRIDS
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/STRUCTURED-GRIDS/) TIP VORTEX (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/TIP-
VORTEX/) TIP VORTEX CAVITATION (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/TIP-VORTEX-
CAVITATION/) TOPOLOGY (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/TOPOLOGY/) UNSTRUCTURED GRIDS
 (HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/UNSTRUCTURED-GRIDS/) VAPOUR VOLUME ANALYSIS
(HTTPS://BLOG.GRIDPRO.COM/TAG/VAPOUR-VOLUME-ANALYSIS/)

PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE

Grid Convergence Study for Francis Turbine CFD Modelling of Submarine
(https://blog.gridpro.com/grid-convergence-grids- (https://blog.gridpro.com/cfd-modelling-of-
for-francis-turbine/) submarines/)

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

POST COMMENT
 SIGNUP AND TRY GRIDPRO

 Download GridPro
(https://www.gridpro.com/signin/)

Copyright © 2023 GridPro Blog (https://blog.gridpro.com/).

Powered by WordPress (http://wordpress.org) and Arouse (http://themezhut.com/themes/arouse/).