Rejith Sem4 Project

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF
SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE

CHARACTERISTICS
OF DTMB 4119 PROPELLER
Rejith Nair Rajeev
(Reg. No.50021009)
Under the guidance of
Dr. V Ramakrishna
Scientist F, NSTL
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Overview
PHASE I PHASE II
Open-water analysis
Resistance analysis Self-propulsion Underwater noise
of DTMB-4119
of DARPA-SUBOFF characteristics prediction
propeller
25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 2

Introduction
What is CFD?
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a science that produces quantitative
predictions of fluid-flow phenomena based on the conservation laws
(conservation of mass, momentum, and energy) governing fluid motion.
Computers are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the free-
stream flow of the fluid, and the interaction of the fluid (liquids and gases) with
surfaces defined by boundary conditions.
With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved, and are
often required to solve the largest and most complex problems.

Introduction (cont.)
But the quantitative predictions made by the computer are never completely
exact due to the many potential sources of error:
i. Discretization error iii. Input data error

ii. Initial and boundary condition error iv. Modelling error
Due to the probability of these types of errors in CFD, it is always recommended

to validate the simulation results with experimental data or verify the results
with known solutions

Introduction (cont.)
This study's goal is to do a computational fluid dynamic analysis
of the DARPA SUBOFF model coupled with a DTMB 4119 propeller
to calculate its self-propulsion point and predict the underwater
noise characteristics.
The results obtained at each stage are validated/verified and it

is confirmed that they are within the acceptable bounds (<10%)

Literature Review
S No. Author Title Publication Summary
1 Groves Nancy C, GEOMETRIC Défense Technical • CFD program was developed
Thomas T Huang, CHARACTERISTICS OF Information Centre to assist in the development
Ming S Chang DARPA SUBOFF (DTIC), David Taylor of advanced submarines for
MODELS: (DTRC Research Centre the future.
MODEL NOS. 5470 (DTRC), 1989 • SUBOFF was designed with
AND 5471). an axisymmetric body,
fairwater, symmetric stern
appendages, two ring wings,
and ring wing support struts.
• Geometrical details of all
components are provided,
including defining equations
with computer code listings.

Literature Review(cont.)
2 Liu, SUMMARY OF DARPA- Defence Technical • Experimental measurements
Han-Lieh Huang, SUBOFF Information Centre of the flow field of a bare
Thomas T EXPERIMENTAL (DTIC), hull model: AFF-1, and a fully
PROGRAM DATA David Taylor appended model were
Research Centre conducted in towing basins.
(DTRC), 1998 • The experimental data was
used to assess the CFD
capability of the DARPA
SUBOFF Project.
• Experimental facilities and
techniques are presented,
and the contents of the
experiments are outlined.

3 Jessup, Stuart AN EXPERIMENTAL Maritime Archive, • An experimental
INVESTIGATION OF The Catholic investigation of the flow in
VISCOUS ASPECTS OF University of the vicinity of a rotating
PROPELLER BLADE America, 1989 propeller blade was
FLOW conducted.
• DTMB 4119 and 4842
propellers were tested in
open water for thrust and
torque characteristics over a
range of different advance
coefficients.
• The tests were conducted
with and without the blades
on the hub of the propeller.

4 Delen, Cihad & COMPUTATIONAL Tamap Journal of • The self-propulsion of
Sezen, Savaş & INVESTIGATION OF Engineering, 2017 SUBOFF was investigated
Bal, Sakir. SELF PROPULSION using Actuator Disc Theory.
PERFORMANCE OF • The flow around DARPA
DARPA SUBOFF SUBOFF has been solved
VEHICLE using Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS)
equations by finite volume
method (FVM) for two
different velocities.
• The numerical results were
compared with the
experiments.

5 Soydan, Ahmet & INVESTIGATION OF 10th Ankara • Hydro-acoustic analysis have
Zafer, Baha & Bal, UNDERWATER NOISE International been performed using
Sakir CHARACTERISTICS OF Aerospace unsteady RANS with Ffowcs-
DTMB4119 Conference , 2019 Williams and Hawkings (FW-
PROPELLER UNDER H) equation in open water at
DIFFERENT non-cavitating conditions.
CONDITIONS • Propellers Sound Pressure
Level (SPL) values also have
been carried out with semi-
empirical Brown Formula and
then Overall Sound Pressure
Level (OASPL) values have
been calculated.

1. Resistance analysis of DARPA
SUBOFF
The force opposing the flow of a vessel moving
through any form of fluid is referred to as
resistance.
A submarine that is sufficiently below the open
surface can fully ignore the resistance of wind
and wave-making.
Fully submerged submarines only encounter
viscous frictional resistance and asymmetrical
pressure resistance caused by turbulence. https://i.gifer.com/hW2.gif

1.1 Geometry modelling
AFF-1 refers to the model's most basic configuration

This form lacks appendages, such as a sail, rudder, fin, etc.
The model used in this study has a scale factor (λ) of 24
Then total body length is 14.29 Ft and the maximum diameter is 1.66 Ft
Fig 1.1 Bare hull model: AFF1

Bow After body
Parallel middle body
After body cap
Fig 1.2 Axial symmetry form of AFF-1 model
The axial symmetry form of the AFF-1 model was obtained by combining the curves
of the bow, afterbody, and the afterbody cap

1.2 Domain creation
Figure 1.3 The cylindrical domain of the SUBOFF model
A cylindrical fluid domain of length 25m and diameter 10m was created.

1.3 Meshing
Figure 1.4 Mesh structure of the bare-hull form
• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, structured hexahedral meshing was done.

• There were 1,972,862 mesh elements in all.
• The maximum wall distance in the viscous unit (y+) is 182.

1.4 CFD results and validation
Figure 1.5 The non-dimensional pressure distributions on Figure 1.6 Velocity contours on the XY plane of the suboff
the hull surface at V=8.2304 m/s at V= 8.2304 m/s

Figure 1.7 Path lines of velocity magnitude around the Figure 1.8 Y+ values of the SUBOFF at V= 8.2304 m/s
SUBOFF at V= 8.2304 m/s

Drag values of SUBOFF were simulated for five different inlet velocity conditions in
ANSYS FLUENT software:
Velocity(m/s) Experimental drag (N) CFD drag (N) %difference

3.0503 87.4 89.108409 1.954701373
5.144 242.2 236.36327 2.409880264
6.0956 332.9 324.16789 2.623042956
7.1604 451.5 438.56595 2.864684385
8.2304 576.9 569.3909 1.301629399
The experimentally determined drag values are compared with the drag values
obtained through CFD simulations.

Drag v/s Velocity
9
8
7
6 Experimental Drag
V (m/s) 5 CFD Drag
4
3
2
50 150 250 350 450 550
Drag (N)
The maximum variation between the outcomes of the CFD simulation and the
results from the experiments was only 2.8%

2. Open-water analysis of DTMB-4119
The term ‘open water’ refers to the
condition where the propeller is not
obstructed by the hull and is fully exposed
to the water around it.
The purpose of the open water test is to
determine the thrust generated under
different operating conditions and the
associated torque necessary.
It plays an important role in matching a https://youtu.be/_eQ6es_Qp6Q
propeller to a given ship or submarine hull.

DTMB 4119 propeller was modelled

using CAESES software.
This propeller blade uses a NACA 66

modified profile.
The propeller has a diameter of Figure 2.1 DTMB 4119 propeller model
300mm and a scale factor of 0.15
NACA 66 (p51htip-il) (airfoiltools.com)
Fig 2.2 NACA 66 profile

2.2 Domain creation
Figure 2.3 The cylindrical domain of the DTMB-4119 propeller
A cylindrical fluid domain of length 2.1m and diameter 0.9m was created.

2.3 Meshing
Figure 2.4 The mesh structure of the DTMB-4119 propeller
• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, unstructured tetrahedral meshing was done.

• The maximum wall distance in the viscous unit (y+) is 719.

Figure 2.5 Pressure contours of the propeller at the inlet (left) and the outlet (right) at J=0.833

Figure 2.6 Velocity contours on the XY plane at J=0.833 Figure 2.7 Y+ values of the propeller at J=0.833

Drag values of SUBOFF were simulated for five different advance coefficients in ANSYS
FLUENT software:
Experimental results CFD results
J %diff
RPM Kt 10*Kq ƞ T Q Kt 10*Kq ƞ
0.5 1341.12 0.285 0.477 0.489 1152.477 56.99249 0.285354 0.470379 0.482999 1.227185
0.7 957.942 0.2 0.36 0.632 417.0505 22.45917 0.202393 0.363312 0.620947 1.748869
0.833 804.994 0.146 0.28 0.692 211.8091 12.50672 0.145561 0.286499 0.67392 2.612786
0.9 745.066 0.12 0.239 0.725 146.4795 9.269733 0.11751 0.247881 0.679382 6.292205
1.1 609.6 0.034 0.106 0.575 23.89454 2.8978 0.028635 0.115756 0.433296 24.64419
The experimental results at the design condition of the propeller (J=0.833) are
compared with the results obtained in CFD.

J v/s Kt, 10*Kq and ƞ
0.8
0.7
0.6
Kt (EFD)
0.5 10*Kq (EFD)
Kt, 10*Kq, ƞ 0.4 ƞ (EFD)
0.3 Kt (CFD)
10*Kq (CFD)
0.2 ƞ (CFD)
0.1
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
J
The maximum variation in propeller efficiency between the outcomes at the

design condition of the propeller was only 2.6%

3. Self-propulsion simulations
Resistance characteristics of the sub or the
open-water performance of a propeller only
are not usually enough to assess the DRAG
working conditions of the sub.
THRUST
The propulsion system and the hull must
be treated as a unit in both CFD simulations
and experiments. THRUST ≳ DRAG
The point at which the thrust produced by the propeller is slightly greater than the
drag produced by the hull is known as the self-propulsion point

The propeller was defined at x/L = 0.987 of the SUBOFF, which is about
4.3m from the origin.
Figure 3.1 DARPA SUBOFF mated with the DTMB-4119 propeller at x/L= 0.987

3.2 Domain creation
Geometry 2
Geometry 1
 The first geometry will only have the hull part, till
the after-body section.
 The second geometry will be the propeller blades

with the after-body cap section as the hub.

3.2 Domain creation
Stator domain
Geometry 1 for the propeller

Stator domain
Figure 3.2 SUBOFF with the stator domain of the propeller, housed inside the main domain

Figure 3.3 A close-up view of the stator domain
attached to the submarine.

Geometry 2
Figure 3.4 The rotor domain to be placed inside the stator domain.

3.3 Meshing
Figure 3.5 The mesh structure of the SUBOFF model with the stator domain
• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, structured hexahedral meshing was done.


• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, unstructured tetrahedral meshing was done.


Stator domain
 The mixing plane approach
converts the interface
boundary into Mixing plane.
Incoming flow
 It uses a circumferential
averaging technique.
 A non-uniform distribution
INLET of a flow variables on
boundary is approximated
OUTLET through a number of
averaging points.
Figure 3.7 Boundary conditions for the mixing planes approach

Stator domain
 The mixing plane approach
converts the interface
Rotor domain
boundary into Mixing plane.
Incoming flow
 It uses a circumferential
averaging technique.
 A non-uniform distribution
INLET of a flow variables on
boundary is approximated
OUTLET OUTLET through a number of
INLET INTERFACE averaging points.
Figure 3.7 Boundary conditions for the mixing planes approach

3.4 CFD results and verification
Simulations were performed at various RPMs for velocities: 3.046m/s &
5.144m/s
Figure 3.8 Velocity contours of the model on the XY plane

Figure 3.9 Path lines of velocity magnitude around the Figure 3.10 Y+ values of the model
SUBOFF

Thrust values of the blade and drag values of the hull obtained at different RPMs
for VS= 3.046 m/s
THRUST (N) DRAG (N)

RPM NET FORCE (N)
BLADE HUB HULL
450 -22.20695 -1.4265 96.397155 72.763705
500 -44.701911 1.6368877 102.10336 59.0383367
589 -105.813 2.3804264 103.27043 -0.1621436
600 -127.81124 2.3244879 106.23926 -19.2474921
650 -170.08511 3.9259125 110.16661 -55.9925875
In the reference paper [4], the self-propulsion RPM was found to be 589 for VS=
3.046m/s and the RPM obtained from simulation runs is 589.44. So, the
%difference is only 0.075%

Thrust, drag v/s RPM plot at VS= 3.046 m/s
Thrust, Drag v/s RPM

700
650
600
105.6, 589.44
550 thrust
RPM
drag
500
450
400
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Thrust, Drag (N)

Thrust values of the blade and drag values of the hull obtained at different RPMs
for VS= 5.144 m/s
THRUST (N) DRAG (N)
RPM NET FORCE (N)
BLADE HUB HULL
850 -163.10992 -4.79463 253.07984 85.17529
900 -217.22992 -3.9649083 259.65281 38.4579817
942 -262.98571 4.506 271.15456 12.67485
956 -278.6113 5.444 272.77108 -0.39622
987 -320.25142 6.749116 277.56408 -35.938224
1000 -336.33076 7.4231847 279.47434 -49.4332353
1050 -403.24989 10.9861 287.35956 -104.90423
In the reference paper [4], the self-propulsion RPM was found to be 987.42 for VS=
5.144m/s and the RPM obtained from simulation runs is 956. So, the %difference
is only 3.14%

Thrust, drag v/s RPM plot at VS= 5.144 m/s
Thrust v/s RPM

1100
1050
1000
950 thrust
RPM
278.2, 956
drag
900
850
800
120 170 220 270 320 370 420
THRUST, DRAG (N)

Equations were used to determine the remaining self-propulsion characteristics.
Effective wake Self-propulsion
coefficient efficiency
Average flow Relative rotation
velocity efficiency
Thrust deduction
Effective power
factor
Open-water Power delivered
efficiency to propeller
Hull efficiency

VS (m/s) 3.046 5.144
VA (m/s) 2.6317 4.4316
n (rps) 9.8167 15.934
Self-propulsion J 0.087723333 0.927074181
characteristics of Raff1 (N) 90.632 242.2
DARPA Suboff at:
T (N) 105.651 278.215
Q (Nm) 6.343 16.5094
Qo (Nm) 5.986 17.252
Weff 0.136014445 0.138491446
t 0.142156724 0.129450245
ȠH 0.992890763 1.010494616
ȠR 0.943717484 1.044980435
Ƞ0 0.752879171 0.714195631
ȠD 0.705454087 0.754152807
PE (W) 276.065072 1245.8768
PD (W) 391.0388205 1652.021696

4. Propeller noise prediction
R1
The noise generated by the DTMB 4119 R2
propeller under different operating
conditions are studied.
R3
URANS is used to model the flow around
the propeller and to obtain information
about the unsteady pressure fluctuations
generated by the rotating blades.
Figure 4.1 Receiver locations in the domain
FW-H equations are employed to convert these pressure fluctuations into acoustic
signals at a specified distance from the source.

DTMB 4119 propeller was modelled

using CAESES software.
This propeller blade uses a NACA 66

modified profile.
The propeller has a diameter of Figure 4.2 DTMB 4119 propeller model
300mm and a scale factor of 0.15
NACA 66 (p51htip-il) (airfoiltools.com)
Fig 4.3 NACA 66 profile

2.2 Domain creation
Figure 4.4 The cylindrical domain of the DTMB-4119 propeller
A cylindrical fluid domain of length 2.1m and diameter 0.9m was created.

2.3 Meshing
• In FLUENT meshing program, POLYHEDRAL meshing was done.

• There were 5-10 million mesh elements in all.
• The maximum wall distance in the viscous unit (y+) was always maintained below 10.

For the K-omega model, the Y+ has to be always maintained below 10.
v Re Cf y (m)
2.539 3.04E+05 4.28E-03 14.162811 0.11749 0.000009955
3.808
4.56E+05 4.04E-03 30.065588 0.171183 0.000006832
5.078
6.08E+05 3.88E-03 51.310272 0.223629 0.000005230
10.156
1.22E+06 3.51E-03 185.89134 0.425653 0.000002748
Figure 4.6 Inflation layers

Figure 4.7 Pressure contours of the propeller at the inlet (left) and the outlet (right)

Figure 4.8 Y+ values and velocities
(a) 2.539 m/s; max Y+2.1

(b) 3.808 m/s; max Y+ 2.8
(c) 5.078 m/s; max Y+ 3.46
(d) 10.156 m/s; max Y+ 5.81

Acoustic analysis
CFD method Empirical method

(FWH-URANS) (OASPL4119)
The CFD results are

compared with the empirical
results for verification.
Operating conditions, thrust & torque generated and OASPL values of the propeller:

 SPL increased when the propeller rotation
speed and inlet velocities were increased.
 When the OASPL and CFD results are

compared, there is a difference of 10-20 dB.
 RANS can only provide accurate information

about the order of propeller noise.

Future scope
i. To obtain more precise results, LES has to be
employed due to its superior capability in capturing
turbulent flow and sound generation mechanisms.
ii. As the DTMB 4119 propeller lacks any acoustic

experimental data, an experimental study should be
performed in the cavitation tunnel to get real world
acoustic data for proper validation of the results.

Conclusion
In this study the DTMB-4119 propeller was analysed using computational fluid
dynamics.
i. Initially the drag values of the SUBOFF model are calculated at different
velocity conditions and the results are validated with the experimental data.
Upon comparison, the maximum %difference was only 2.8%
ii. Then the propeller and shaft assembly are tested at an inlet velocity of
3.3528 m/s for different RPS and J values. The efficiency of the propeller was
found for the design condition 0.833. Upon validation, the %difference in
propeller efficiency was only 2.6%

Conclusion
iii. The self-propulsion point is examined for two distinct velocities: 3.046 m/s &
5.144 m/s to gauge the underwater vehicle's hydrodynamic performance.
The self-propulsion RPM was found to be 589 for the first case and 956 for
the second case. Upon comparison of these RPMs with the reference paper,
the %difference was only 0.075% for the first and 3.14% for the second case.
iv. Finally, the underwater noise level of the propeller was found using CFD and
empirical methodology. Four cases were analysed with varying RPMs and
velocities but the J value was maintained at 0.833. Upon comparing the
results there was a difference of 10-20 dB.

References
1. Groves Nancy C, Thomas T Huang, Ming S Chang, and David Taylor Research Center. (1989).
GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF DARPA SUBOFF MODELS: (DTRC MODEL NOS. 5470 AND 5471).
Bethesda MD: David Taylor Research Center.
2. Liu, Han-Lieh Huang, Thomas T, and David Taylor Research Center. (1998). SUMMARY OF DARPA
SUBOFF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM DATA. Bethesda MD: David Taylor Research Center.
3. Jessup, Stuart. (1989). AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF VISCOUS ASPECTS OF PROPELLER BLADE
FLOW. The Catholic University of America
4. Delen, Cihad & Sezen, Savaş & Bal, Sakir. (2017). COMPUTATIONAL INVESTIGATION OF SELF-
PROPULSION PERFORMANCE OF DARPA SUBOFF VEHICLE. Tamap Journal of Engineering.
5. Savas Sezen, Ali Dogrul, Cihad Delen, Sakir Bal. (2018). INVESTIGATION OF SELF-PROPULSION OF
DARPA SUBOFF BY RANS METHOD, Ocean Engineering, Volume 150, Pages 258-271, ISSN 0029-8018.

References (cont.)
6. Soydan, Ahmet & Zafer, Baha & Bal, Sakir. (2019). INVESTIGATION OF UNDERWATER NOISE
CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB4119 PROPELLER UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS. 10th Ankara
International Aerospace Conference
7. Chase, Nathan. (2012) SIMULATIONS OF THE DARPA SUBOFF SUBMARINE INCLUDING SELF-
PROPULSION WITH THE E1619 PROPELLER, University of Iowa.
8. Budak, G. and Beji, S., (2016). COMPUTATIONAL RESISTANCE ANALYSES OF A GENERIC SUBMARINE
HULL FORM AND ITS GEOMETRIC VARIANTS. Journal of Ocean Technology, 11(2).
9. Esteves, Fillipe & Gomes, Gustavo & Katsuno, Eduardo & Dantas, João. (2018). SIMULATION OF
DARPA SUBOFF MODEL PROPELLER-HULL INTERACTION. 27th International Congress on Waterway
Transport, Naval and Offshore Construction.
10. M. Cansın Özden, Ahmet Y. Gürkan, (2016). UNDERWATER RADIATED NOISE PREDICTION FOR A
SUBMARINE PROPELLER IN DIFFERENT FLOW CONDITIONS, Ocean Engineering, Volume 126

References (cont.)
11. Nan ZHANG, Sheng-li ZHANG. (2014). NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF HULL/PROPELLER INTERACTION OF SUBMARINE IN
SUBMERGENCE AND NEAR SURFACE CONDITIONS, Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 50-56, ISSN
1001-6058.
12. Mousavi B., Rahrovi A. and Kheradmand S. (2014) NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TONAL AND BROADBAND
HYDRODYNAMIC NOISES OF NON-CAVITATING UNDERWATER PROPELLER. Polish Maritime Research, Vol.21 (Issue 3), pp.
46-53.
13. Gaggero, S., Villa, D. and Brizzolara, S. (2010). RANS AND PANEL METHOD FOR UNSTEADY FLOW PROPELLER
ANALYSIS. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 22(5), pp.564-569.
14. Ebrahimi, Abouzar, Mohammad Saeed Seif, and Ali Nouri-Borujerdi. (2019). HYDRO-ACOUSTIC AND HYDRODYNAMIC
OPTIMIZATION OF A MARINE PROPELLER USING GENETIC ALGORITHM, BOUNDARY ELEMENT METHOD, AND FW-H
EQUATIONS. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7, no. 9: 321.

Thank You

Rejith Sem4 Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rejith Sem4 Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF

SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE

Under the guidance of

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 2

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 3

i. Discretization error iii. Input data error

Due to the probability of these types of errors in CFD, it is always recommended

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 4

The results obtained at each stage are validated/verified and it

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 5

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 6

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 7

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 8

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 9

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 10

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 11

AFF-1 refers to the model's most basic configuration

Fig 1.1 Bare hull model: AFF1

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 12

After body cap

Fig 1.2 Axial symmetry form of AFF-1 model

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 13

Figure 1.3 The cylindrical domain of the SUBOFF model

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 14

Figure 1.4 Mesh structure of the bare-hull form

• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, structured hexahedral meshing was done.

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 15

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 16

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 17

Velocity(m/s) Experimental drag (N) CFD drag (N) %difference

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 18

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 19

propeller to a given ship or submarine hull.

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 20

DTMB 4119 propeller was modelled

This propeller blade uses a NACA 66

NACA 66 (p51htip-il) (airfoiltools.com)

Fig 2.2 NACA 66 profile

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 21

Figure 2.3 The cylindrical domain of the DTMB-4119 propeller

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 22

Figure 2.4 The mesh structure of the DTMB-4119 propeller

• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, unstructured tetrahedral meshing was done.

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 23

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 24

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 25

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 26

The maximum variation in propeller efficiency between the outcomes at the

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 27

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 28

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 29

 The second geometry will be the propeller blades

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 30

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 31

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 32

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 33

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 34

• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, structured hexahedral meshing was done.

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 35

• In ANSYS ICEM meshing program, unstructured tetrahedral meshing was done.

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 36

Figure 3.7 Boundary conditions for the mixing planes approach

25/11/2023 SELF-PROPULSION POINT & UNDERWATER NOISE CHARACTERISTICS OF DTMB-4119 PROPELLER 37