International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Naval Architecture

and Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-naval-
architecture-and-ocean-engineering/

A numerical study on the optimization of the slit shape of a jet

injection propeller
Jun-Hee Lee a, Ju-Han Lee a, Myeong-Min Kim a, Dohan Oh b, Kwang-Jun Paik a, *
a
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Hongik University, Sejong, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The shape of the slit that injects the jet from the surface of the propeller was optimized through numerical
Coanda effect computations. The high-pressure drop on the propeller surface caused by jet injection could be improved by
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modifying the hydrofoil geometry of the propeller. As the cover length increased and the slit was located at the
Design optimization
center of the propeller, the volume of jets leading to the trailing edge increased, and the propulsion performance
Propeller performance
Propeller efficiency
was improved. As the height of the slit increased, the thrust increased due to the Coanda effect, and the torque
decreased because of the thrust of the jet. The jet injection pattern differed according to the area of the slit and
tunnel, which caused a difference in the propeller performance. The jet pattern changed according to the area of
the slit and tunnel, leading to a change in propeller performance. It was effective in improving the efficiency by
injecting from as wide an area as possible, and the efficiency was improved by approximately 2 % considering the
pump efficiency through optimization of the slit shape.

1. Introduction
In 2013, International Maritime Organization (IMO) institutional­
ized Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and tightened regulations to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships; vessels built after
2025 will need to reduce the number of greenhouse gases by 30%
compared to the standard value (Joung et al., 2020). Various studies
have been conducted to improve the efficiency of ships and reduce the
amount of GHG emitted from ships. Mizzi et al. (2017) improved the
propulsion efficiency by installing Propeller Boss Cap Fins (PBCF)
through computations and the development of optimization technology.
Go et al. (2017) designed a duct for the propeller based on NACA0015,
which improved the efficiency of the ship.
In this study, an attempt was made to improve the propeller pro­
pulsion efficiency by injecting a jet from the surface of a marine pro­
peller and applying the Coanda effect. The Coanda effect refers to a
phenomenon in which a fluid with a high velocity in contact with a
curved surface flows along the curvature of the curved surface (Burnazzi
and Radespiel, 2014, 2015). Timoshevskiy et al. (2016) designed an
experimental hydrofoil device capable of jet injection. They compared
the cavitation control performance according to the slit shape
(Timoshevskiy et al., 2018) and hole shape (Kadivar et al., 2020)
through experiments. It was confirmed that this effect increased lift on
the rudder (Seo et al., 2010, 2016). Lu et al. (2018) injected a jet at the
suction side of NACA0066 to derive cavitation suppression and optimal
mass flow coefficient according to several cavitation numbers.
In many studies, jets were injected to control cavitation. Wang et al.
(2020) carried out a cavitation generation model experiment by jet in­
jection using a hydrofoil of NACA66 (MOD) and clarified that jet in­
jection is effective in reducing cavitation. Pant and Frankel (2021)
conducted a numerical analysis of the Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
turbulence model. They showed that jet injection and suction effectively
control cavitation generated on the hydrofoil suction side. The jet in­
jection is effective in cavitation control and in increasing hydrofoil lift
(Maltsev et al., 2020; Oh and Kim, 2010; Oh and Noh, 2015). Further­
more, it was used in research on ventilated supercavitation, which
applied the injection method to underwater bodies (Paik et al., 2018; Lee
et al., 2019). Xu et al. (2021) constructed a simulated ventilated
supercavitating flow and observed the geometry and characteristics of
the supercavity based on the flow rate. Pham et al. (2022) compared the
geometry and pressure of a supercavity injected with hot gas with
experiment. They reported that the structure inside the hot-gas

Peer review under responsibility of The Society of Naval Architects of Korea.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kwangjun.paik@inha.ac.kr (K.-J. Paik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2023.100578
Received 21 September 2023; Received in revised form 29 November 2023; Accepted 14 December 2023
Available online 23 December 2023
2092-6782/© 2023 Published by Society of Naval Architects of Korea. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

All computations were compared using an advance ratio (JA ) of 0.4,

and the advance ratio can be defined using Eq. (1) as follows:
VA
JA = (1)
nD

VA was fixed to 0.8 m/s as the advance speed of the propeller, and n was
fixed at 8 RPS (revolution per second) at the rotation rate. In addition,
the performance of the propeller was compared with KT and 10KQ using
Eqs. (2) and (3).
T
KT = (2)
ρn2 D4

10Q
10KQ = (3)
ρn2 D5

Fig. 1. Comparison of the shapes of Coanda and Normal propeller.
T means the thrust; Q means the torque of the propeller; ρ is the density
of water.
Fig. 2 presents the names of each part of the Coanda propeller. The
passage that moves water from the shaft to the injection port is called a
tunnel, and the water is injected through the slit. The part that connects
the slit and blade at the end of the round tunnel is called the tip, and the
area where the jet is injected is called the jet side. Subsequently, the
changes in KT and 10KQ depending on the injection volume, were
divided into the total, blade, and inner structure, and compared. The
blade included a suction side, pressure side, and jet side, and the inner
structure included by tunnel and round tunnel.

2.2. Numerical modeling

All computations in this study were performed using commercial

CFD software, STAR-CCM+ 15.06 ver. For computations, implicitly
unsteady, incompressible flow as the physical model was selected, and
the continuity equation and Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equation
(RANS) were used as the governing equations in Eqs. (4) and (5).
∫ ∫
d
ρdΩ + ρui ni dS = 0 (4)
dt Ω S
Fig. 2. Definition for each part of the Coanda propeller.
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
d ( )
ρdΩ + ρui ni dS = τij nj − pni dS + ρbi dΩ (5)
ventilated supercavity can be classified into three regions, and the dt Ω S S Ω

pressure inside the supercavity remains unchanged in the region close to

the cavitator.
Based on previous studies, Lee et al. (2021) designed a jet injected
propeller through Eom et al. (2020), conducted a model test and
computation, and confirmed the possibility of improving the efficiency
of the jet-injected propeller. On the other hand, it is necessary to
improve cavitation performance deterioration from high-pressure drops
on the jet injection surface caused by jet injection. In this study, an
improved hydrofoil section (Lee et al., 2021) was used to reduce the
occurrence of cavitation. In addition, the performance was compared by
changing the slit shape, and the possibility of increasing propeller effi­
ciency through optimization was evaluated.
2. Numerical method
2.1. Propeller modeling
In this study, the performance was compared using a propeller that
injects a jet with a slit on the surface of the propeller and a general screw
propeller without a slit. The propeller diameter (D) was 250 mm, the
pitch (P) of Coanda propeller at 0.7 R was P/D = 0.554, and the pitch of
a normal propeller was P/D = 0.514. The chord length (c) of both
propellers was 50 mm, and the detailed specifications of the propellers
are the same as Lee et al. (2021). Fig. 1 compares the shapes of both
propellers.
ui and bi means the velocity and volume tensors, respectively. p is the
pressure and τij is the effective stress due to viscosity and turbulence, as
shown in Eq. (6).
[(
∂ui ∂uj
)
2 ∂uk
]
τij = μe + − δij (6)
∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xk
The SST (Shear Stress Transport) k − ω turbulence model (Menter,
1994) combines the stability advantages of the k − ω model and inde­
pendence from the free-stream boundary of the k − ε model, leading to
significant improvements in predicting adverse pressure gradient flows.
This model has a high accuracy in simulating the predicting of separa­
tion and the ventilated flow (Zhou et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2021).
In theory, the turbulence model assumes completely turbulent fluid
flow, but in the model-scale propeller, both turbulent and laminar flow
regions coexist on the propeller surface. Kuiper (1981) confirmed
laminar flow in a model propeller. The research was conducted that
utilized the transition model provided by the SST k − ω turbulence
model to perform calculations involving transition regions. A perfor­
mance analysis of a model-scale propeller was conducted using both a
transition model and a turbulence model, and the transition model re­
sults shows good agreement with the experiment (Bhattacharyya et al.,
2016; Baltazar et al., 2018, 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Wang and Walters,
2012). I n the study, the turbulence model used for the computations
used the SST k − ω model, and the gamma transition model (Menter
et al., 2015) was set considering that the Reynolds number in the

2
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 3. Computation domain and boundary conditions.
Fig. 4. Grid system for numerical simulations.
computation conditions corresponds to the transition regions (Re =
2.509 × 105 ).
Fig. 3 shows the domain and boundary conditions used in the
calculation, giving mass flow inlet boundary conditions to the end of the
shaft for jet injection so that water entering the shaft can be injected
from the propeller surface. The domain size was set to 10D on both sides
from the center of the propeller and the distance between the inlet and
outlet to 40Dso that the wake generated by the propeller rotation does
not affect the boundary conditions.
Fig. 4 shows the grid system in the calculation domain. The simu­
lation was the same, except that a finer volume mesh around the
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of thrust PUA and torque PUA.
3
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
propeller and perimeter grid was added to measure the ambient flow
injected from the propeller slits more closely than in previous studies
(Lee et al., 2021). A prism layer was used to generate prismatic cells, in
which the distance from the first grid cell to the surface wall was
determined so that the dimensionless wall distance (y+ ) was set to be 1
or less.
This study introduced the equations for thrust per unit area (Thrust
PUA) and torque per unit area (Torque PUA) to analyze the regions on
the propeller where thrust and torque are concentrated. The thrust PUA
was determined by combining the x-axis component of the pressure
acting on the tangential vector of the propeller surface with the wall
shear stress. Torque was determined by the moment generated in the
grid, utilizing the sum of rotational pressure and wall shear stress.
Thrust PUA and torque PUA are shown in Fig. 5 and can be defined using
Eqs. (7) and (8) as follows:
→
TPUA = P • →
nx + Sx (7)
( ( →))
QPUA = →r × P•→
n + S (8)
x
where P means the pressure, S and → n are the wall shear stress and the
tangential vector of the propeller surface, respectively. r is the moment
arm of the torque from the propeller center.
The thrust and torque can be defined using Eqs. (9) and (10), which
means the summation of the pressure and wall shear stress generated in
the unit area of the propeller surface separately in the thrust direction
and torque direction of the propeller.
∑
T= TPUA Δs (9)
∑
Q= QPUA Δs (10)
where T means the total thrust of the propeller, Q means the total torque,
Δs means the area of each surface mesh on the propeller.
2.3. Validation and grid dependency test
The reliability of numerical computations was evaluated by
comparing the results of model experiments and performing a grid de­
pendency test. The results were compared with the model experiment
results (Lee et al., 2021), as shown in Fig. 6. No significant change was
observed because the grid in the jet injection region around the propeller
was reinforced, and it can be confirmed that in the case of propeller
efficiency, the difference from the experiment was relatively reduced at
a high advance ratio.
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Fig. 6. Comparison of the propeller performance between the experiment and computation result.

A grid dependency test was conducted to assess the convergence of

Table 1
the results based on the number of grids. The Grid Convergence Index
Grid numbers for grid dependency test.
(GCI) can be found in the study of Celik et al. (2008). To distinguish the
Grid type Grid number discrete error from other errors, a recommended value for the grid
Coarse 1,012,145 refinement ratio is 1.3 or more, as suggested by Celik et al. (2008). In
Medium 2,293,012 this study, as it was composed of an unstructured gird, the grid numbers
Fine 4,610,918 are changed by adjusting the base size, and the grid refinement ratio was
√̅̅̅
set to 2. The test was performed with three grid numbers, and Table 1
lists the number of grids for each condition. The conditions corre­
Table 2 sponded to JA = 0.4 among the conditions validated with the experi­
Numerical uncertainty analyses from grid convergence at J = 0.4. ment, and were performed under the condition of jet injection, and the
KT 10KQ convergence of KT and 10KQ was evaluated, as listed in Table 2. After
Coarse 0.0521 0.0824 that, the grid was used for all computations because high convergence
Medium 0.0501 0.0753 was confirmed in the fine grid.
Fine 0.0497 0.0738
GCIfine 0.39 % 0.98 %
3. Results

3.1. Performance variation by hydrofoil geometry

Three hydrofoils were considered to improve the high-pressure drop

on the suction surface shown in the previous research, and the geome­
tries are shown in Fig. 7. The shape of the slit and the trailing edge was
corrected where the Coanda effect generated the additional thrust. The
geometry was corrected so that the curvature decreased from cases 1 to
3. The shape of the tunnel changed compared to Lee et al. (2021)
because of the change in hydrofoil geometry, but the area was set to be
the same. The height of the slit was 1.0 mm, as in the previous study. The
geometry of all other parts except the shape of the tunnel and the jet side
were the same, and the change in performance due to the hydrofoil
geometry was compared.
By adjusting the jet injection volume of the Coanda propeller, the
propeller thrust was matched with the normal propeller within 1%, and
this jet injection volume is made dimensionless like Eq. (11).
ṁVjet
Cj = 1 (11)
2
ρSVR2

where ṁ is the mass flow rate; Vjet is the velocity of the jet injected from
the slit; ρ is the density; S is the expanded area of the propeller; VR is the
relative velocity of the propeller at r/R = 0.7.
The head of the pump was also considered to determine the pump
power needed to inject the jet from the propeller. The head of the pump
is given considering only the velocity head of the outlet, as in Lee et al.
(2021), which seems to be in Eq. (12). In addition, Eq. (13) expresses the
required power of the pump derived using the head considered in this
Fig. 7. Hydrofoil geometry for each case.
way:

4
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Table 3
Computation conditions and propeller performance comparison for each case.
Type KT 10KQ Cj ṁ(kg /s) Vjet (m /s) PPump (W)

Normal prop. 0.060 0.064 – - - –

Lee et al. 0.005 0.052 0.68 7.01 16.74
(2021)
Case 1 − 0.007 0.054 0.69 7.09 17.31
Case 2 − 0.026 0.064 0.75 7.72 22.33
Case 3 − 0.087 0.103 0.96 9.83 46.16

Fig. 9. Hydrofoil geometry for each cover length.

Table 4
Propeller performance comparison for each cover length.
Type KT 10KQ Cj ṁ (kg /s) Vjet (m /s) PPump (W)

Normal prop. 0.060 0.064 – - - –

lCO. = 0.00 c − 0.026 0.064 0.75 7.77 22.66
lCO. = 0.05 c − 0.026 0.062 0.74 7.66 21.67
lCO. = 0.10 c − 0.026 0.062 0.74 7.67 21.77

Fig. 8. -CP distribution according to each case.

2
Vjet
H= (12)
2g

1+α
PPump = ṁgH (13)
ηPump

where α is the margin rate, ηPump is the pump efficiency, and the margin
ratio was assumed to be zero in this study.
Table 3 and Fig. 8 compare the performance of three thrust-matched
propellers with Cj , required power, and pressure distribution on the
propeller surface. The pressure distribution on the propeller surface was
dimensionless with − CP , which was defined by Eq. (14).
p
− CP = −
1
2
ρ(nD)2
where p is the pressure on the surface of the propeller.
As the curvature of the jet side decreases, the induced downwash by
the jet decreases, and the thrust increased by the Coanda effect for the
same jet volume decreases. Therefore, Cj of Case 3 appears highest.
Therefore, the required pump power is also required to be the highest. In
addition, as the jet injection volume increased, a moment was generated
in the propeller rotation direction because of the propulsive force of the
jet injected from the slit. The propeller torque tends to decrease as the
curvature of the jet side decreases because the propulsive force of the jet
increases as the injection volume increases.
The pressure distribution on the propeller surface also differed
depending on the shape of the jet side. Fig. 8(c), (d), and (e) confirmed
that the high-pressure drop that occurred in the previous study was
reduced significantly. Furthermore, the area where the intensive pres­
sure drop occurs is reduced as the curvature of the jet side is reduced. A
high-pressure drop appears locally due to the high injection volume
(Fig. 8(e)).
Although the pressure drop is improved in all jet side shapes
compared to the previous study, the hydrofoil thickness on the trailing
edge side is reduced to reduce the curvature of the hydrofoil, as shown in
Fig. 7, and the thickness reduction increases as the curvature is reduced.
Therefore, the jet side shape of the propeller was fixed with Case 2, a
hydrofoil geometry in which the intensive pressure drop was greatly
improved, and the thickness of the propeller on the trailing edge side
was reinforced.
(14)
Fig. 10. -CP distribution according to each cover length.
3.2. Performance variation by cover length(lCO. )
Next, a cover was added to the slit, and the propeller performance
was compared. The propeller cover is a part that continues to the hy­
drofoil at the upper end of the injection port, and propellers with lengths
of 0.05 c and 0.1 c were designed. The height of the slit was 1.0 mm, as in
the previous condition, and all shapes were the same except for the cover
length. Fig. 9 shows the shape of the hydrofoil according to each cover
length.
Table 4 lists the propeller performance when the propellers having
each cover length match the thrust of the normal propeller. When the
thrusts are matched, the torque does not make a large difference
depending on the length of the cover. In the case of the injection volume,
however, a slight difference appeared in the process of matching the
thrusts, so that the maximum difference was approximately 3.0 % for Cj
and 4.6 % for the required power of the pump.
Fig. 10 compares the propeller surface pressure distribution for each
cover length. The change in the pressure distribution appears only near
the jet side. As the cover length increases, the area where the pressure
drop appears on the jet side tends to decrease, but a concentrated
pressure drop occurs near the trailing edge.
The changes in these pressure distributions were analyzed. Fig. 11
compares the ambient flow at r/R = 0.84, where the difference in
pressure changes near the trailing edge appears largest. The tangential

5
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison of the flow distribution around the section according to
each cover length at r/R = 0.84 (Lines: CP).
Fig. 12. Hydrofoil geometry for each slit position.
velocity around the propeller was made dimensionless by the relative
velocity at r/R = 0.7 in the rθ − x plane and represented by the contour.
The surrounding -CP distribution was compared through the lines. The
jet injected from the slit flowed on the propeller due to the Coanda ef­
fect, and the length of the jet guided in the trailing edge direction
increased as the cover length increased. The pressure distribution near
the jet side changed as the length of the jet increased, and the point
where the pressure drop appeared as the cover length increased was
guided toward the trailing edge.
The length of the jet injected to the upper part of the jet side differed
according to the length of the cover (Fig. 11). As the length of the cover
increased, the low-pressure region at the upper end of the jet injection
region decreased, and the tendency to concentrate near the trailing edge
appeared. This jet injection tendency caused a high-pressure drop near
the trailing edge, as shown in Fig. 10. In addition, the pressure distri­
bution in the round tunnel was changed depending on the cover length,
and the influence of the jet injection method in the round tunnel was
analyzed. The injected jet through the round tunnel may be sprayed
upward in the slit if the cover does not exist, and this causes a large
pressure difference in the round tunnel. On the other hand, when a cover
was attached to prevent the slit from spraying upward, the jet that hit
the cover was injected backward, and the pressure difference in the
6
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
Table 5
Computation conditions and power required for pump according to the slit
position.
pS Cj ṁ (kg/s) Vjet (m/s) PPump (W)
0.1c, 0.3c, 0,5c 0.025 0.47 4.86 5.53
0.050 0.66 6.87 15.64
0.075 0.81 8.41 28.74
0.100 0.94 9.72 44.25
round tunnel was reduced.
As the length of the lid increased, the volume of the jets guided to the
jet side increased, and the pressure difference on the propeller surface
and inner structure tended to decrease. Nevertheless, considering the
thin and long cover shape, an excessively long cover length can be ex­
pected to reduce the performance in terms of structure. Therefore, the
cover length was set to lCO. = 0.05 c.
3.3. Performance variation by slit position(pS )
A propeller with the slit positions positioned at 0.1c, 0.3c, and 0.5c
was used to analyze the influence of the slit position, as shown in Fig. 12.
The slit height of the propellers is all 1.0 mm, and the areas of the
tunnels were all the same. When pS = 0.3 c and pS = 0.5 c, there is no
difference in the tunnel shape, but when pS = 0.1 c, there was insuffi­
cient space in the hydrofoil geometry, and it is impossible to have a
tunnel of the same shape. Therefore, the shape of the tunnel at pS = 0.1 c
was changed so that there would be no difference in the tunnel area.
Computations were performed at Cj = 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, and 0.1 to
analyze the change in propeller performance depending on the injection
volume from the slit position, the computation conditions, and the
required power of the pump, as listed in Table 5. The mass flow rate and
the Vjet were equal for each Cj because the height of the slit and the
injection range were the same for all three propellers, so the power of the
pump was equal.
The changes in propeller performance due to jet injection were
compared in several parts to analyze the interaction between the jet and
the propeller and the effect of the jet separately. The propeller was
divided into three parts: Total, Blade, and Inner structure. Total means
the whole propeller; Blade means the suction side, pressure side, and jet
side; Inner structure means the tunnel, round tunnel, and tip. Fig. 13
compares KT and 10KQ in each part. Fig. 13(a) compares the thrust and
torque of the entire propeller. The propeller torque tends to decrease as
the injection volume increases, which is similar to Lee et al. (2021). The
moment generated by the propulsive force of the jet injected from the
slit led to decreased propeller torque. On the other hand, in the case of
thrust, the increase in thrust decreases as the injection volume increases
because the position of the slit becomes closer to the leading edge. When
pS = 0.1c, the thrust tended to decrease as the injection volume
increased.
In the case of torque on the surface of the propeller, there is no large
difference depending on the slit position. In contrast, in the case of
thrust, there is a slight difference in the increasing tendency depending
on the slit position. The thrust generated in the internal structure shows
a large difference depending on the slit position, which can be analyzed
from the difference in the hydrofoil geometry depending on the slit
position and the jet injection direction. Looking at the hydrofoil geom­
etry with pS = 0.1 c in Fig. 12, the slit is near the leading edge. There­
fore, the jet direction is injected in the direction opposite to the thrust
direction of the propeller because the propeller pitch is small. Hence, the
thrust of the jet reduces the propeller thrust. On the other hand, when
pS = 0.5 c, the slit position was in the center of the chord and consid­
ering the pitch of the propeller and the thrust direction of the jet, it can
be expected that there are components in the same direction as the
thrust direction of the propeller. In the case of torque in the internal
structure, the jet was injected in the rotation direction of the propeller,
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 13. Comparison of KT and 10KQ for each part of the propeller according to each slit position.
Fig. 14. Comparison of the flow distribution around the propeller and the
section (r/R = 0.81) according to each slit position (Left: CP (contour), V/VR =
− 0.04 (iso-surface)/Right: tangential velocity (contour), -CP (lines)).
even when the position of the slit was different. Hence, the torque tends
to decrease as the injection volume increases.
Fig. 14 compares the flow velocity and pressure distribution around
the propeller and propeller section at each slit position. On the left side
of Fig. 14, the contour on the surface of the propeller shows the pressure
7
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
distribution and the iso-surface means V/VR = 0.4. The contour on the
right side of Fig. 14 is the flow velocity around the section, and the lines
mean the -CP distribution. When pS = 0.1c and pS = 0.3c, the jet did not
flow on the jet side and a very high-pressure drop appeared. When pS =
0.1 c, the jet injected from the slit passed through the jet side and was
injected to r/R = 0.9 or higher. The pressure drop due to the jet appeared
near the propeller tip that did not inject the jet. The flow distribution
around the propeller section confirmed the cause of this pressure dis­
tribution. When pS = 0.1c and pS = 0.3c, the jet did not flow the jet side
to the trailing edge and separated. Hence, the jet ejected from the pro­
peller has no narrow and fast flow. The jet flows on the jet side because
of the Coanda effect, but when it encounters an area where it rides up
and down on the jet side, it cannot flow this high curvature until the
trailing edge is separated. On the other hand, when pS = 0.5c, the ge­
ometry of the jet side exists only in the form of descending to the trailing
edge, so even if it is not a narrow and fast-flow jet, the jet will reach the
trailing edge relatively easily because of the Coanda effect. As a result,
unlike other propellers, no separation appeared, and a relatively low-
pressure drop occurred.
The pressure difference near the trailing edge appears depending on
the position of the slit. When pS = 0.1c, the influence of the jet barely
appeared near the trailing edge, but when pS = 0.3c, the high-pressure
region near the trailing edge decreased because of the separated jet at
the middle of the jet side. On the other hand, when pS = 0.5c, a high
pressure near the trailing edge was formed because of the influence of
the jet flowing on the jet side to the trailing edge.
The negative torque at high Cj means that the moment generated by
the jet injected from the slit of the propeller was larger than the total
torque on the propeller surface, as shown in Fig. 13(a). Considering the
actual physical phenomenon, the RPS of the propeller will increase. On
the other hand, in the computations of this study, a sliding mesh was
used, in which the propeller and the grid around the propeller were
rotated together by specifying the RPS. Therefore, the RPS increased due
to jet injection. Hence, the torque of the propeller appeared as a negative
value. Accordingly, in this study, this negative torque was considered
additional power to reduce the rotation velocity of the propeller to
perform the comparison at the same advance ratio, and the propeller
efficiency is defined as Eq. (15)
TVA
ηO = (15)
2πn|Q| + PPump
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Table 6
Computation conditions and power required for pump according to the slit
height.
hS (mm) Cj ṁ (kg/s) Vjet (m/s) PPump (W)

0.25 0.025 0.23 9.72 11.06

0.050 0.33 13.74 31.29
0.075 0.41 16.83 57.48
0.100 0.47 19.43 88.49
0.50 0.025 0.33 6.87 7.82
0.050 0.47 9.72 22.12
0.075 0.57 11.90 40.65
0.100 0.66 13.74 62.58
0.75 0.025 0.41 5.61 6.39
0.050 0.57 7.93 18.06
0.075 0.70 9.72 33.19
0.100 0.81 11.22 51.09
1.00 0.025 0.47 4.86 5.53
0.050 0.66 6.87 15.64
0.075 0.81 8.41 28.74
0.100 0.94 9.72 44.25
Fig. 15. Propeller efficiency according to each slit position.

Fig. 17. Comparison of the tangential velocity distribution at the slit center
according to the slit height (Cj = 0.05).

3.4. Performance variation by slit height(hS )

Fig. 16. Hydrofoil geometry for each slit height.
VA means the advanced speed of the propeller.
Fig. 15 shows the efficiencies of the Coanda propellers at each slit
position and the normal propeller. In Cj = 0.025, 0.05, the propeller
efficiency of the Coanda propellers is higher than a normal propeller.
Nevertheless, the propeller torque was reduced greatly when the jet
injection volume was high, as confirmed in Fig. 13. The additional
power was increased, and the efficiency was reduced greatly at high Cj .
The propeller efficiency of pS = 0.5c, in which the separation of the jet
did not appear on the jet side, was the highest in all Cj .
A comparison of the performance changes depending on the position
of the slit, at pS = 0.5c, revealed the highest efficiency of the propeller
and the smallest pressure drop on the propeller surface. Therefore, the
position of the silt was fixed to pS = 0.5c.
A propeller with four slit heights was designed, and the hydrofoil
geometries were compared to analyze the effect of the slit height
following the slit position, as shown in Fig. 16. Equal to the previous
condition, the area of the tunnel was changed together with the slit
height to maintain the area of the slit according to the slit height and a
constant ratio to the area of the tunnel. Furthermore, the geometry was
kept the same for the height of the four slit heights to eliminate the
influence of the geometry of the jet side. Because the effect of the tip
diameter was not as great as the effect of the slit height (Eom et al.,
2021), the hydrofoil geometry about the slit height was changed by
decreasing the tip diameter to maintain the geometry of the jet side. The
considered slit heights were hS = 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 0.75 mm,
and 1.0 mm, confirming that the area of the tunnel decreases as the
height of the slits decreases. The heights of the tunnel, the starting po­
sition of the round tunnel, and the z-axis position of the tunnel were all
matched to minimize the influence of the tunnel. Except for the tunnels,
round tunnels, and tip shapes, all other shapes were the same.
Table 6 lists the computation conditions for each slit height and the
required power of the pump for each slit height. As the height of the slit
changed, the area of the slit changed, so the injection volume and the
theoretical flow velocity at the slit (Vjet ) change according to the height

8
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 18. -CP distribution according to the slit height (Cj = 0.05).
of each slit to maintain the same Cj . Hence, the required power of the
pump changes. The injection volume at the same Cj tended to increase as
the height of the slit increased. On the other hand, the Vjet tended to
decrease as the area of the slit increased. Owing to this effect, the
required power of the pump for injecting the jet concerning the height of
each slit tends to decrease as the height of the slit increases at the same
Cj .
Fig. 17 compares the actual flow velocity at the slit at the center of
the slits according to the height of each slit at Cj = 0.05. As shown in
Table 6, the jet velocities at the slit do not show a linear relationship
depending on the slit height. Therefore, the jet velocities at the slit do
not show a linear relationship depending on the slit height, as shown in
Fig. 17. By matching the ratio of the slit area change to the slit height to
the tunnel area, it was possible to confirm the same jet injection form in
which the jet was injected from r/R = 0.55 or more.
Fig. 18 compares the surface pressure distribution of the propeller
according to the slit height. A higher slit height indicates a greater
pressure drop generated on the surface of the propeller, particularly on
the jet side. As the slit height increases, the jet becomes thicker at the
same Cj , which increases the downwash above the jet side caused by the
jet and increases the pressure drop on the jet side. On the other hand, the
pressure drop around the tip appeared most at hS = 0.25 mm, which is
the lowest slit height. As shown in Fig. 17, the jet was injected fastest at
hS = 0.25 mm, showing that the variation of flow occurs due to the
Coanda effect because of the curvature of the tip. The pressure drop
Fig. 19. Comparison of KT and 10KQ for each part of the propeller according to each slit height.
9
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
generated around the tip tended to decrease as the slit height increased.
Fig. 19 compares the change in performance for each part depending
on each slit height. The overall thrust generated by the propeller tended
to increase as the height increased, and the torque tended to decrease.
The thrust in the inner structure did not differ significantly depending on
the slit height (Fig. 19 (c)), and in the case of the torque, a higher slit
height indicated a greater decrease in torque. In the case of the propeller
blade, however, the thrust increased as the slit height increased, and the
torque decreased. Hence, a higher slit height means a thicker jet injected
from the slit. Currently, the thicker the jet, the more the flow above the
jet side is guided. Therefore, the increase in thrust has increased rela­
tively. In contrast, in the case of torque, it tends to increase as the height
of the slit is lower in all Cj . The thrust and torque that occurred on the
propeller surface were compared to analyze the reason for this tendency.
Figs. 20 and 21 compare the thrust PUA and torque PUA at the lowest
(Cj = 0.025), and highest (Cj = 0.1) to analyze the significant thrust and
torque changes on the propeller surface because of the jet injection
volume. At low Cj , the flow injected from the slit was the fastest jet in
hS = 0.25 mm propeller, among the four slit heights, and the guided
downwash from the tip generates the highest thrust around the tip. Even
in the case of torque, relatively higher torque was generated around the
tip of the hS = 0.25 mm propeller, which has the fastest jet speed at a low
Cj and thrust. When the jet injection volume increased, however, the jet
injected from the slit flowed on the jet side due to the Coanda effect and
thrust was generated. Regarding the thrust, a higher slit height meant a
thicker jet, and the more thrust generated on the jet side tended to in­
crease. The torque on the jet side and around the tip, which was affected
by the flow velocity of the high-speed jet, caused the highest torque
generated on the surface of the hS = 0.25 mm propeller at all Cj . Even in
the case of thrust, a positive thrust was generated near the tip because of
the high jet velocity of a low slit height. At the same time, it was possible
to confirm the negative thrust distribution that appeared when the jet
applied pressure to the jet side in the opposite direction of the thrust.
This thrust reduction region tended to decrease as the slit height
increased. Hence, the thrust and torque of the pressure side do not show
a large difference due to the height of the slit.
Fig. 22 compares the flow distribution at r/R = 0.81. There was no
significant pressure difference between the tip where the downflow was
induced by the jet and the suction side and pressure side except for the
jet injection region where the jet was injected. As the jet became thicker,
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 20. Comparison of the thrust PUA distribution on the suction side and
pressure side according to slit height.
the pressure tended to decrease at the upper part of the jet side, and the
thrust increased because of the pressure difference between the jet side
and the pressure side due to such an effect. That is, the thrust at the jet
side was dominated by the thickness of the jet rather than the flow ve­
locity at the upper part of the jet side.
Fig. 23 compares the propeller efficiency according to the slit height.
In all Cj , the efficiency of hS = 1.0 mm propeller, in which the thrust
increased due to the Coanda effect of the jet and the torque on the
propeller surface appeared small, was the highest, and a lower slit height
indicated lower efficiency. In addition, the remaining propellers, except
hS = 1.0 mm propeller showed lower efficiency than a normal propeller
on all Cj . Hence, the lower the slit height, the more Vjet increases at the
same Cj , as shown in Table 6. The required power of the pump increased
according to Eqs. (12) and (13) when Vjet increases, which causes the
efficiency of the propeller to decrease.
3.5. Performance variation by slit–tunnel area ratio(AS /AT )
Fig. 24 and Table 7 show the hydrofoil geometry and computation
conditions of the propeller used to analyze the performance change due
to the ratio of the slit area (AS ) to the tunnel area (AT ). The slit area
means the area of the twisted rectangle whose height is the slit height
and length is r/R = dd0.5 to 0.9. All other geometries are the same
except for the geometry of the tunnel when observing only the effect of
the ratio of slit area to tunnel ratio. The ratio of the slit area to the tunnel
area considered was AS /AT = 1.0, 1.6, and 2.2, and a higher slit height
indicated better propeller performance. On the other hand, when hS =
1.0 mm, the tunnel area was too large under the condition AS / AT =
1.0. Hence, it cannot be implemented inside the hydrofoil geometry.
Therefore, the performance was evaluated by applying the highest slit
10
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
Fig. 21. Comparison of the torque PUA distribution on the suction side and
pressure side according to the slit height.
height hS = 0.75 mm that can realize AS /AT = 1.0. The slit area did not
change because there was no change in slit height. Therefore, the in­
jection volume did not change depending on the ratio of the slit area to
the tunnel area. As a result, there was no difference in the required
power of the pump for each area ratio, as shown in Table 7.
Fig. 25 compares the jet velocity in the center of the slit based on the
ratio of slit area to tunnel ratio (AS /AT ). As the slit area becomes wider
than the tunnel area, the jet tended to be concentrated and injected at a
higher r/R. When AS /AT = 1.0, there was almost no area where the jet
was sucked into the slit, whereas when AS /AT = 2.2, the jet was sucked
into the slit until around r/R = 0.68, and the jet was injected at higher
r/R = 0.68 with a very fast velocity.
When the slit area was smaller than the tunnel area (AS /AT = 1.0),
the area of the outlet was small so that the flow velocity inside the tunnel
decreased and the pressure increased. The difference between the jet
injection speed at high r/R and low r/R was not large because of the
relatively high pressure in the tunnel. On the other hand, the internal
pressure of the tunnel decreased when the area of the slit was larger than
the area of the tunnel (AS /AT = 2.2), and the flow velocity increased
because of the narrowed area of the tunnel. Therefore, the jet is
concentrated on the high r/R because of the centrifugal force generated
by the propeller rotation. At low r/R, where the jet was not injected, the
pressure inside the slit became low, and rather a flow sucked into the slit
from the outside was generated.
The pressure distribution on the propeller surface also differs
depending on the injection pattern depending on the ratio of slit area to
tunnel area, which was compared in Fig. 26. The pressure drop is the
smallest, and the pressure drop occurs on the jet side in the widest area
when the jet velocity is relatively slow and widespread in AS /AT = 1.0,
as shown in Fig. 25. On the other hand, in the case of AS /AT = 2.2,
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Fig. 24. Hydrofoil geometry for each slit-tunnel area ratio.

Table 7
Computation conditions and power required for a pump according to the slit-
tunnel area ratio.
AS /AT Cj ṁ (kg/s) Vjet (m/s) PPump (W)

1.0, 1.6, 2.2 0.025 0.41 5.61 6.39

0.050 0.57 7.93 18.06
0.075 0.70 9.72 33.19
0.100 0.81 11.22 51.09

Fig. 22. Comparison of the flow distribution around the section according to
each slit height at r/R = 0.81 (Cj = 0.1, Contour: tangential velocity, Lines: CP ).

Fig. 25. Velocity distribution at the center of the slit (Cj = 0.050).

Fig. 23. Propeller efficiency according to each slit height.

where the is at high r/R, a very high-pressure drop appears near the
trailing edge in the region where the jet is intensively injected. There­
fore, propeller damage can occur because of cavitation and the thin
shape of the trailing edge.
Fig. 27 compares the propeller performance for each injection
pattern. Fig. 27(c) compares the thrust generated in the internal struc­ Fig. 26. -CP distribution according to each slit-tunnel area ratio (Cj = 0.050,
ture with the torque. A large difference in the torque reduction of the Isosurface: V/Vjet = − 0.4).

11
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 27. Comparison of KT and 10KQ for each part of the propeller according to each slit-tunnel area ratio.
Fig. 28. Comparison of the thrust PUA distribution on the suction side and
pressure side according to slit-tunnel area ratio.
propeller depending on the injection pattern was observed. Even if the
jet is injected at the same Cj , the method of injecting a narrowed and
faster jet was more effective in reducing the torque of the propeller than
the method of slow and wide injection. Considering the shape of the
round tunnel and the injection pattern, a smaller slit area to tunnel ratio
will allow the jet to provide more force in the thrust vectoring direction
of the propeller.
Fig. 27(b) compares the thrust and torque generated on the propeller
blade surface. The torque generated on the propeller surface tends to
increase as the AS /AT increases. In the case of AS /AT = 2.2, the thrust
appears to be highest at a low injection volume, but the thrust increase
generated on the propeller blade surfaced tends to decrease as the in­
jection volume increases. Considering the slope of the graph, it was
12
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
Fig. 29. Comparison of the torque PUA distribution on the suction and pressure
sides according to slit-tunnel area ratio.
judged that this difference becomes even larger as the injection volume
increases.
The cause of the change in the thrust and torque of the propeller due
to the jet injection pattern was analyzed. Figs. 28 and 29 show the thrust
PUA and the torque PUA according to the injection pattern. When AS /
AT = 1.0, which disperse the same Cj and injects a jet, the maximum
thrust appearing in the jet injection area is the smallest. As shown in
Fig. 26, when the slit-tunnel area ratio is different, the thrust PUA and
Torque PUA on the suction side increase like the injection pattern. In the
case of AS /AT = 2.2, where the jet was concentrated at a high r/R, the
jet velocity was relatively high, so downwash was induced at the upper
slit. The thrust and torque increased in areas where high-pressure drops
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Table 8
Computation conditions and required power for the pump for the injection
range.
Slit type Cj ṁ (kg/s) Vjet (m/s) PPump (W)

B, M, T 0.025 0.28 7.99 9.10

0.050 0.40 11.30 26.11
0.075 0.49 13.84 47.97
0.100 0.57 15.98 73.85
BM, MT 0.025 0.40 5.61 6.39
0.050 0.57 7.93 18.06
0.075 0.70 9.72 33.19
0.100 0.81 11.22 51.09
BMT 0.025 0.49 4.61 5.25
0.050 0.70 6.52 14.86
0.075 0.85 7.99 27.29
0.100 0.99 9.23 42.02

when the injection volume was increased, and a strong jet was injected.
In AS /AT = 1.0, where the jet was injected over the entire slit, as the
injection volume increased, the area generating positive thrust increased
near the trailing edge, and the thrust tended to increase. Nevertheless,
for AS /AT = 2.2, concentrating at high r/R, the torque decreased
because of the increase in the area generating negative torque. In
conclusion, the thrust and torque variables depend on the injection
volume and pattern, but the torque mainly varies by the injection
Fig. 30. Comparison of the flow distribution around the section according to
pattern.
the slit position at r/R = 0.82 (Cj = 0.100 , Lines: CP ).
The cause of thrust and torque changes on the pressure side was
examined. Fig. 30 presents the flow around the propeller. It shows the
flow at r/R = 0.82 where the difference in the injection pattern is clear.
Differences in the jet velocity and thickness occurred as the slit-tunnel
area ratio increased, which increased the pressure drop at the jet side.
The jet flowed on the pressure side, and the velocity also increased.
Owing to the velocity, the pressure on the propeller surface became
lower, which reduced the pressure difference with the suction side. As
the slit-tunnel area ratio increased, the thrust was reduced at high in­
jection rates, as shown in Fig. 27(b) and Fig. 28.
Fig. 31 compares the efficiency for the slit-tunnel area ratio. In
condition Cj = 0.025 from AS /AT = 2.2, an efficiency improvement of
approximately 38.1 % was confirmed compared to a normal propeller.
Under other conditions, except for Cj = 0.025 from AS /AT = 2.2, the
efficiency was lower than normal propellers because the negative torque
was considered as the additional power, as expressed in Eq. (15).

3.6. Performance variation according to the slit type

The following six types of jet injection propellers were devised to

Fig. 31. Propeller efficiency according to each slit-tunnel ratio.
appeared. On the other hand, there was no difference in thrust PUA and
torque PUA at the pressure side depending on the slit-tunnel area ratio
because the effect of the jet on the propeller was low at a low Cj .
The high thrust and torque were generated near the slit curvature
understand the performance change depending on the injection position
and range. Depending on the injection range, r/R = 0.3 to 0.5 was set for
the bottom, r/R = 0.5 to 0.7 for the middle, and r/R = 0.7 to 0.9 for the
top, and they were called B, M, and T propellers, respectively. Here, the
bottom and middle areas, middle and top areas, and propellers spraying
all three areas were called BM, MT, and BMT propeller, respectively.

Fig. 32. Propeller geometry for the injection range.

13
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 33. -CP distribution for each injection range (Cj = 0.05).
Fig. 34. Comparison of KT and 10KQ for each part of the propeller for each injection range.
Fig. 32 presents the propeller geometry. Table 8 lists the calculation
conditions for each injection range. A wider injection range meant a
larger slit area, so the mass flow rate was higher than the other pro­
pellers with the same Cj , but the required power for the pump was
smaller because of the slower Vjet .
The pressure distribution on the propeller surface for each slit type
was compared, as shown in Fig. 33. A comparison of the B, M, and T
propellers with different injection positions showed a pressure drop
because the jet increased as r/R increased. For the B propeller, which jets
at the lowest r/R, almost no pressure drop was observed because of the
jet, but a high pressure occurred on the jet side. This trend was
confirmed for the BM and MT propellers. An intensive pressure drop
occurred near the end in the jet injection region for the T and MT pro­
pellers, which injected the jet at high r/R, and the BMT propeller had a
wider area of pressure drop, but the value was relatively small. This
result was caused by an increase in mass flow rate with the same Cj , but a
decrease in jet velocity occurred as the slit area increased, as listed in
Table 8.
The propeller performance was compared according to each slit type,
as shown in Fig. 34. Figs. 35 and 36 show the thrust PUA and torque
14
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
PUA. The torque decreased in all injection ranges, but the thrust showed
various patterns. The T Propeller injected at0 r/R = 0.7 or higher
showed a sharp increase in thrust as Cj increased. The propeller rotation
and jet injection generated a high relative velocity at the upper end of
the slit, which induced a large downwash. In addition, when comparing
the PUA distribution appearing on the pressure side, at r/R = 0.7 as the
injection port, smaller thrust and torque PUA areas were noted on the
pressure side. This was observed on the MT and BMT propellers, which
share the injection range with the T propeller.
The thrust of the B propeller blade decreased, even when Cj
increased, as shown in Fig. 34(b), which can be analyzed through the jet
injection area and pressure side. As shown in Fig. 33, the region where
high pressure was generated decreased the thrust in the injection region.
Furthermore, a jet was injected at low r/R to induce flow on the pressure
side, which caused a thrust reduction while increasing the velocity. On
the other hand, the thrust generated by the inner structure was highest
in the propeller, and due to the short tunnel length, the force exerted by
the jet on the rounded tunnel in the thrust direction was considered to
have the greatest influence. The BMT propeller, injected jet at all r/R
positions, was indicated a thrust advantage.
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Fig. 35. Comparison of thrust PUA distribution on the suction side and pressure side according to the injection ratio.

15
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Fig. 36. Comparison of the torque PUA distribution on the suction side and pressure side according to the injection ratio.

16
J.-H. Lee et al. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578

Fig. 37 compares the propeller efficiencies according to the propeller

type, showing that the BMT propeller is higher. At high Cj , where
negative torque appears, the propeller efficiency decreases. Hence, the
selection of Cj is important for increasing efficiency.

3.7. Optimization of the slit

A propeller has a thrust that must be generated at the design speed,

and the thrust must be matched to compare the propeller performance.
Therefore, the propeller performance was compared after matching the
thrust with the normal propeller, which is a propeller that does not inject
a jet within 1% or so. Lee et al. (2021) also compared the performance
with the propeller showing the highest efficiency. Slit shape optimiza­
tion of a jet injection propeller with a NACA66 was performed based on
the results of the previous section.
The case 2 geometry of Fig. 7 and a cover length of 0.05C were
applied to improve the high-pressure drop developed on the jet side. For
the slit type, the BMT type with the highest propeller efficiency was
Fig. 37. Propeller efficiency for each injection range.
adopted, and the slit height was set as large as possible. The slit shape
was optimized while adjusting the slit-tunnel area ratio. Table 9 and
Table 9 Fig. 38 show the slit shape and specifications of the optimized
Optimized slit shape specifications. propellers.
The propulsion performance of the three propellers was compared,
Parameter Lee et al. (2021) Optimized propeller
as shown in Table 10. The injection volume was adjusted, and the thrust
lCo. 0.00c 0.05c
was matched to harmonize the thrust with the normal propeller within
pS 0.5c
hS (mm) 1.0 0.8 1%. For the optimized propeller, the injection volume was increased
AS / AT 1.60 1.58 over the propeller of a previous study (Lee et al., 2021) to match the
thrust, but the slit shape was the BMT type with a broader exit area; Vjet
was reduced, and the power requirements decreased. The torque
The tendency of the torque generated on the propeller surface generated by the propeller was almost non-existent, meaning that very
differed according to the slit type and relative velocity. The torque on little power was required on the shaft to rotate the propeller. In other
the propeller surface increased when the jet was injected in a region words, the propeller can be rotated by the thrust of the jet injected from
where the relative velocity flowing into the propeller was large, or when the slit, and the propeller efficiency is maximized. In the case of the
the injection area was wide. The widest jetting BMT propeller has the optimized propeller, assuming a pump efficiency of 1.0, the efficiency
widest area to generate thrust and torque, but the thrust generated was was approximately 0.811, an approximately 35 % efficiency improve­
low at Cj = 0.025. On the other hand, as Cj increased, the thrust increase ment over the normal propeller. Assuming a high-efficiency pump and
rate was high, so Cj = 0.100 generated the maximum thrust. considering a pump efficiency of 0.75, there was an approximately 2 %

Fig. 38. w/jet hydrofoil geometry with an optimized slit shape.

Table 10
Performance comparison of optimized propeller with the matched thrust of a normal and previous propeller (NACA66 (MOD, t/c = 0.12)).
Type Cj KT 10KQ ṁ (kg/s) Vjet (m/s) ηP PPump (W) ηO

Normal propeller – 0.060 0.064 – – – – 0.601

Lee et al. (2021) 0.052 0.060 0.005 0.68 7.01 1.00 16.74 0.653
Optimized propeller 0.053 0.067 − 0.001 0.71 6.22 1.00 14.29 0.811
0.75 18.22 0.665

17
J.-H. Lee et al.
Fig. 39. -CP distribution of the optimized slit shape with the matched thrust.
efficiency improvement.
The pressure distributions of three propellers were compared, as
shown in Fig. 39. The propeller optimized in this study greatly improved
the pressure drop compared to the propeller reported by Lee et al.
(2021). The pressure drop generated on the jet side was also not large
compared to normal propellers. On the other hand, the downstream flow
was induced because the jet had a higher velocity than the propeller
rotation velocity, and a high-pressure drop around the slit tip was
generated. Hence, the cavitation performance is expected to deteriorate
around the slit tip.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the hydrofoil geometry modification and slit shape
optimization were performed to improve the high-pressure drop that
occurs during jet injection and increase the propulsion efficiency of the
propeller.
First, this study improved the cross-sectional shape of the propeller
by reducing curvature. The high-pressure drop on the propeller surface
was also improved despite the increased injection volume. In the case of
the installed cover, the injection volume required to match the thrust
was similar. In addition, as the length of the cover increased, the amount
of flow increased to the trailing edge because of the Coanda effect. On
the other hand, if the cover is too long, it could lead to structural
instability, vibration, and noise-induced problems arising from the
cover.
Second, the performance was compared depending on the slit posi­
tion. When the slit was located near the leading edge, the injected jet
was separated without flowing to the trailing edge. Therefore, a high-
pressure drop was expected, and the cavitation performance deterio­
rated. By contrast, when the slit was positioned at 0.5c, the jet that
sprayed from the slit flowed to the trailing edge of the propeller, causing
the largest thrust increase due to the Coanda effect.
Third, at the same Cj , when the slit height was increased, the thrust
increased due to the Coanda effect, and the total torque decreased. This
is because a higher slit height resulted in a greater pressure drop on the
jet side, a greater pressure difference between the pressure side, suction,
and jet side, and greater thrust. On the other hand, the surface torque
tended to decrease when the velocity of the jet decreased. The jet in­
jection pattern at the slit, depending on the slit-tunnel area ratio, was
changed. When a concentrated jet was injected, the pressure drop was
stronger on the jet side, and the propeller performance was higher at low
Cj . Nevertheless, when Cj increased, the flow was induced on the pres­
sure side; the pressure difference and thrust rise rate decreased.
Finally, the propeller performance was compared with the injection
range and position of the injection port. A low r/R type was injected,
which did not affect the propeller performance significantly, but the jet
18
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
showed relatively high performance, even at low Cj . On the other hand,
at high Cj , the thrust and torque were reduced because the jet flow was
induced on the propeller surface. As a result, it was ineffective in
improving the propeller performance. In contrast, the high r/R type
effectively increased the thrust and had little effect on the pressure side.
In addition, a larger injection area resulted in a greater jet thrust and a
smaller torque.
These results were combined to optimize the injection slit shape, and
the efficiency was compared with the normal propeller and the propeller
reported by Lee et al. (2021). When the pump efficiency was not
considered, it showed approximately 35 % efficiency improvement over
the normal propeller and approximately 24 % compared to Lee et al.
(2021). Considering a pump efficiency of 75 %, it showed an approxi­
mately 2 % increase in efficiency compared to the normal propeller.
This study confirmed the propeller performance improvement using
the Coanda effect through an optimized slit shape. Future research will
analyze the propeller performance by varying the propeller geometry.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant (No. 2022R1F1A1074865) funded by the Ministry of
Science and ICT, Republic of Korea.
References
Baltazar, J., Rijpkema, D., de Campos, J.F., 2018. On the use of the γ-Reθtransition model
for the prediction of the propeller performance at model-scale. Ocean Engineering
170, 6–19.
Baltazar, J., Rijpkema, D., Falcão de Campos, J., 2021. Prediction of the propeller
performance at different Reynolds number regimes with RANS. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9
(10), 1115.
Bhattacharyya, A., Krasilnikov, V., Steen, S., 2016. Scale effects on open water
characteristics of a controllable pitch propeller working within different duct
designs. Ocean Engineering 112, 226–242.
Burnazzi, M., Radespiel, R., 2014. Design and analysis of a droop nose for Coanda flap
applications. J. Aircraft 51 (5), 1567–1579.
Burnazzi, M., Radespiel, R., 2015. Synergies between suction and blowing for active
high-line flaps. CEAS Aeronautical Journal 6 (2), 305–318.
Celik, I.B., Ghia, U., Roache, P.J., Freitas, C.J., 2008. Procedure for estimation and
reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. Journal of Fluids
Engineering Transactions of the ASME 130 (7).
Eom, M.J., Paik, K.J., Lee, J.H., 2020. Numerical study on the lift-drag and cavitation
performances of a two-dimensional hydrofoil using the Coanda effect. Journal of
Advanced Marine Engineering and Technology 44 (6), 457–466.
Go, J.S., Yoon, H.S., Jung, J.H., 2017. Effects of a duct before a propeller on propulsion
performance. Ocean Engineering 136, 54–66.
Joung, T.H., Kang, S.G., Lee, J.K., Ahn, J., 2020. The IMO initial strategy for reducing
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and its follow-up actions towards 2050. Journal of
International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 4 (1), 1–7.
Kadivar, E., Timoshevskiy, M.V., Pervunin, K.S., el Moctar, O., 2020. Cavitation control
using cylindrical cavitating-bubble generators (CCGs): experiments on a benchmark
CAV2003 hydrofoil. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 125, 103186.
Kim, D.H., Jeon, G.M., Park, J.C., Shin, M.S., 2021. CFD simulation on predicting POW
performance adopting laminar-turbulent transient model. Journal of the Society of
Naval Architects of Korea 58 (1), 1–9.
Kuiper, G., 1981. Cavitation inception on ship propeller model. PhD Thesis. Technical
Univ., Delft, The Netherlands.
Lee, J.H., Paik, B.G., Kim, K.Y., Kim, M.J., Kim, S., Lee, S.J., 2019. Experimental study on
supercavitated body with static angle-of-attack. Journal of the Society of Naval
Architects of Korea 56 (6), 541–549.
Lee, J.H., Paik, K.J., Lee, S.H., Kim, G.H., Cho, J.H., 2021. Experimental and numerical
study on the performance change of a simple propeller shape using the Coanda
effect. Appl. Sci. 11 (9), 4112.
Lu, S.P., Wang, W., Wang, X.F., 2018. Experiment research on cavitation control by
active injection. In: In the 10th International Symposium on Cavitation.
Maltsev, L.I., Dimitrov, V.D., Milanov, E.M., Zapryagaev, I.I., Timoshevskiy, M.V.,
Pervunin, K.S., 2020. Jet control of flow separation on hydrofoils: performance
evaluation based on force and torque measurements. J. Eng. Thermophys. 29 (3),
424–442.
J.-H. Lee et al.
Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA J. 32 (8), 1598–1605.
Menter, F.R., Smirnov, P.E., Liu, T., Avancha, R., 2015. A one-equation local correlation-
based transition model. Flow, Turbul. Combust. 95, 583–619.
Mizzi, K., Demirel, Y.K., Banks, C., Turan, O., Kaklis, P., Atlar, M., 2017. Design
optimisation of propeller boss cap fins for enhanced propeller performance. Appl.
Ocean Res. 62, 210–222.
Oh, J.K., Kim, H.C., 2010. A study on the high lifting device equipped with the trailing
edge rotor for the enhancement of circulation control. Journal of the Society of
Naval Architects of Korea 47 (4), 533–542.
Oh, J.K., Noh, J.K., 2015. On the lift enhancement technique of the trailing edge rotor of
two-dimensional hydrofoil. Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment
and Safety 21 (2), 200–206.
Paik, B.G., Kim, M.J., Jung, Y.R., Lee, S.J., Kim, K.Y., Ahn, J.W., Seol, H.S., Kim, K.S.,
2018. Fundamental studies for ventilated supercavitation experiments in new high-
speed cavitation tunnel. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea 55 (4),
330–340.
Pant, C.S., Frankel, S.H., 2021. Interaction between surface blowing and re-entrant jet in
active control of hydrofoil cavitation. Ocean Engineering 242, 110087.
Pham, V.D., Hong, J.W., Hilo, A.K., Ahn, B.K., 2022. Numerical study of hot-gas
ventilated supercavitating flow. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 14, 100470.
19
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 16 (2024) 100578
Seo, D.W., Oh, J.K., Lee, S.H., 2010. A study for improvement of lift performance of a
Horn-type rudder with the Coanda effect. Journal of the Society of Naval Architects
of Korea 47 (4), 543–552.
Seo, D.W., Lee, S.J., Oh, J., 2016. Performance analysis of stabilizer fin applied Coanda
system. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology 30 (1), 18–24.
Timoshevskiy, M.V., Zapryagaev, I.I., Pervunin, K.S., Markovich, D.M., 2016. Cavitation
control on a 2D hydrofoil through a continuous tangential injection of liquid:
experimental study. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1770. AIP Publishing LLC,
030026. No. 1.
Timoshevskiy, M.V., Zapryagaev, I.I., Pervunin, K.S., Maltsev, L.I., Markovich, D.M.,
Hanjalić, K., 2018. Manipulating cavitation by a wall jet: experiments on a 2D
hydrofoil. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 99, 312–328.
Wang, W., Tang, T., Zhang, Q., Wang, X., An, Z., Tong, T., Li, Z., 2020. Effect of water
injection on the cavitation control: experiments on a NACA66 (MOD) hydrofoil. Acta
Mech. Sin. 36, 999–1017.
Wang, X., Walters, K., 2012. Computational analysis of marine-propeller performance
using transition-sensitive turbulence modeling. J. Fluid Eng. 134 (7), 071107.
Xu, H., Luo, K., Dang, J., Li, D., Ye, C., Huang, C., 2021. Comparison of supercavity
geometry and gas leakage behavior between the double-cavity flow pattern and the
wake-closure flow pattern. AIP Adv. 11 (5).
Zhou, J.J., Yu, K.P., Yang, M., 2011. Numerical simulation of gas leakage mechanism of
ventilated supercavity under the condition of low Froude number. Eng. Mech. 28 (1),
251–256.