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

net/publication/294682544

Propellers performance in oblique flow

Conference Paper · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 1,798

4 authors:

K.M.J. Drenthe Gerben Dekker

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Linda Kemp D.A.M. van Velzen Van Velzen

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands Delft University of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Bachelor end project - Propeller in Oblique Flow View project

Master thesis Maritime Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K.M.J. Drenthe on 15 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Propellers performance in oblique flow
K.M.J. Drenthe 1), G.R. Dekker 2), L.J. Kemp3), D.A.M. van Velzen4)
1)
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, k.m.j.drenthe@student.tudelft.nl
2)
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, g.r.dekker@student.tudelft.nl
3)
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, l.j.kemp@student.tudelft.nl
4)
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, d.a.m.vanvelzen@student.tudelft.nl

Supervisors
Ir. N.J. van der Kolk, N.J.vanderKolk@tudelft.nl
Dr. ir. R.G. Hekkenberg, R.G.Hekkenberg@tudelft.nl

Abstract
The need for pollution reduction of commercial shipping might make the reintroduction of
sail propulsion desirable. A ship under sail will travel with a drift angle due to the side forces
created by the sail. This leads to non-axial inflow on the propeller, named oblique flow. The
effect of oblique inflow on the propeller’s performance has previously been researched for
large angles up to 30. This paper outlines the effect for angles between 0 and 10, which
was thus far unknown. A numerical model, that proved its applicability for large angles, was
used. Results showed an increase for both dimensionless thrust and torque, KT & KQ, which
led to an increase of the propeller’s performance. Also open water propeller tests, performed
at the TU Delft, were conducted. Tests showed a more significant increase for all values than
the model did. The model makes assumptions that led to an underestimation. Open water
tests, conducted at a too low Reynolds number, resulted in an overestimation. Neither method
is sufficient for estimation of the propeller’s performance in oblique flow. We conclude that
the truth lies somewhere in between both outcomes. For further analysis more open water
tests need to be conducted at a higher Reynolds number to eliminate scale errors.
Keywords:
Propeller performance; oblique flow; sail-assisted ship; leeway angles; open water test; Wageningen
B-series; numerical model
Nomenclature
Roman symbols
𝑪 Influence factor [-]
𝑫 Diameter of propeller [m]
𝑭𝒚 Transverse force [N]
𝑱 Advance ratio [-]
𝑱𝜽 Advance ratio of substitute bearing area of an oblique blade for position 𝜽 [-]
in oblique flow
𝑲𝑸 Torque coefficient [-]
𝑲𝑸𝜽 Local torque coefficient of substitute bearing area of an oblique inflow
blade for position 𝜽
𝑲𝑸𝝋 Torque coefficient of propeller in oblique flow [-][
𝑲𝑻 Thrust coefficient [-]
𝑲𝑻𝜽 Local thrust coefficient of substitute bearing area of an oblique inflow [-]
blade for position 𝜽
𝑲𝑻𝝋 Thrust coefficient of propeller in oblique flow [-]
𝑲𝒀 Transverse force coefficient [-]
𝑲𝜼𝝋 Mean quality factor in oblique flow [-]
𝒏 Shaft speed [rpm]
𝒏𝜽 Effective rotational speed of blade depending on positions 𝜽 [rpm]

P/D Pitch ratio [-]

Q Torque [Nm]
̅̅̅̅
𝑸𝝋 Mean torque of oblique inflow propeller [N]
r Radial position on propeller blade axis [m]
R Radius of the propeller [m]
T Thrust [N]
𝑻𝒛𝜽 Local thrust of substitute bearing area of an oblique inflow blade [N]
̅̅̅
𝑻𝒛 Mean thrust of substitute bearing area of an oblique inflow blade in [N]
position 𝜽
̅̅̅̅
𝑻𝝋 Mean trust of oblique inflow propeller [N]
𝒗 Velocity of towing tank carriage [m/s]
𝒗𝒙 Incoming velocity in axial direction [m/s]
𝒗𝒚 Incoming velocity in lateral direction [m/s]
w Resulting inflow velocity [m/s]
z Number of blades

Greek symbols
𝜷 Inflow angle of the propeller [rad]
𝜼𝑶 Open water propeller efficiency [-]
𝜼𝜽 Open water efficiency in oblique flow [-]
𝜽 Blade angle [rad;°]
𝝆 Density [kg/m3]
𝝋 Angle of incoming flow in xy-plane [rad;°]
𝝎 Angular velocity [rad/s]
1. Introduction
High bunker prices and sharpened regulations for environmental impact lead to an increasing
interest in sail-assisted ships (Joules (2014), NSR Sail (2014)). Sail assistance however causes
some side-effects. Besides the wanted lift generated by sails also a side force is created which
tends to push the ship sideways. To counteract this movement an opposing side force needs to
be introduced in the form of a small rudder. This force makes the ships sail under an angle
relative to the direction of travel and results in an oblique inflow on the propeller. The first
analysis of oblique inflow on propellers emerged during the 1960’s with the analytical
analysis and practical research of ship’s propellers in oblique flow done by F. Gutsche, F.
(1964). Amani, H. & Steen, S. (2011) show that research of a propeller in oblique flow gives
the same magnitude for side forces and bending moments for both positive and negative
leeway angles. This concludes that experimental results are similar for both positive and
negative leeway angles. Numerical analysis of a propeller in oblique flow is done by
Dubbioso et al. (2013) and claims that most thrust and torque is generated in propeller
3
position 𝜃 = 2 𝜋 as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Oblique flow on propeller blade in four positions on r = 0.7R

Previous studies have reported the effect of oblique flow on the propeller performance. The
propeller performance is determined by the thrust coefficient 𝐾𝑇 , torque coefficient 𝐾𝑄 ,
transverse force coefficient 𝐾𝑌 and propeller open water efficiency 𝜂0 . What we know about
propellers performance in oblique flow is largely based upon analytical en experimental
studies that investigate how the thrust and torque coefficients change for larger angles of
oblique inflow. The analytical method of Gutsche (1964) provides an useful estimate of the
influence of oblique flow on a propeller for angles of 0, 10, 20 and 30. The impact for
angles between 0 and 10 is not researched in detail. The range of angles of oblique flow on
a propeller due to sail-assisted propulsion is expected to vary between an angle of 0 and 10
compared with the direction of travel. The focus of this research is therefore on small leeway
angles between 0 and 10.

This paper is divided in three parts. Section 2 begins with a short overview of Gutsche’s
analytical method to determine a propeller’s performance at small leeway angles. Section 2.3
describes the procedure of the experimental part of this research. Section 3 presents the
findings of the research focussing on the experimental and analytical approaches. Section 4
analyses the results of the experiment and analytical calculations.
2. Method
2.1 Analytical methods
Gutsche, F. (1964) determined the first analytical method that indicated propeller
performance in oblique flow. This research is based on three assumptions. The examined
propellers are assumed to operate in a quasi-stationary flow, meaning the flow parameters do
not explicitly depend on time, while the flow itself does change with time (taken from Carter,
J (2007)). In the second assumption, induced velocities and blade boundary conditions on the
blades initially did not contribute in his approximation method.
Gutsche, F. (1964) started with analysing the inflow on the blades at the blade cross section
𝑟 = 0.7 ∙ 𝑅. The homogenous flow can be divided into an axial and transverse velocity
component. The resulting velocity on an individual blade consists of these velocity
components and the contribution of the rotational speed of the propeller. The angle between
the transverse velocity component 𝑣𝑦 and resultant inflow velocity 𝑤 is indicated as inflow
angle 𝛽 on the propeller. The disintegration of velocity component for four propeller
positions (as shown in Fig. 1) were outlined in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Velocity triangles for four propeller positions (by Schulten (2005))

The blade positions II and IV identify the positions of minimum and maximum inflow
velocities respectively at 𝜃 = 𝜋2 and 𝜃 = 32𝜋. Fig. 1 outlines the contribution of lateral velocity
component (𝑣𝑦 ) in the blade cross sections.
Resulting inflow has to be rewritten to a dimensionless velocity on the propeller blade. In
general, the dimensionless velocity is described as the advance ratio 𝐽 for propellers.
Variation of inflow velocity results in differences of advance ratios on the blade positions.
Furthermore, the effective rotational speed of the individual propeller blade fluctuates over
the propeller revolution. The effects of fluctuating advance ratios and effective rotational
speed over a propeller revolution, are important causes of fluctuating loads on the propeller
blade.
Gutsche, F. (1964) used the approximation of a propeller in quasi-stationary flow to claim
that analytical values resulting from his loading calculations are too small. The main loadings
of interest on the blades are thrust T and torque Q. These parameters are used as
dimensionless thrust (𝐾𝑇 ) and torque (𝐾𝑄 ) coefficients in his method. Thus the magnitude of
the experimental results are expected to exceed the analytical results.
The value of the loads on an individual blade are in line with the value of the resulting inflow
velocity on the blade. Therefore, the loads in propeller position II will be the minimum value
of load and propeller position IV represents the position of maximum load on the blade. The
deviations were yet not the same in amplitude. The increase of load of the blade in position
IV is expected to be more than the load decrease at position II and thus a surplus remains
which increases the mean value for a complete revolution. The mean thrust and torque for a
propeller are calculated in three steps. First, the load (thrust or torque) is defined for the
propeller blade in one propeller position by formula 1. Integration over the rotation of the
blade is the following step outlined in formula 2. Finally, this mean has to be estimated by
taking the sum of all the propeller blades, as presented in formula 3. The same steps were
adopted for calculating of the mean torque (𝑄̅𝜑 ) on the propeller.
𝜌
𝑇𝑧𝜃 = ∙ 𝑛𝜃2 ∙ 𝐷 ∙ 𝐾𝑇𝜃 (1)
𝑧
1 2𝜋
̅
𝑇𝑧 = ∫ 𝑇 𝑑𝜃 (2)
2𝜋 0 𝑧𝜃
2𝜋
𝜌
𝑇̅𝜑 = 𝑧 ∙ 𝑇̅𝑧 = ∙ 𝐷4 ∙ ∫ 𝑛𝜃2 ∙ 𝐾𝑇𝜃 𝑑𝜃 (3)
2𝜋 0

In oblique flow not only thrust and torque are the resultant forces on the propeller. Besides
this generally mentioned force, a transverse force appears in the analysis. The transverse
force is described by a transverse coefficient as defined in formula 4.
𝐹𝑌 𝐾𝑄 1 𝜌𝑛2 𝐷5 𝑛𝜃 2 𝐾𝑄𝜃
𝐾𝑌 = 2 4 = ∙ ∙ 2 4∫( ) ∙ sin 𝜃 𝑑𝜃 (4)
𝜌𝑛 𝐷 0.35 ∙ 𝐷 2𝜋 𝜌𝑛 𝐷 𝑛 𝐾𝑄
Gutsche, F. (1964) included an influence factor for significant effects for all propellers he
researched. This factor is a rough numerical approximation that results from the comparison
of the analytical calculations and his experimental results. Only when the advance ratio
becomes very large for a propeller with high pitch ratio, deviations occur.
To determine the efficiency of the propeller, the mean quality factor 𝐾𝜂𝜑 is needed. This
quality factor depends on the load coefficients and thereby on the advance ratio J of these
coefficients. The quality factor can be derived from formula 5 and will be used as one of the
resulting values of the comparison between a propeller in axial and oblique flow.
𝐾𝑇𝜑 ∙ cos 𝜑 − 𝐾𝑌 ∙ sin 𝜑 𝐽
𝐾𝜂𝜑 = ∙ (5)
𝐾𝑄𝜑 2𝜋
2.2 Numerical model
Based on the method of Gutsche, F. (1964) a MATLAB model has been constructed to
calculate the effect of oblique inflow on the efficiency of a wide range of propellers. The
numerical model is designed for Wageningen B-series propellers due to practical reasons.
The validations of these propellers are much easier because of the availability of polynomials
of the open water diagrams (developed by Oosterveld, M.W.C.; Oossanen, P. van (1975)) in
comparison with extrapolating data from open water graphs. Wageningen B-series were also
chosen because of the propeller restrictions of the towing tank experiment and therefore
contribute in an easy way of validation of experimental results. The steps of Gutsche, F.
(1965) were conducted in this numerical model. Besides the validation of the experimental
results, the model produces plots showing the relations between different parameters of the
method which is discussed in section 2.1.
2.3 Towing tank experiment
Experimental determination of propeller performance was achieved using open water tests.
The efficiency of a propeller in oblique flow can be measured consistent with the procedure
proposed by the ITTC (ITTC, 2014). For reconstruction of an open water diagram different
loading conditions of a Wageningen B-4.56 propeller need to be tested. These load conditions
were constructed by the speed of the incoming water. The first loading condition was chosen
on the optimal point of the open water efficiency of this propeller curve 𝐽 = 0.5416. The
other loading conditions are 𝐽 = 0.2500 and 𝐽 = 0.6500. They are significantly lower and
higher than the optimal value of the advance ratio 𝐽. This was done to research other blade
loading conditions.

Fig. 3 Open water diagram Wageningen B-4.56

2.2.1. Test set-up
Measurements of the needed quantities thrust, torque, shaft speed and incoming advance
velocity were carried out in the towing tank facility of Delft University of Technology. A
gondola with measurement equipment is installed under the carriage of the towing tank.
Research was done for four different setting angles of 0°, 3°, 6° and 10°. Fig. 4 presents the
test setup for axial flow and Fig. 5 shows the test setup for setting angle of 10°. The gondola
is outfitted with an enclosed shaft at the front, whereby no Magnus effect will occur. The
chosen propeller is a Wageningen B-4.56 propeller. Characteristics are shown in Tab. 1.
Tab. 1 Propeller properties of Wageningen B-4.56 propeller

Propeller Characteristics Quantity Value Unit

Number of blades 𝑧 4 [-]
Diameter 𝐷 0.1333 [m]
Pitch ratio 𝑃/𝐷 0.66 [-]
The propeller is rotated around the y-axis in the towing tank experiment instead of the z-axis.
The drifted test setup resulted in a side force on the gondola which would damage the
carriage. The test setup fulfilled the ITTC regulations (ITTC ,2014).
Fig. 4 Test set-up for the gondola in axial inflow Fig. 5 Test set-up for the gondola in oblique flow
of 10°
2.2.2 Test procedure
Gutsche, F. (1964) investigated oblique inflow of 0, 10, 20 and 30 in open water tests
and found a small difference for his results of 0° and 10 for both torque and thrust.
Unwanted effects in the open water test need to be cancelled out by repeating the tests with
and without propeller at different shaft speeds. Two configuration were designed to
determine thrust, torque, shaft speed and incoming advance velocity. Input values for shaft
speed 𝑛 were defined at 120 rpm and at 900 rpm. This was done to meet the scaling rules for
fluid dynamic testing. Due to physical limitations of the gondola, the minimal required
Reynolds number (2 ∙ 105 ) could not be met. Nevertheless, experiments can show effects that
occur resulting from oblique flow and therefore conducting an experiment is indeed relevant.
The other input variable, advance ratio 𝐽 is linear related to the velocity (of the towing tank
carriage 𝑣) as prescribed in formula 3. The output of the towing tank test was absolute thrust
𝑇 and torque 𝑄.
3. Results
3.1 Results numerical model
The results of the numerical model were based on the propeller characteristics as outlined in
Tab. 1. The data assembled in tables 2, 3 and 4 indicate an increase of 𝐾𝑇𝜑 , 𝐾𝑄𝜑 and 𝐾𝑌 for
increasing leeway angles.
Tab. 2 Thrust coefficients for different oblique flow angles and advance ratios
𝑲𝑻𝝋 Angle of Oblique flow 𝝋
0° 3° 6° 10°
Advance 0.0000 0.2751 0.2751 0.2751 0.2751
ratio 𝑱 0.2500 0.2008 0.2009 0.2013 0.2021
0.5416 0.0864 0.0867 0.0874 0.0890
0.6500 0.0386 0.0389 0.0396 0.0413

Tab. 3 Torque coefficients for different oblique flow angles and advance ratios
𝑲𝑸𝝋 Angle of Oblique flow 𝝋
0° 3° 6° 10°
Advance 0.0000 0.2843 0.2843 0.2843 0.2843
ratio 𝑱 0.2500 0.2228 0.2229 0.2232 0.2239
0.5416 0.1240 0.1242 0.1248 0.1263
0.6500 0.0796 0.0798 0.0805 0.0820
Tab. 4 Dimensionless transverse force coefficient for different oblique flow angles and advance ratios
𝑲𝒀 Angle of Oblique flow 𝝋
0° 3° 6° 10°
Advance 0.0000 0 0 0 0
ratio 𝑱 0.2500 0 -0.0008 -0.0018 -0.0029
0.5416 0 -0.0017 -0.0034 -0.0056
0.6500 0 -0.0019 -0.0039 -0.0065

The tables show an increase of the dimensionless thrust and torque coefficient for four
advance ratios with increasing leeway angels. For the low advance ratio of 0.2500 the
maximum increase of K Tφ is 0.65% between 0° and 10°, while K Qφ will increase with
0.46%. The high advance ratio of 0.6500 illustrates a maximum increase of 6.99% for K Tφ
and 2.98% for K Qφ . Figs. 6 and 7 illustrates this percentile increase of K Tφ and K Qφ for the
full advance ratio range for the given Wageningen B-4.56 propeller.

Fig. 6 Percentile difference in 𝐊 𝐓𝛗 with respect 𝟎° Fig. 7 Percentile difference in 𝐊 𝐐𝛗 with respect to
angle the 𝟎° angle
The resulting transverse force coefficients that arise due to the introduction of an oblique
flow angle are displayed in Tab. 4. The values for an advance ratio of zero show that there is
no occurring transverse force with introduction of angle. Furthermore, Tab. 4 shown an
increase that is approximately linear with increasing angle.
Finally, direct comparison of the open water propeller efficiency for oblique flow ηφ with the
normal open water efficiency η0 and also the quality factors 𝐾𝜂𝜑 and K η0 is not permissible
due to the comparative conditions of equal thrust loading rate (𝐾𝑇𝜑 = 𝐾𝑇 ).
The comparative condition of equal thrust loading rate is not met due to the thrust coefficient
K Tφ being larger than the coefficient K T at the same advance factor J. This is a requirement
to compare efficiencies of propellers in different conditions (𝜂𝜑 ≠ 𝜂0 ) and therefore nothing
can be concluded about the change of open water efficiency due to small leeway angles.
3.2 Results of the experiment
In Tab. 5 the results for the dimensionless thrust coefficient are given, the results for the
dimensionless torque coefficient are given in Tab. 6. When these results are compared with
the results from the MATLAB model a difference is detected. All values of the experiment
were higher. The reason for this was due to the low Reynolds number that influences the
scaling effect. The thrust coefficient was highly effected by the presence of laminar and/or
turbulent flow. The varying and unknown transition point was most likely the cause of the
difference. Also the torque coefficient was not corrected with a bearing friction test, which
must be done under identical test conditions with the propeller replaced by a hub cone with
the same dimensions and weight. The research of Liu, J. & Hekkenberg, R. (2015) stated that
drag test of a foil encounter scale effect for low Reynolds numbers. We expect that it is
plausible that a similar effect occurs on a propeller blade. This results in an overestimations
of the torque coefficient.
Tab. 5 Thrust coefficients for different oblique flow angles and advance ratios of the experiment
𝑲𝑻𝝋 Angle of Oblique flow 𝝋
0° 3° 6° 10°
Advance 0.0000 0.2751 0.2749 0.2747 0.2748
ratio 𝑱 0.2500 0.2008 0.2022 0.2032 0.2050
0.5416 0.0864 0.0869 0.0894 0.0943
0.6500 0.0386 0.0391 0.0422 0.0477

Tab. 6 Torque coefficients for different oblique flow angles and advance ratios of the experiment
𝑲𝑸𝝋 Angle of Oblique flow 𝝋
0° 3° 6° 10°
Advance 0.0000 0.2843 0.2870 0.2843 0.2846
ratio 𝑱 0.2500 0.2228 0.2268 0.2232 0.2283
0.5416 0.1240 0.1266 0.1248 0.1312
0.6500 0.0796 0.0825 0.0805 0.0879

4. Analysis
4.1 Discussion
The results found in the numerical model were considered closer to the truth than the graphs
made by Gutsche, F. (1964) himself. Gutsche used the open water diagrams as graphs while
the MATLAB model used the polynomials described by Oosterveld, M.W.C.; Oossanen, P.
van (1975). The results for dimensionless thrust and torque coefficients compared with
experimental results for K Tφ and K Qφ shown valid results. On the other hand, the transverse
force coefficient could not be compared with experimental results. In his study Gutsche
mentions his concerns about the magnitude of this transverse force coefficient because of the
coefficients he used for the observation of the transverse forces. Comparison of quality
factors is still not feasible, since the comparative conditions of equal thrust loading rate are
not fulfilled, and therefore the quality factor withholds no value in contribution to a definitive
conclusion on the efficiency of the propeller.
4.2 Conclusion
The influence of oblique flow on the propellers performance became visible in an increase in
dimensionless torque and thrust coefficients. The research has also shown that an increases in
inflow angles (𝜑) between lower limit 0° and 10° resulted in an increase for the
dimensionless coefficients (for increasing angle). The increase of dimensionless thrust and
torque are respectively 0.65% and 0.46% for low advance ratios and 6.99% and 2.98% for
high advance ratios. As mentioned before, comparison of axial and oblique flow for the
quality factor does not met the requirements of equal thrust loading rate. In general, we can
conclude that no statement can be made about the influence of oblique inflow on the
dimensionless efficiency and by that also on the open water efficiency. Dimensionless thrust
and torque in oblique flow were nevertheless assumed as reliable predictors of propellers
performance in oblique flow for small leeway angles less than 10°.
The comparison between experimental values and model results has shown the general
increase of dimensionless torque and thrust coefficients. Nevertheless, deviations between
experimental and model results have been found. A maximum deviation of 15.54% was
perceived for the dimensionless thrust coefficient and 7.22% for the torque coefficient. These
deviations were risen by assumptions made in the method of Gutsche, F. (1964) and
inaccurate measurement due to low Reynolds numbers in the towing tank experiments. We
have to state unfortunately that the towing tank experiment did not contribute as expected.
We conclude that the truth lies somewhere in between the numerical and experimental
results. For further analysing more open water tests need to be conducted at a higher
Reynolds numbers to eliminate scale errors.
5. Acknowledgement
This paper is part of the PhD-project of ir. N.J. van der Kolk and is a requirement of the
Bachelor Thesis as compulsory in the curriculum of Bachelor Maritime Technology at the
Delft University of Technology.
 References
ARMINI, H.; STEEN, S. (2011), Experimental and Theoretical Analysis of Propeller Shaft
Loads in Oblique Inflow, Journal of Ship Research, 1-8
CARTER, J. (2007), Marine Propellers and Propulsion, Elsevier, Oxford
DUBBIOSO, G.; MUSCARI, R.; DI MASCIO, A. (2013), CFD Analysis of Propeller
Performance in Oblique Flow, Third International Symposium on Marine Propulsors.
Launceston Australia
GUTSCHE, F. (1964), The study of ships’ propellers in oblique flow, Defence Research
Information Centre, London
INTERNATIONAL TOWING TANK CONFERENCE (2014), Recommended Procedures
and Guidelines for Open Water Test
JOULES (2014), Emission Reduction Technologies, Joules project Retrieved from:
http://www.joules-project.eu/Joules/download?1kGw8VFJ3cc%3D=
KLEIN WOUD, H.; STAPERSMA, D. (2007), Design of Propulsion and Electric Power
Generation Systems, IMarEST, London, 394-397
LIU, J.; HEKKENBERG, R. (2015), Suitable mesh properties for rans analyses of aerofoils:
A case study of ship rudders, Delft University of Technology, Delft
NRS SAIL (2014), Sail into a sustainable future, NSR Sail project Retrieved from:
http://www.nsrsail.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Flyer-folder-Sail-2014-03-26-WEB.pdf
OOSTERVELD, M.W.C.; OOSSANEN, P. van (1975), Further Computer-Analysed Data of
the Wageningen B-Screw Series, International Shipbuilding Progress, Rotterdam, Vol. 22,
No. 251
SCHULTEN, P. (2005), The interaction between diesel engine, ship and propellers during
manoeuvring (Thesis), DUP science, Delft, 38-45

View publication stats