Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Investigating the effect of geometric parameters on hydrodynamic and

hydro-acoustic performances of submerged propellers
A.H. Razaghian a, A. Ebrahimi b, *, F. Zahedi a, M.R. Javanmardi c, M.S. Seif a
a
Center of Excellence in Hydrodynamic and Dynamic of Marine Vehicles, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
c
University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia

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

Keywords: The hydro-acoustic analysis of submerged propellers is an important issue in marine industries, which is
Hydro-acoustic examined to reduce the vibrations and noise level of vessels alongside reducing fuel consumption and improving
Hydrodynamic hydrodynamic efficiency. B-series propellers are common propellers whose hydrodynamic and acoustic inves­
Geometric parameters
tigation through applying suitable rake, and skew angle can offer proper results to designers for enhancing the
FW-H equations
Sound pressure level
hydrodynamic performance and reducing noise. In this study, a model of the five-bladed B-series propeller with
the normal skew angle is chosen. The effects of geometric parameters, including the rake angle, skew angle,
geometric pitch ratio, and the number of blades on the hydrodynamic and acoustic performance of propeller, are
numerically investigated under non-cavitating conditions. In the numerical analysis, RANS equations are solved
using the finite volume method through k-ε turbulence modeling, and the hydrodynamic characteristics of the
propellers are evaluated at different flow conditions. In addition, the noise of propellers is calculated using FW-H
formulation in defined receivers. For validation of the numerical results, the model of propeller is tested in the
K23 cavitation tunnel at the Sharif University of Technology. Results show that the numerical results are in good
agreement with experimental results and other numerical studies. Moreover, the effects of changes of geometric
parameters on the hydrodynamic and acoustic performance of the propeller are investigated. According to the
results, the far-field can be defined relative to the propeller’s radius (R). By increasing the rake angle, geometric
pitch ratio, and blade numbers individually, the hydrodynamic efficiency decreases in each advance ratio. The
overall SPL downstream of the propeller is higher than the rotation plane, and the five and 7-blade propellers can
provide desirable SPL acoustically in this propeller type.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the design of marine propulsion systems has devel­
oped considerably. Reducing the generated noise is one of the key issues
in the ship propeller design (Ross and Kuperman, 1989). The hull, ma­
chinery, and propeller are the major sources of noise in vessels. The
propeller noise is the dominant noise in a vessel, and accordingly, the
geometry of the propeller has a critical role in the propeller-related noise
(Merchant, 2014). In this regard, Sharma et al. (Sharma et al., 1990) in
1990 investigated three models of propeller with NACA 66 profile with
corrected the leading and trailing edges, sharpening the leading and
trailing edges to reduce noise, and four-bladed B-series propeller both in
aspects of acoustic and hydrodynamic. According to Sharma et al. study,
reducing the noise of this propeller led to a reduction of hydrodynamic
efficiency.
Reducing total noise with diminished hydrodynamic performance
has prompted researchers towards modern noise reduction methods.
These methods have no negative effect on the hydrodynamic efficiency
or even could improve the efficiency. Gomez and Gonzalez (Pérez and
Gonzalez-Adalid, 1995), in 1995, offered the tip loading method by
using of end plates on blades. Using this method, the tip vortex of the
blades reduces, and consequently, the probability of cavitation inci­
dence decreases. Regarding the development of modern methods,
another blade tip loading method is the Kappel propeller introduced by
Anderson et al. (Andersen et al., 2009) in 2009. In this type of propeller,
the trailing edge deviates toward the suction side, which in addition to
reducing cavitation and relevant noise, it will increase the hydrody­
namic efficiency of the propeller. Atlar et al. (Atlar et al., 2001) in 2001

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Ab_ebrahimi@cmu.ac.ir (A. Ebrahimi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102773
Received 9 March 2021; Received in revised form 23 June 2021; Accepted 28 June 2021
Available online 8 July 2021
0141-1187/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

experimentally investigated the noise of a four-blade propeller in In the present research, the effect of geometric parameters including
Emerson cavitation tunnel at Newcastle University. In these experi­ rake angle, skew angle, the pitch ratio, and the number of blades on the
ments, the net sound pressure level of the propeller was extracted by hydrodynamic and acoustic performance of a normally-skewed B-series
ITTC’s suggested procedure and then compared with the open field test propeller model is investigated. The far-field sound pressure level of
results. The propeller coating method is another solution to enhance the each frequency has been extracted using FW-H equations. Acoustic
hydrodynamic and acoustic performance of propellers. Atlar et al. (Atlar comparisons have been made at both the blade passing frequency and
et al., 2002) in 2002 experimentally examined the effects of coatings on total noise in the specified receiver.
propellers, especially their hydrodynamic and cavitation performances.
Their goal was to minimize the propeller noise without changing the 2. Governing equations and methodology of flow and acoustic
propeller geometry. In this investigation, coating caused noise reduction analysis
to the desired level with a minimum effect on the hydrodynamic per­
formance. In 2007, they also experimentally tested the tidal turbine In the hydrodynamic analysis of the structures in fluids using RANSE
propeller and obtained its acoustic parameters in a cavitation tunnel solver, the flow field is determined by solving continuity and momentum
(Wang et al., 2007), and determined the noise resulting from sheet equations, which are presented in Eq. (1) and (2), respectively (Raza­
cavitation and tip vortex in the propeller blade. ghian and Ghassemi, 2016):
Measurement of the noise and hydrodynamic characteristics of the
∂ρ ∂
propeller in laboratories and cavitation tunnels, despite the higher ac­ + (ρui ) = 0 (1)
∂t ∂xi
curacy, has high costs and is very time-consuming. Generally, to analyze
the radiated noise and hydrodynamic characteristics, numerical studies ∂ ∂ ( ) ∂τ ∂p
using FW-H equations coupled with both finite volume and boundary (ρu ) + ρui uj = ij − + ρgi − pui uj (2)
∂t i ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi
element methods became widespread. Soul et al. (Seol et al., 2007) in
2007 investigated the noise of DTMB 4119 propeller by solving the where ui , ρ, p, τandpui uj represent the velocity components, density,
FW-H equations in both non-cavitation and cavitating conditions pressure, shear stress tensor, and Reynolds stress tensor, respectively.
through panel method. In 2007, Caro et al. (Caro et al., 2007) examined In the hydrodynamic investigation of the marine propeller, thrust
the noise of a fan model by using computational fluid dynamics and coefficient (KT ), torque coefficient (KQ), efficiency (η0) and advance
Lighthill equations. In 2012, Jin Ming et al. (Ye et al., 2012) investigated ratio (J) are the essential non-dimensional hydrodynamic coefficients:
the noise of a three-blade propeller numerically. They found that the
sound pressure level was higher in the front of the hub compared to the J=
V
propeller rotation plane for the same distance. In their research, FW-H nD
equations were solved for one operational condition using boundary KT =
T
element method. ρn2 D4
(3)
To be a more precise, hydrodynamic and acoustic investigation of Q
KQ =
submerged propellers has always been of interest to designers by ρn2 D5
investigating the conventional method of changing the geometric pa­
J KT
rameters and accessories. In this regard, Renilson et al. (Renilson et al., η0 =
2π KQ
2013) in 2013 examined the influential parameters affecting the noise of
different types of vessels. They concluded that one of the most signifi­ where V, n, D, T and Q are axial velocity into propeller disk, revolutions
cant factors of propeller noise is the pressure fluctuations on the surface per second (rps) of propeller, diameter, thrust and torque of propeller,
of blades, which should be reduced to a large extent. To put this study respectively.
into the right track, Feizi et al. (Feizi Chekab et al., 2014) in 2014 By combining Eq. (1) and (2), and considering the acoustic source,
investigated the effects of the number of blades and employing a duct on Lighthill equation is obtained which in general form is as follows:
noise reduction. They also utilized CFX software the same as the acoustic ( )
analysis for hydrodynamic analysis. ∂2 ρ ∂2 Tij
+ C 2 2
∇ ρ = (4)
Furthermore, Bagheri et al. (M.R. Bagheri et al., 2015) in 2015 ∂t2 0
∂xi xj
inspected the noise of a five-blade propeller experimentally in the
C0 is the sound speed and Tij is the Lighthill stress tensor. This
cavitation tunnel at Sharif University of technology. They used ITTC 78
equation is a non-homogenous wave equation, where the left side is
recommendation in order to extract the propeller noise experimentally
wave equation and shows the wave propagation in a homogeneous
and also employed FW-H formulation to determine the propeller noise
environment. The Lighthill stress tensor is defined as Eq. (5):
numerically under both cavitation and non-cavitation conditions.
( )
Razaghian et al. (Razaghian and Ghassemi, 2016) in 2016 tested the Tij = ρui uj + τij + p − c20 ρ δij (5)
hydrodynamic performance of a five-blade B-series propeller in the
presence of an accelerating and decelerating duct. In this analysis, the where δij represents the Kronecker delta. Each term of the Lighthill stress
effect of two ducts 19A and N32, on the hydrodynamic performance of tensor describes distinct sound sources. ρui uj Denotes the Reynolds
this propeller was examined using the final volume numerical method stress, τij shows the sound generated by the shear stress and (p − c20 ρ)δij
and SST turbulence model. Aristotlis (Asimakopoulos and Kaklis, 2016) represents the nonlinear sound. According to fluid properties, some
in 2016 dealt with FVM and solved RANS equations to optimize con­ sound sources in the Lighthill equation may be neglected. Lighthill
ventional propellers in terms of cavitation and acoustic. In this research, equation expresses the acoustic pressure quantity in terms of fluid
a sample of a five-blade propeller with NACA08 thickness distribution properties. By generalizing the Lighthill equations to include aero­
and modified NACA66 Camber line distribution was tested along with dynamic surfaces in 1969 by Ffowcs Williams and David Hawkings,
the effects of the blade numbers, propeller diameter, rake angle, and research began on the noise of rotating blades, helicopter rotors, pro­
skew angle. Moreover, Gorji et al. (Gorji et al., 2019) in 2019 examined peller blades, and fans (Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings, 1969). There
the noise of DTMB 4119 propeller using ANSYS 14 software and the are three basic source types; Monopole, Dipole, and Quadrupole. FW-H
effects of rake and skew angles in the acoustic pressure distribution and theory includes surface noise and quadrupole noise sources. The surface
sound pressure level in the propeller were examined. Finally, Ebrahimi noise sources arise from loading (dipole) noise sources and thickness
et al. (Ebrahimi et al., 2019) in 2019 comprehensively explained the (monopole) noise. So, the Eq. (5) for surfaces can be expressed as Eq. (6):
effect of geometric parameters on the noise of marine propellers.

2
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 1. Cavitation tunnel of Sharif University of Technology.

After the acoustic pressure is determined, the sound pressure level is

Table 1
calculated using Eq. (8):
The geometry data of the main propeller.
Prms
Parameter Value SPL = 20log10 (8)
Pref
Number of Blades (Z) 5
Expanded Area Ratio (EAR) 0.55 In which, Prms is the root mean square of the acoustic pressure, Pref is
Pitch-Diameter Ratio (P/D) 0.7
the root mean square of reference acoustic pressure, which has been
Propeller Diameter (D) 0.15
Rake (deg.) 0 considered 10− 6 for water, and SPL indicates the sound pressure level.
Skew (deg.) 31.5
Propeller Type B-series 3. The procedure of hydrodynamic and acoustic solution and
validation
′
1 ∂2 p ∂2 [ ] ∂ ([ ] )
3.1. Test laboratory and setup for hydrodynamic validation
′
2
− ∇2 p = Tij H(f ) − Pij nj + ρui (un − vn ) δ(f )
c0 ∂t 2 xi xj ∂xi

+
∂
([ρ v + ρ(un − vn )])δ(f )
∂t 0 n
On the right side of Eq. (6), the first term is Lighthill shear stress
(quadruple source of noise); the second term defines loading noise
(dipole source of noise), and the third term is thickness noise (monopole
source of noise). In this equation, f represents the acoustic surface, δ(f) is
the surface Dirac delta function, H(f) is the surface Heaviside function,
and Pij designates the hydrodynamic pressure tensor. In this study, the
quadruple source can be neglected because this term is considered for
high Mach numbers. For solving the FW-H equation, Farassat et al.
(Farassat, 2007) presented an integral formulation in the time domain.
In this formulation, the sound pressure (p ) is the sum of thickness
′
pressure (pT ) and loading pressure (pL ). Thickness pressure is a mono­
′ ′
pole source, and loading pressure is a dipole source. pT and pL are
′ ′
(6) Open water tests of the model propeller are carried out in the K23
cavitation tunnel of the Sharif University of Technology. The tunnel is a
recirculation tunnel with a rectangular test section located in the Center
of Excellence in Hydrodynamics and Dynamics of Marine Vehicles
(CEHDMV) as shown in Fig. 1.
For studying the hydrodynamic characteristics of the original and
modified propellers, the rotational speed of each propeller was kept
constant and identical in the tunnel. On the other hand, the flow velocity
changed from 0 to 3 m/s to reach various advance ratios. For all hy­
drodynamic tests, the tunnel pressure has been set to 95 kPa, and each
propeller revolution is kept constant at 1000 rpm. The hydrodynamic
characteristics of the original propeller were measured and compared
with numerical results. The main geometric features of the initial pro­
peller are reported in Table 1. The initial B-series model propeller and its

setup in K23 tunnel are shown in Fig. 2.

calculated as below (Farassat, 2007):
( )
⎡ ( )⎤
∫ [ρ v̇n + vṅ ] ∫ ρvn rṀ r + cMr − cM 2 3.2. Numerical analysis and mesh generation
4πp T (→
′
x , t) = dS + ⎣ ⎦ dS
r(1 − Mr )2 ret r2 (1 − Mr )3 For numerical analysis of propeller, a three-dimensional CFD solver
f =0 f =0 ret
⎡ ⎤ is used in non-cavitating conditions. The finite volume method for un­
∫ ∫ [ ]
1 L̇r ⎦ dS + 1 Lr − LM steady analysis is used to solve the RANS equations, utilizing the mul­
4πp L (→
′
x , t) = ⎣ dS
c r(1 − Mr ) 2
c 2 2
r (1 − Mr ) ret tiple reference frame (MRF) approach to consider the propeller’s
f =0
⎡ (
ret f =0
)⎤ rotation. The rotating zone is contained near the propeller, around the
∫
1 ⎣Lr rṀ r + cMr − cM ⎦
2 blades and the hub, and the stationary zone is included around the
+ dS (7) rotating zone. The RNG k-ε turbulence model was selected, which has
c r2 (1 − Mr )3
f =0 ret various advantages for rotating bodies to simulate flow characteristics
(Ivanell, 2001). The SIMPLEC algorithm has been used to imply
Where ρ is density, c is sound speed in fluid, →v is the noise source
velocity-pressure coupling. The second-order upwind schemes is applied
velocity, →
r is distance vector of noise source to receiver, r is |→
r |, L = to discretize the equation terms, and the linearization method was also
p.→
n is pressure force, and p is hydrodynamic pressure. The dot over second-order implicit in the numerical solution approach. The compu­
variables shows the time derivate of the variables. The surfaces of the tational domain is chosen as shown in Fig. 3. The domain is a cylinder
propeller blades are selected as the acoustic surfaces, f = 0, in Eq. (7). with a diameter of 10D (D is propeller diameter). The distance of the

3
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 2. The initial normal skew B-series model in the K23 tunnel.

Fig. 3. The computation domain for hydrodynamic and acoustic analysis.

Fig. 4. The generated mesh around the propeller.

propeller from inlet and outlet boundary of the domain is 4 D and 10 D,
respectively. The domain boundary condition is considered
symmetrical.
Meanwhile, the inflow speed could be changed to provide different
velocity components of the flow for open water modeling. For the
discretization of the equations, the unstructured mesh is applied to the
domain. The Multiple Reference Frame (MRF) model computes fluid
flow using both the rotating and stationary reference frames. It can be
used in the numerical analysis of rotating bodies such as marine pro­
pellers, pump impellers, etc. In this model, a part of the fluid rotates

4
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 5. Comparison of the grid on propeller blades: (a) 2.1 M cells, suction side (b) 4 M cells, suction side, (c) 2.1 M cells, pressure side (d) 4 M cells, pressure side.

Table 2
Details of mesh for all grids.
Total Type of Min cell on- Max cell on- Cell size far
cells mesh blade blade region

2.1 M Trimmer 0.0032D 0.032D 0.4D

3M Trimmer 0.0016D 0.016D 0.33D
4M Trimmer 0.001D 0.01D 0.3D
5.1 M Trimmer 0.0008D 0.008D 0.25D

Table 3
Grid sensitivity study results.
Total cells KT 10 KQ KT error (%) 10 KQ error (%)

2.1 million 0.1301 0.1611 9.6 8.8

3 million 0.1276 0.1599 7.4 8.0
4 million 0.1258 0.1577 5.9 6.5
5.1 million 0.1247 0.1563 5.0 5.6
Experimental value 0.1187 0.1480

Fig. 6. Distribution of y+coefficient on the propeller surface.

within a larger stationary fluid zone. The interface refers to the non-wall
boundaries that provide a flow connection inside and outside the
rotating zone and transfer the flow characteristics.
In this paper, as shown in Fig. 3, the rotating zone is a cylinder
around the propeller, with a diameter of 1.06 D and a height of 0.4 D,
which covers the rotating propeller and the shaft. The stationary zone is
a larger cylinder with a diameter of 10 D and a height of 14 D, and the
interface is defined as a cylindrical area around the rotating zone. These
dimensions are selected according to previous similar works and expe­
riences of authors. Some details of the interface and its mesh is shown in
Fig. 4.
The mesh study for the numerical solution was done regarding
refinement in the mesh base size. Four different grids (2.1, 3, 4, and 5.1
million cells) are generated by refinement in the mesh base size. The
strategy of mesh generation is kept constant for all propellers using
trimmer mesh type. Fig. 5 shows the comparison of trimmer mesh on the
propeller surfaces for two grids. As can be seen, by increasing the
number of cells, each cell on the propeller gets smaller, but the ratio of
max to min cells on the blade is constant. Table 2 reports details of the
mesh method for all grids regarding the refinement of base size. For a
more accurate solution, the mesh refinement is used in the leading edge
of the propeller blades and the wake region, as shown in Fig. 5.
The cavitation tunnel tests are provided for validation of numerical
results.
Table 3 represents the results of the grid sensitivity study. The KT and
KQ of the propeller are selected as criteria for checking the sensitivity to
mesh refinement. All grid studies are performed at an advance ratio of J

5
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 7. Comparison of the hydrodynamic characteristics between the numerical results and K23 tunnel tests for the main propeller.

Fig. 8. Propeller pressure contour and flow field velocity distribution for initial propeller.

= 0.5 (maximum efficiency), and error is defined as the difference be­
tween converged numerical thrust or torque coefficient and experi­
mental test results.
The three grids of 3, 4, and 5.1 million cells are in good condition
with up to a 9 percent error. The 4 million mesh has a lower CPU time
than 5 million mesh and lower error than 3 million mesh. Consequently,
it will be used for the hydrodynamic analysis of initial and modified
propellers. It should be noted that 3 and 4 million meshes should be
studied again for the acoustic analysis of the propeller since the FW-H
equation is more sensitive to the grid (Lloyd et al., 2015).
Apart from fine grids, a small time step is necessary for a more ac­
curate numerical analysis of turbulent flow around the propeller. The
time step in the unsteady solution is selected equal to 1◦ rotation of the
propeller, 0.00017 s (Jang et al., 2014). For each time step, the
maximum iteration is set to 40. Residuals of continuity, momentum,
kinetic energy (k), and dissipation (ε) are selected as convergence
criteria. The scaled residual of continuity decreases to 10− 5 , as the first
convergence criterion. For other criteria, residuals should drop to 10− 6
after convergence completion. For faster convergence, steady simula­
tions are done before an unsteady one for each propeller.
To check the mesh resolution, y+coefficient should be investigated,
which is of high importance criterion. For the RNG k-ε turbulence model,
the turbulent boundary layer is an essential part of each numerical
modeling. It should be evaluated during the numerical solution to ensure
the correct pressure and velocity distributions around the propeller
model. According to previous researches, y+coefficient should be in the
range of 30 < y+< 50 in the numerical analysis of the propeller (Ivanell,
2001; Singhal et al., 2002). In Fig. 6, y+ coefficient for the initial

6
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 9. Comparison of the overall SPL between the present numerical study and Bagheri et al. (M. Bagheri et al., 2015) (N = 960 rpm, V = 2.6 m /s, P = 101kpa).

Fig. 10. Mesh sensitivity analysis of overall SPL (N = 960 rpm, V = 1.12m/s, P = 101kpa).

propeller is shown along the surface, which is in an acceptable range.

Table 4
The geometry information of the main propeller and modified propellers.
Model Number of Blades P/ Skew Rake D EAR
3.3. Validation of numerical results
No. (Z) D (deg.) (deg.) (m)
The numerical solution of the initial propeller was performed with 4
P1 5 0.7 31.5 0 0.15 0.55
P2 5 0.7 31.5 3 0.15 0.55 million cells using the unsteady solution, and results are compared with
P3 5 0.7 31.5 5 0.15 0.55 experimental results in Fig. 7. As can be seen, there is a good agreement
P4 5 0.7 31.5 8 0.15 0.55 between the results of the present numerical analysis and the propeller
P5 5 0.7 31.5 10 0.15 0.55 test in the K23 tunnel at the Sharif University of Technology. The
P6 5 0.7 20 0 0.15 0.55
P7 5 0.7 25 0 0.15 0.55
maximum error value for the hydrodynamic performance curve is about
P8 5 0.7 35 0 0.15 0.55 5% which is acceptable.
P9 5 0.7 40 0 0.15 0.55 The pressure distribution for the back and face sides of the initial
P10 5 0.8 31.5 0 0.15 0.55 propeller model is depicted in Fig. 8. The domain velocity distribution is
P11 5 0.9 31.5 0 0.15 0.55
also presented for two different advance ratios.
P12 5 1 31.5 0 0.15 0.55
P13 5 1.1 31.5 0 0.15 0.55 For validation of the numerical acoustic results, the DTMB 4119
P14 3 0.7 31.5 0 0.15 0.55 propeller is chosen. The overall SPL of this propeller was investigated by
P15 7 0.7 31.5 0 0.15 0.55 Bagheri et al. (M. Bagheri et al., 2015). In the next step, simulation re­
sults used as input of the FW-H integral equations to calculate the
acoustic pressure around the propeller at different distances. Two mesh
sizes of 3 and 4 million cells were used for the validation of overall SPL.
Fig. 9 compares the overall SPL of DTMB 4119 propeller obtained by

7
A.H. Razaghian et al.
Fig. 11. The geometry of 15 propeller models.
Fig. 12. Position of receivers.
numerical solution with Bagheri’s results. The position of the sound
receiver is 10R downstream of the propeller along the axis of the pro­
peller (M.R. Bagheri et al., 2015; M. Bagheri et al., 2015).
As shown in Fig. 9, the mesh of 4 million cells has higher accuracy
than the 3 million cells. It shows that the current numerical study and
meshing have acceptable accuracy. In the acoustic validation procedure,
a total number of 3 to 5 million cells were generated to check the mesh
independence study of overall SPL for the initial propeller (P1) in one
specific advance ratio. The sound receiver was located 10R downstream
8
Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773
of the propeller.
Fig. 10 shows the results of the mesh independence study for three
mesh sizes of 3, 4, and 5 million cells for the initial propeller (P1). It is
shown that the results of 5 million cells are approximately close to the 4
million cells. Therefore, Due to the more solution time of the 5 million
cells, the mesh size of 4 million cells is chosen in the following numerical
solutions.
4. Model geometries for non-cavitating hydrodynamic and
acoustic analysis
Any change in propeller geometry can alter the hydrodynamic and
acoustic performance of the propeller. In this study, for modification of
the propeller performance by changing the pitch ratio, rake angle, skew
angle, and the number of blades, the presented procedure in (Asima­
kopoulos and Kaklis, 2016) was followed. Skew angle changes between
20 and 40◦ , rake angle between 0 and 10◦ , and pitch ratio between 0.7
and 1.1, while the number of blades kept constant else for two cases. In
total, 15 propeller models have generated which the number of blades
for all models is 5, except for propellers No 14 and 15. The main geo­
metric characteristics of all 15 propeller models are represented in
Table 4. Fig. 11 shows the geometry of all 15 propeller models and their
numbers.
All numerical analyses of the propellers are performed at an advance
ratio of J = 0.54 which is related to the maximum efficiency of the initial
propeller (P1). The propeller speed was 833 RPM, the uniform inlet
velocity to the propellers was 1.12 m/s, and the ambient pressure of the
propeller was set to 101 kPa. For acoustic analysis of propellers in far-
field region, four receivers are used. These receivers were located in
distance of 10R and 20R from propeller along the rotation axis and in
A.H. Razaghian et al.
Fig. 13. Effect of rake angle on hydrodynamic performances: (a) Thrust coefficient, (b) Torque Coefficient, (c) Efficiency.
rotation plane. Fig. 12 shows the position of the four receivers.
5. Results and discussions
5.1. Effects of geometric modification on hydrodynamic performance
5.1.1. The effect of rake angle
According to the effect of rake angle on the hydrodynamic perfor­
mance of the propeller, by increasing the rake angle, the propeller tip
clearance from the vessel hull increases and it can leads to selection of a
larger diameter. The results of the variation of the rake angle from
0◦ (P1) to 10◦ (P5) on the hydrodynamic performance of propellers are
shown in Fig. 13. As can be seen, by increasing the rake angle from 0 to
10◦ , thrust and torque coefficients decrease gradually. It has also
resulted in reduction of efficiency in the P1 model so that the hydro­
dynamic efficiency reduces by up to 13% in higher advance ratios. It
should be noted that increasing the rake angle may result in additional
loads in higher RPMs which requires to be considered in structural
analysis of the propeller.
5.1.2. Effect of skew angle
The skew angle of propeller causes the flow enter the propeller
gradually in the leading edge, where the generated unsteady forces
become more stable and uniform to some extent. Therefore, the thrust
and torque fluctuations would be decreased. Fig. 14 shows the effect of
variation of skew angle on hydrodynamic characteristics of the pro­
pellers P6 to P9.
As shown in Fig. 14, it can be stated that the dependency of thrust
coefficient to the skew angle for range of 20 to 31. 5◦ (P6, P7) is
ignorable, but for greater skew angles (P8, P9), it decreases
9
Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773
considerably. Also, by gradually increase in the skew angle, the torque
coefficient value also decreases in the same way. According to efficiency
diagram, the maximum efficiency is related to the skew angle of 20◦
which occurs around J = 0.5. Afterward, by increasing the skew angle
from 31.5 to 40◦ , the propeller efficiency drops at this advance ratio to a
large extent. This phenomenon is more considerable for advance ratios
larger than 0.5. It should be noted that the effect of variation in the skew
angle on the hydrodynamic performance of other types of propellers
may be different.
5.1.3. Effect of the pitch ratio
The geometric pitch of propeller refers to the advance quantity of one
point of a propeller during one rotation. Generally, as the ratio of pitch
to diameter of propellers increases, the thrust and torque coefficients
increase (Belhenniche et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the hydrodynamic
efficiency is affected by the variation amount of thrust and torque co­
efficient. According to the study on five-blade B-series propeller, by
increasing the geometric pitch ratio (P10 to P13), both the thrust and
torque coefficients improved. The rate of improvement of the torque
coefficient was far greater than the thrust coefficient at each advance
ratio, consequently, the propeller efficiency decreased. Generally, for
this type of propeller, the hydrodynamic efficiency decreases by
increasing the pitch ratio at a constant advance ratio, and the maximum
efficiency is transferred to a higher advance ratio. Fig. 15 shows the
diagram of the hydrodynamic coefficients of propellers with increase in
the geometric pitch in which other geometric properties kept constant. It
can be concluded that in order to improve the hydrodynamic properties
of a propeller, considering the other aspects of acoustic and cavitation
analysis, the geometric pitch ratio should be as large as possible.
A.H. Razaghian et al.
Fig. 14. The effect of skew angle variation on hydrodynamic performances: (a) Thrust coefficient, (b) Torque coefficient, (c) Efficiency.
5.1.4. The effect of number of blades
In this section of numerical analysis, the B-series propeller is evalu­
ated with 3, 5 and 7 blades (P1, P14, and P15) and results are depicted in
Fig. 16. Due to increase in the number of blades from 3 to 7 for this
propeller, the propeller thrust grows proportionally. Moreover, adding
the number of blades also causes torque increments in each advance
ratio.
As can be seen in Fig. 16, an increase in the number of blades from 3
to 7 resulted in an increase in the thrust coefficient by approximately
11%. Additionally, adding number of blades from 3 to 7 resulted 25%
increment of the torque coefficient. The efficiency diagram (Fig. 16(c))
indicates that with increasing blade numbers, the rate of torque growth
was greater than the thrust coefficient at each advance ratio, therefore,
the propeller efficiency decreased. Although the 3-blade propellers have
a higher hydrodynamic efficiency, they are less used in vessels, because
generated thrust of these propellers is insufficient to overcome the total
resistance of vessel.
5.2. Effects of geometric modification on acoustic results
In order to study the acoustic performance of modified propellers,
overall noise of propellers was calculated by solving FW-H equations
and using CFD results from previous section. The hydrodynamic pres­
sure and velocity distribution which has been extracted previously
thorough solving RANS equations were used as input data of FW-H
equations. Finally, resulting acoustic pressures and SPL at different
frequencies has been calculated for each receiver in far-field zone.
For numerical calculations, a 64-Core parallel processing unit in
10
Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773
CEHDMV has been used. In first step, a three-dimensional steady-state
hydrodynamic calculations had been done for propeller and after
convergence of solution, the obtained results used as an initial state of
transient time-consuming hydrodynamic analysis. It is assumed that
after six revolutions of the propeller, the flow field around propeller
becomes steady, and the hydrodynamic data of propeller can be used in
acoustic analysis. Next, the FW-H formulations used the data of previous
step for calculation of the time history of total acoustic pressure for
specified receiver. In post-processing stage, the acoustic pressure
transferred from time domain to frequency domain using Fast Fourier
Transform. All equations have been solved under non-cavitating con­
ditions in order to gain low-frequency overall SPL which is great
importance.
Fig. 17 shows the comparison of overall SPL at distances of 10R and
20R, downstream of the propeller and the rotation plane. As depicted in
Fig. 17, by doubling the distance from 10R to 20R in far field region, the
sound pressure levels decrease between 6 dB to 9 dB. Amount of noise
reduction confirms the far-field region of distances greater than 10R
which has been verified by (Ye et al., 2012; Lloyd et al., 2015). Since the
propeller noise is higher in receivers 1 and 3 with distance of 10R, these
receivers have been chosen for comparison of acoustic performance of
the modified propeller.
5.2.1. Effects of rake angle
Fig. 18 compares the overall non-cavitating SPL for the propellers P1
to P5 in the receivers 1 and 3. As can be seen, considering the 5-blade
propeller and RPM of 833 rpm, the peak value of the curve for
receiver 3 has occurred at the frequency of 69.4 Hz in the rotation plane
A.H. Razaghian et al.
Fig. 15. The effect of pitch ratio on hydrodynamic performances: (a) Thrust coefficient, (b) Torque Coefficient, (c) Efficiency.
diagram, which known as the Blade Passing Frequency (BPF).
In the present numerical study, by increasing the rake angle, the
noise of propeller in the rotation plane (receiver 3) does not follow any
special trend and increasing the rake angle causes suddenly frequent
increase or decrease in propeller SPL at different frequencies. For
receiver 1, the zero-rake propeller generates higher SPL at frequencies
between 300 and 400 Hz compared to the 3, 5 and 8◦ rake angles. As the
rake angle increases, the SPL downstream of the propeller shows a
notable decrease at some frequencies. However, this phenomenon con­
tinues until it approaches the critical rake angle of 10◦ . According to SPL
measured by receiver 1, in 10◦ rake angle, intense fluctuations occurs
that obviously depicted in Fig. 18(a). It seems that the thrust instability
and pressure difference between face and back side of blades causes
these fluctuations. By increasing the rake angle of P1 from 3 to 8◦ , the
sound pressure level decreases at the blade passing frequency and upper
frequencies. Nevertheless, approaching the critical rake angle (close to
10◦ ), fluctuations of the acoustic pressure increases enormously which
should be avoided by designers who considering the acoustic perfor­
mance. Fig. 19 compares the total noise of propellers at different rake
angles in receivers 1 and 3.
5.2.2. Effects of skew angle
Generally, by increasing the skew angle, the inlet flow to the pro­
peller enters propeller blades gradually, which can increase the un­
steady forces stability, and thrust and torque fluctuations would be
diminished. So, the propeller noise would be decreased. In this research,
11
Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773
by increasing the skew angle of propeller P1, from 20 to 40◦ , propellers
P6 to P9 generated. Fig. 20 demonstrates the comparison of the overall
SPL at different frequencies for propellers P1 and P6 to P9 in receiver 3
(rotation plane) and receiver 1 (propeller axis). The maximum overall
SPL clearly occurred at the blade passing frequency of 69.4 Hz for all
propellers.
For receiver 1, the propeller with skew angle of 20◦ has greater SPL
compared to the 25◦ at the most frequencies. By changing the skew angle
from 20 to 31. 5◦ , the sound pressure level fluctuations significantly
decline, and so the average noise level faces a considerable reduction
about 3 to 4 dB. Additionally, the sound pressure levels at most fre­
quencies, for frequencies greater than 100 Hz, falls around 16–17 dB
while increasing the skew angle from 31.5 to 40◦ .
For receiver 3 (Fig. 20), the P6 model with skew angle of 20◦ gen­
erates higher SPL (up to 10 dB) at some frequencies than P7 model.
Meanwhile, the propeller with the skew angle of 31.5◦ generates lower
SPL compared to the 25◦ at all frequencies except for 300–370 Hz. In the
same way, by changing the skew angle from 31.5 to 35◦ , the sound
pressure levels in the propeller rotation plane diminishes around 10 dB.
Eventually, at most frequencies, the propeller with skew angle of 40◦ has
lower sound pressure levels than 35◦ .
Fig. 21 compares the total noise of propellers at different skew angles
in receivers 1 and 3 respectively.
According to the conducted research, it can be suggested that P9 is
the propeller with an optimal acoustic performance when variation of
the skew angle of normal skew B-series propeller is of concern to
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 16. The effect of number of blades (Z) on hydrodynamic performances: (a) Thrust coefficient, (b) Torque Coefficient, (c) Efficiency.

Fig. 17. Comparison of overall SPL for receivers: (a) downstream of the propeller (b) in rotation plane.

designers.
5.2.3. Effects of pitch ratio
The geometric pitch ratio is one of the most important parameters
affecting the hydrodynamic performance of propellers and by increasing
this ratio, the thrust and torque values also increase at a constant
advance ratio. But in case of acoustic performance, Fig. 22 shows that by
changing the pitch ratio, the SPL at different frequencies does not follow
any obvious trend.
For receiver 1, by increasing the pitch ratio from 0.7 to 0.8, the sound
pressure level decreases. However, at the ratios of 0.9 and 1, the overall
SPL considerably increases to a large extent, then at the ratio of 1.1, a
substantial reduction in overall SPL occurs. The maximum SPL related to
the blade passing frequency of the all propellers is visible in Fig. 22(b).
Moreover, the SPL of the rotation plane is lower for pitch ratio of 0.8
compared to 1.1 at the most frequencies. In the aspect of pitch ratio, the
P10 and P13 are propellers with the optimal acoustic performance. The
geometric pitch ratio is one of the most important factors which should
be selected based on the maximum engine torque, total resistance,
operational advance ratio and desired noise level. Fig. 23 compares the

12
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 18. The effect of rake angle variation on SPL of propeller (a) Receiver 1, (b) Receiver 3.

Fig. 19. Comparison of total SPL for different rake angles (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.

Fig. 20. The effect of skew angle on SPL (P1 and P6 to P9) (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.

total noise of propellers at different pitch ratio in receivers 1 and 3.
5.2.4. Number of blades effects
As observed in the hydrodynamic study, by increasing the number of
blades from 3 to 7, the total thrust and torque of the propeller signifi­
cantly improve. However, the hydrodynamic efficiency reduces at con­
stant advance ratios. On the other hand, in acoustic performance,
increasing the number of blades causes a considerable reduction in the
thrust fluctuations, and consequently, the generated noise decreases
(Ebrahimi et al., 2019). Fig. 24 shows the effect of blade numbers on the
SPL of propellers. As can be seen, the 7-blade propeller has a lower
sound pressure level compared to propellers with 3 and 5 blades almost
at all frequencies. By changing the number of propeller blades, the
related blade passing frequency also varies. The BPF is 41.6, 69.4, and
97.2 Hz for 3, 5, and 7-blade propellers, respectively, which at these
frequencies, the SPL curve has the maximum value. Therefore, for a
normal skew B-series propeller, the 7-blade propeller is in optimal
condition in acoustic performance in both the rotation plane and
downstream of the propeller.
Fig. 25 compares the total noise of propellers with 3, 5, and 7 blades

13
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

Fig. 21. Comparison of total SPL for different skew angles (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.

Fig. 22. The effect of pitch ratio on overall SPL (P1 and P10-P13) (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.

Fig. 23. Comparison of total SPL for different pitch ratios (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.

in receivers 1 and 3. performance and overall SPL in non-cavitating conditions. To study

6. Conclusion
• The noise generated by propellers is one of the essential sources of
ships’ noises which may cause some problems. For this reason,
measuring the noise of marine propellers is one of the most impor­
tant aspects of the propulsion system design. Therefore, this paper
deals with evaluating the effects of geometric modification of pro­
peller on hydrodynamic and acoustic performances of a 5-blade B-
series propeller. Moreover, it presents a practical numerical study to
investigate geometric variation impacts on hydrodynamic
the validation of hydrodynamic results, model of the original pro­
peller manufactured in CEHDMV and tested in K23 tunnel of the
Sharif University of Technology. Also, a CFD method is used for the
numerical investigation of this propeller. The RNG k-ε turbulence
model employed in numerical modeling combined with fine un­
structured meshing can achieve acceptable accuracy. The FW-H
equation was applied to calculate the sound pressure level in spe­
cific receivers located in the propeller rotation plane and along its
axis. The results of the current numerical research are validated by
K23 experimental tests and previous numerical studies. The main
conclusions can be summarized as follows:

14
A.H. Razaghian et al.
Fig. 24. Effect of blade numbers (Z) on overall SPL (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.
Fig. 25. Comparison of total SPL for different blade numbers (a) Receiver 1 (b) Receiver 3.
Table 5
Optimal values of geometric parameters for the B-series propeller.
Parameter Hydrodynamic Analysis Acoustic Analysis
Rake (deg.) 0 8
Skew (deg.) 20–31.5 35–40
Pitch-Diameter Ratio (P/D) 0.7 (J = 0.54) 0.8
Number of Blades (Z) 3 5–7
• The maximum error of the hydrodynamic numerical results of the
main propeller compared with the experimental results was 5%.
• By doubling the distance from 10R to 20R around the main propeller,
the overall non-cavitating sound pressure levels decrease between 6
dB to 9 dB, confirming that the distances greater than 10R can be
considered the far-field region for this type of propeller.
• Propeller P1 with a rake angle of 0◦ is the propeller with optimal
hydrodynamic performance. By increasing the rake angle from 0 to
10◦ and keeping all other parameters constant, the hydrodynamic
efficiency decreases to 13% in 10 deg.
• By varying the skew angle from 20 to 40◦ in this propeller type, the
thrust coefficient slightly increases from the rake angle of 20 to 31. 5◦
and it decreases for higher degrees. With a gradual increase in the
skew angle, the torque coefficient value also reduces. As a result, the
propeller with the skew angle of 20◦ (P6) has higher efficiency and
has the best hydrodynamic performance in operational advance ratio
for this type of propeller.
• By just changing the geometric pitch ratio, both the thrust and torque
coefficients improve, and the hydrodynamic efficiency decrease in
each advance ratio. For the studied propeller, the 1.1 pitch ratio
15
Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773
propeller (P13) has a higher hydrodynamic performance, but in the
design procedure, acoustic and cavitation analysis is of particular
importance.
• Due to increasing the number of blades in B-series propeller from 3 to
7, propeller thrust and torque significantly grow, but finally, the
propeller efficiency decreases. Consequently, the 3-blade propeller is
in the best hydrodynamic condition.
• The numerical results in the acoustic section show that, by increasing
the rake angle in the 5-blade propeller, the rotation plane noise does
not follow any significant trend, and propeller with a rake angle of 8◦
have mostly lower SPL compared to the others. Along the axis of
propellers, by increasing the rake angle in P1 from 3 to 8◦ , the sound
pressure level decreases. Approaching the critical rake angle (about
10◦ ), acoustic pressure fluctuations increase, which designers should
consider for optimal hydrodynamic and acoustic design purposes.
• By increasing the skew angle from 20 to 40◦ , the overall SPL
downstream of the propeller for frequencies more than 100 Hz falls
considerably up to 17 dB. At the most frequencies, the propellers
with skew angles of 35 and 40◦ have lower values of SPL. Conse­
quently, both of the propellers are suggested for optimal acoustic
design.
• By evaluating the geometric pitch ratio from 0.7 to 1.1, it was found
that propellers with a pitch ratio of 0.8 and 1.1 are with minimum
SPL at the most frequencies in all receivers. In pitch Ratios of 0.9 and
1, the overall SPL increases for this type of propeller. The geometric
pitch ratio should be selected due to investigating different aspects of
the design procedure
A.H. Razaghian et al. Applied Ocean Research 114 (2021) 102773

• The overall far-field SPL decreases in both propeller axis and rotation Atlar, M., et al., Cavitation tunnel tests for propeller noise of a FRV and comparisons with full-
scale measurements.http://resolver.caltech.edu/cav2001:sessionB8.007, 2001.
plane by increasing the number of blades in B-series propeller with
Atlar, M., et al., 2002. The effect of a foul release coating on propeller performance. In:
normal skew and rake. International conference on Marine Science and Technology for Environmental
Sustainability (ENSUS 2002). University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Table 5 presents the optimized values of geometric parameters, Wang, D., Atlar, M., Sampson, R., 2007. An experimental investigation on cavitation,
noise, and slipstream characteristics of ocean stream turbines. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
including rake angle, skew angle, geometric pitch ratio, and the number Part A J. Power Energy 221 (2), 219–231.
of blades for the B-series propeller. The acoustic results are based on the Seol, H.-.S., et al., 2007. Background Noise Analysis of the MOERI Cavitation Tunnel &
specified operational condition of this research. Propeller BPF Noise Measurement. J. Soc. Naval Archit. Korea 44 (4), 408–416.
Caro, S., et al., 2007. Presentation of a CAA formulation based on LightHill’s analogy for
fan noise. In: Conference on fan noise Lyon.
Declarations Ye, J.-m., et al., 2012. Numerical prediction of blade frequency noise of cavitating
propeller. J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B (English Ed.) 24 (3), 371–377.
Renilson, M., Leaper, R., Boisseau, O., 2013. Hydro-acoustic noise from merchant
Funding ships–impacts and practical mitigation techniques. In: Proceedings of the third
international symposium on marine propulsors, smp..
This article has not been funded by any institution. Feizi Chekab, M.A., Ghadimi, P., Nourozi, H., 2014. Investigation on the effects of
increasing the number of blades and using ducts to reducing noise of non-cavitating
propellers (In Persian). Iran. J. Acoust. Soc. 1 (1).
Availability of data and material Bagheri, M.R., et al., 2015a. An experimental and numerical prediction of marine
propeller noise under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions. Brodogradnja:
Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 66 (2), 29–45.
Not applicable.
Razaghian, A.H., Ghassemi, H., 2016. Numerical analysis of the hydrodynamic
characteristics of the accelerating and decelerating ducted propeller. Zeszyty
Code availability Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie 47 (119), 42–53.
Asimakopoulos, O.A.A., Kaklis, P., 2016. Effects of Propeller Geometry On Cavitation.
University of Strathclyde, pp. 1–15.
Not applicable. Gorji, M., Ghassemi, H., Mohamadi, J., 2019. Effect of rake and skew on the
hydrodynamic characteristics and noise level of the marine propeller. Iran. J. Sci.
Authors’ contributions Technol., Trans. Mech. Eng. 43 (1), 75–85.
Ebrahimi, A., et al., 2019. A comprehensive study on noise reduction methods of marine
propellers and design procedures. Appl. Acoust. 150, 55–69.
Not applicable. Ffowcs Williams, J.E., Hawkings, D.L., 1969. Sound generation by turbulence and
surfaces in arbitrary motion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Series A, Math. Phys. Sci.
264 (1151), 321–342.
Declaration of Competing Interest Farassat, F., Derivation of Formulations 1 and 1A of Farassat. 2007.
Ivanell, S., 2001. Hydrodynamic Simulation of a Torpedo with Pumpjet Propulsion
Not applicable. System. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, p. 77.
Lloyd, T., Rijpkema, D., van Wijngaarden, E., 2015. Marine propeller acoustic modelling:
comparing CFD results with an acoustic analogy method. In: Fourth International
References Symposium on Marine Propulsors.
Jang, J.-.S., Kim, H.-.T., Joo, W.-.H., 2014. Numerical study on non-cavitating noise of
Ross, D., Kuperman, W., 1989. Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Acoustical Society of marine propeller. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference
America. Proceedings. Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Merchant, N., 2014. Measuring Underwater Noise Exposure from Shipping. University of Singhal, A.K., et al., 2002. Mathematical basis and validation of the full cavitation model.
Bath. J. Fluids Eng. 124 (3), 617–624.
Sharma, S., Mani, K., Arakeri, V., 1990. Cavitation noise studies on marine propellers. Bagheri, M., et al., 2015b. Analysis of hydrodynamics and noise prediction of the marine
J Sound Vib 138 (2), 255–283. propellers under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions. Scientia Iranica 22 (5),
Pérez, G. and J. Gonzalez-Adalid, Tip Loaded Propellers (CLT) Justification of Their 1918–1930.
Advantages over Conventional Propellers Using the Momentum Theory.1995. Belhenniche, S., et al., 2016. Effect of geometric configurations on hydrodynamic
Andersen, P., Kappel, J.J., Spangenberg, E., 2009. Aspects of propeller developments for performance assessment of a marine propeller. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa
a submarine. In: First International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Trondheim, brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 67 (4), 31–48.
Norway.

16