570

Design and analysis of counter-rotating propellers-comparison of numerical and experimental results

Davide Grassi1, Stefano Brizzolara2, Michele Viviani2, Luca Savio2, Sara Caviglia2 ZF Marine Arco s.p.a. Arco (Tn), Italy Email: davide.grassi@zf.com 2 Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering (DINAV), University of Genoa, Genova, Italy Email: brizzolara@dinav.unige.it ; viviani@dinav.unige.it ; savio@dinav.unige.it ; caviglia.s@gmail.com
ABSTRACT: In these last years a growing interest has been devoted to counter-rotating propellers especially for pod/stern drive applications for pleasure boats. In this context DINAV has been interested in the framework of an industrial R&D project to develop design/analysis computer codes for such kind of propulsors which is based on a modern liftingline/lifting surface design method [1-4]. The present work is devoted to the comparison between the foregoing numerical design/analysis tools and the results of the cavitation tunnel tests. The validation study has been performed on a set counter rotating propellers designed to be installed on a commercial pod drive system.. Despite some uncertainty intrinsically connected to the nature of the test, results are very well in agreement with design points, allowing to validate the theoretical codes developed so far and to obtain semi-empirical correction factors for future application. KEY WORDS: contra-rotating, stern thrusters.
1

1 INTRODUCTION In these last years, a general interest has been developed in contra-rotating propellers (CRPs), in their use in outboard propulsor for fast-planing craft or in podded drives for fast ships or mega-yachts. It is quite clear that the advantage of having CRPs can be better exploited for these types of vessels usually characterized by shallow drafts and high specific power loads on propellers. The advantages for fast boat propellers, mainly derive from dividing the delivered power (and thrust) on two propellers moderately loaded instead of just one with higher load, to contain the expanded area ratio, possibly the diameter and ensure a good cavitation margin. However, there are also applications in larger scales, such as in conventional shaft line arrangements or podded propulsors for large displacement ships. So the potential applications of a CRPs design method

are rather general and widely applicable. The present paper deals with the validation of a design system for optimum CRPs, which is based on the following two types of numerical computer codes: (1) A design program based on a revised lifting line/lifting surface theory for optimum CRPs; (2) A steady lifting surface program for the analysis of the designed CRP set. After a brief introduction of the theoretical and numerical aspects of the foregoing methods, an example of a practical application to the case of a fastplaning boat with stern drives propulsor is presented and critically discussed. The contra-rotating propeller set designed through the foregoing design system has been manufactured and installed on a commercial pod system in order to be tested at the University of Genoa Cavitation Tunnel for assessing global performance characteristics and cavitation behaviour; such an experimental campaign provided very useful information to validate the theoretical codes presented in the present work. 2 DESIGN METHOD FOR CONTRAROTATING PROPELLERS 2.1 Introduction Despite the wide existing interest about contrarotating propellers, few articles have appeared in literature recently about design methods of CR propellers; hence the early method proposed by Morgan [7] remains still a valid option to design their optimum wake-adapted geometries. On this base, it is possible to re-consider this classical design method and develop it, by taking advantage of modern computational techniques, with the specific aim of the design of stern propulsor for high-speed

571

planing craft. When compared with Morgans original theory, the present method represents a significant improvement under the following point of view: a full numerical lifting line model (with slipstream contraction effect) for exact representation of wake velocities is adopted [1] . cavitation and strength constraints are addressed thorough an iterative and automatic blade geometry optimization routine which verify the margin on the maximum admissible local stress and cavitation inception [1]. lifting surface corrections for camber and pitch based on a vortex/source lattice design method (following Greeley and Kerwin work [6]) are applied. This which is very general in terms of blade loading and treats the problem of wake contraction and alignment with local flow in a numerical manner [5]. a non-optimum tip/hub unloaded circulation curve can be consistently used in the liting line design method, in order to improve cavitation margins in those critical area, usually subject to cavitation in particular for fast planing boats [6].

with subscript s, can be evaluated with the traditional lifting line method, valid for each single propeller. A fully numerical lifting line method has been developed to calculate the effects of the mutual induction between the two propellers. The vortical lines scheme is similar to that of Lerbs [7], but differently it has been changed from a continuous formulation into a discrete one by employing discrete vortex elements to approximate the bound and free vortex lines. Hence, induced velocities are not evaluated by the well known analytical formulations presented in [9], but simply applying the Biot-Savart law to each discrete vortex segment. The numerical approach permits to more accurately evaluate the mutual induced factors of each propeller on the other. In fact, once defined the bound circulation distribution s(r), the pitch angle distribution i0 (r), the number of blades g, the propeller and hub radius R and rh, the developed computer program calculates the induced velocity of that propeller on selected points P having cylindrical coordinates (r, , z) in the position of the other. This numerical approach avoids the rather crude approximation of using the Tachmindji [9] factors proposed in the original Morgans method, as demonstrated in [1]. As mentioned in the introduction, the present theory offers also the possibility to impose a modified circulation distribution (different from the optimum one) in order to unload the blade especially near tip and root sections; this feature is addressed by applying Lerbss non-optimum lifting line theory to the Equivalent Propeller with some corrections in order to treat the peculiarities of the contra-rotating case [6]. An unloading factor G (function of the radial position) is applied to the total optimum circulation G*, so obtaining the new modified total circulation F* which is represented by a Fourier sine series:
* F * = G G * = Fm sin m m =1 n

2.2 Outline of the theoretical and numerical procedure The key point of the Morgan design theory consists in the definition of the so-called Equivalent Propeller, i.e. the optimum propeller which produces 50% of the required thrust and absorbs 50% of the total torque, having the hydrodynamic pitch angle equal to the average of the hydrodynamic pitch angle of the actual propellers. The general diagram of Figure 1 is valid for the mutual and self induced velocities generated by the two CR propellers.

(1)

Such a modified circulation is then scaled by a factor k in order to develop the prescribed thrust: a final unloaded circulation L* is so derived as follows:

Fig. 1 Velocity triangle of CR propellers

L* = kF *

(2)

The induced velocity components on the single EqP are divided in two components: the interference velocities, indicated in the diagram of Figure 1 with the subscript i due to the mutual induced velocity of one propeller on the other of the CR set; the self induced velocity components, indicated in the diagram

Due to the Morgans method inherent concept of equivalent propeller, this unloading curve cannot be diversified for each of the two propellers, being applied just to the equivalent one. Once defined the distribution of the blade loading the program proceed to the determination of the blade geometry in terms of chord length, thicknesses, pitch,

572

camber which ensure the requested section lift coefficient while granting cavitation and strength constraints. There are several approaches when solving the foregoing problem, but the Authors follow the works by Connolly [11] for the calculation of blade stresses and the method proposed by Grossi [12] for ensuring cavitation margins; this last procedure is based upon a earlier work by Castagneto and Maioli [13] where minimum pressure coefficient on a given standard blade section are computed. Lifting surface corrections are applied by using, for each propeller, the method of Greeley and Kerwin [8] which features a vortex/source lattice model that is very general in terms of loading distribution along the radius and the chord and treat in an efficient and effective way the problem of the wake in terms of contraction and alignment with the local flow. Exact numerical lifting surface corrections applied in the present theory are closely based on the theory developed in the aforementioned work, with the appropriate adaptations to integrate it in the case of two CR propellers [5]. With a numerical treatment, in fact, by running an exact lifting surface numerical method and bypassing the approximated regression formulae used up to now, it is possible to considerably improve the corrections to the angle of attack and to the camber distribution, avoiding final lack or excess of thrust or earlier cavitation inception than predicted. 3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF CONTRAROTATING PROPELLER BY LIFTING SURFACE THEORY 3.1 Introduction It is good practice after a propeller design, based on the approximate lifting line method, to actually verify the hydrodynamic characteristics of both forward and aft propellers, at least in an averaged sense (as it is done in this paper) by analyzing each propeller in the averaged wake induced by the other with a 3D model of both propellers simultaneously operating. In principle the problem of a counter-rotating set of propellers has to be considered as a strongly unsteady phenomenon even in open water configuration hence it should be treated in time domain. However in this paper a averaged steady iterative approach has been followed: the interaction of the fore and aft propeller is intended in the sense that each propeller is solved in a wake-adapted condition where the inflow velocity is calculated by solving the other propeller as a single one, calculating the velocity field in a transversal plane axially located at the other propeller disk and taking the mean value of the axial, tangential and radial component in the circumferential direction. Hence, as a first step, the Authors developed a lifting

surface analysis code for single propeller which is based upon Kerwin theory [11] that employs a simplified or empirically defined shape for representing propeller wake geometry, whereas the present work apply a fully numerical wake adaptation method to calculate the wake geometry. 3.2 Formulation of the analysis theory The continuous distribution of sources and vorticity is replaced by a lattice of concentrated straight-line elements whose end points are located exactly on the blade camber surface. Singularities over the blade are placed in a uniform chordwise/spanwise manner following Kerwins method but this structure is composed by M x N ring vortex over each blade (instead of placing horseshoe vortex on the whole blade) plus M horseshoe vortex located on the wake whose strength is equal to the strength of the nearest ring vortex on camber surface to fulfil Kutta condition at trailing edge (Figure 2).

Fig. 2 Illustration of reference system and vortex lattice structure

The boundary condition is to be satisfied at M x N points on the camber surface. As mentioned before, a new wake adaptation procedure has been developed and applied to a computed program; this totally numerical approach solves the problem of the wake geometry predetermination, leaving its trailing vortexes free to rollup and contract over a given length downstream. The wake geometry is correct when it is force-free that is (following Kutta-Joukowsky theorem) when streamlines are aligned with local velocity; since induced velocity depend on wake shape the procedure is iterative and usually converges quite rapidly. Moreover blade circulation depends in turn on wake geometry so that a double iteration is needed to obtain the correct result. Computation starts by approximating the trailing wake sheet by pure helical surface with a prescribed pitch

573

angle (r) obtained either from undisturbed inflow inflow(r) or from the blade pitch angle (r). Having determined the circulation distribution the program calculate the induced velocities (ua(rTE, x), ut(rTE, x), ur(rTE, x)) in cylindrical coordinates at a limited number of points (usually ten axial position for each trailing vortex) in the transition wake and interpolate to evaluate the induced velocities at other locations. The subscript TE identifies the radius of the trailing vortexes detaching from the trailing edge of the blade. The pitch of the new trailing vortex shape is now obtained as follows:

U a (r) =

U a ( r , )d

2 1 2 1
(6)

U (r) =

U ( r, )d

U r (r) =

2 1 2 1 = 2 / Z

U r ( r, )d

The iterative procedure is showed in Figure 3.

N ( r , x) = + k tan 1

V A + u a ( r , x ) r + u t ( r , x )

(3)

While slipstream contraction at each axial and radial position (referred to trailing edge radius) can be written as:
x ur ( rTE , x ) rN ( rTE , x ) = rTE + k tan 1 dx x ua ( rTE , x ) + VA
TE

(4)

Where k is a relaxation factor, VA is the advance velocity and is the propeller rpm. The foregoing computer program developed for the single propeller analysis has been applied straightforwardly to the problem of the contra-rotating propellers. The numerical procedure starts from the fore propeller solving it in open flow condition. Then it calculates the induced velocities downstream in cylindrical coordinates as a function of the radial position.

U (r ) = U a (r ) + U (r ) + U r (r )

(5)
Fig. 3 Illustration of the solving procedure

Where every component is given by following equation 6. Once computed the flow velocities downstream of the fore propeller, the program calculates the aft propeller in the average wake induced by the forward propeller. With the singularities known on the aft propeller, the code can calculate the wake field upstream and can average it at each radial position on the complete turning cycle. This concludes the calculation procedure for a complete iteration loop, and the code is ready to start a new loop by solving the fore propeller again in the same way described above. The iteration stops when a satisfactory convergence has been achieved with respect to the circulation distribution along the radius on both the props (usually three-four iterations are needed to satisfy the convergence criteria).

In order to validate the computer program a calculation has been performed on a CR set (4 bladed fore and 5 bladed aft) designed and tested at DTNSRDC [12] for application on torpedoes. The comparison between theoretical and experimental data in term of fore and aft propeller thrust/torque coefficients are reported in the following Figure 4 and 5: it should be emphasized that torque, thrust and advance coefficients are non-dimensionalized over the diameter of the fore propeller. As it appears from the Figures in terms of trend, the present program is able to capture the thrust/torque characteristics of the counter-rotating set even far away from the design point.

574

PROPELLER 3686 CR KT-10KQ 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 KT MILLER 10KQ MILLER KT NUMERICAL 10KQ NUMERICAL

GAUGE_TOTAL TORQUE FORWARD LOAD CELL AFT LOAD CELL

KT, 10KQ

GAUGE_AFT TORQUE

Fig. 6 Plating for pod/tunnel connection

0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 ADVANCE COEFFICIENT 1.3 1.4

Fig. 4 Numerical Vs. Experimental Results Fore Propeller

PROPELLER 3849 CR KT-10KQ 0.7 0.6 0.5 KT, 10KQ 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 ADVANCE COEFFICIENT 1.3 1.4 KT MILLER 10KQ MILLER KT NUMERICAL 10KQ NUMERICAL

In order to measure torque, strain gauges have been mounted directly on shafts, and signals are transmitted by means of a telemetric device. Detailed description of the measuring device is reported in NAV 2009 [13], together with a comprehensive analysis of problems encountered. With this measuring setup, a first campaign has been carried out on the instrumented pod fitted with contrarotating propellers. Main characteristics of the propellers are reported in next Table 1.
Table 1 Main Characteristics of tested propellers

Diameter [mm] Blade Area Ratio Pitch/Diameter 0.7 R Chord/Diameter 0.7R Number of Blades

Front Prop 351 0.58 1.50 0.39 4

Rear Prop 339 0.52 1.63 0.48 3

Fig. 5 Numerical Vs. Experimental Results Aft Propeller

4 EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN 4.1 Measuring rig setup The measuring rig, as mentioned in the Introduction, is a modified commercial contra-rotating pod, thus allowing only limited modification to the pod itself. Given this limitation it was chosen to measure thrust and torque as follows: Thrust is measured only for the entire device (overall thrust) Torque is measured on the vertical pod shaft (total torque) and on the aft propeller shaft. It was therefore necessary to connect the pod to the cavitation tunnel, through a device able to transfer longitudinal and lateral thrust. The plating realized for this purpose is presented in Figure 6, where it can be seen that the flange between the pod and the driving electrical motor is mounted on linear guides. Guides transfer both longitudinal and transversal thrust to two couples of load cells.

It has to be remarked that it is not possible to provide further characteristics (blade sections, chord and pitch radial distribution) of the tested propellers for industrial reasons. For this configuration, a rather large amount of tests has been carried out, considering pod alone without propellers, pod with one propeller (front and aft) and pod with contra-rotating propellers.

Fig. 7 Contra-rotating propeller configurations

For all configurations, tests have been carried out first with tunnel at atmospheric pressure and successively at different cavitation numbers. In present paper, focus is on atmospheric pressure tests since the theoretical code does not take into account cavitation effects (thrust and torque breakdown), while results of the campaign at low cavitation number are reported in [13]. The test setup in shown in Figure 7.

575

4.2

Atmospheric pressure tests and comparison with numerical results

KT TOT, 10KQ TOT, EFF

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 1.1

CR EXP VS. NUMERICAL KT EXP 10KQ EXP EFF EXP KT NUM 10KQ NUM EFF NUM DESIGN PT

In following Figure 8, 9 and 10, characteristic curves obtained in the tested configuration are reported, together with experimental points (lines) and with numerical results (dots). It should be remarked that thrust and torque coefficients are non-dimensionalized over the respective propeller diameters for the single configuration, whereas they are non-dimensionalized over a mean diameter for the CR configuration. Moreover, it has to be noted that measured values are not reported for industrial reasons, and only tendencies are kept, to give an impression of data obtained during trials.

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 ADVANCE COEFFICIENT J

1.6

1.7

Fig. 10 Numerical vs. Experimental CR Propeller Thrust/torque Coefficient

1.2 1 KT, 10KQ,EFF 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.8 0.9

FRONT PROP ATM PRESSURE

KT EXP 10KQ EXP EFF EXP KT NUM 10KQ NUM EFF NUM

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 ADVANCE COEFFICIENT J

1.5

1.6

Fig. 8 Numerical vs. Experimental Fore Propeller Thrust/torque Coefficient

AFT PROP ATM PRESSURE 1.2 Kt, 10Kq,EFF 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 ADVANCE COEFFICIENT J 1.5 1.6 KT EXP 10KQ EXP EFF EXP KT NUM 10KQ NUM EFF NUM

Fig. 9 Numerical vs. Experimental Aft Propeller Thrust/torque Coefficient

From the analysis of the experimental results, it can be seen that the resulting characteristic curves in correspondence to contra-rotating configuration present thrust and torque values which are, as a rough estimation, similar to the sum of values computed for single propellers, with modifications obviously due to the mutual interactions between them. This characteristic is of great importance in the leisure boat market, where the speed demand is ever increasing, allowing to have almost double the thrust with same overall dimensions. This, in its turn, permits to avoid too large propellers or to adopt different propulsor types. Moreover, contra-rotating propeller characteristics tend to be a sort of mean between the two single propellers, with zero thrust advance coefficient in correspondence to an intermediate value between those recorded for the single propellers. Same tendency is present also for maximum efficiency advance coefficient. Regarding efficiency, it can be also seen that the curve in the contra-rotating configuration is considerably flat with respect to the others, presenting a high value in correspondence to a larger range of advance coefficients. This characteristic allows somehow a higher flexibility of the system, which can be used in correspondence to different operating conditions without losing efficiency. Another interesting feature of this kind of propulsor which could be measured directly is the torque distribution between front and rear propeller; this resulted to be 50%-50%, consistently with design assumptions, thus confirming the correct functioning of the design method. Considering numerical results, experimental and predicted curves seem to match quite good around the design advance coefficient, showing some differences in off-design condition. Reasons for this are to be further investigated, nevertheless, considering also experimental uncertainties linked to the particular nature of the measuring rig, results are already considered very satisfactory.

576

5 CONCLUSIONS The design method for contra rotating propellers presented in this paper is able to find the best CRPs geometry for a given operating point, with non optimum load distribution along radius, overcoming the parametric lifting surface corrections. The new possibility to impose an unloading curve to optimum circulation along the radius and to use exact lifting surface corrections, right in the hydrodynamic design procedure, opens great opportunities in order to create consistent CR propellers sets, avoiding a usual deprecate practice of imposing a posteriori alterations of the geometry, not theoretically justified and most often based on experience. Together with the foregoing design code, an analysis program for CRPs has been developed which is able to capture the thrust/torque characteristics in an averaged sense: the latter code has to be used in conjunction with the foregoing design program to check the resulting propeller geometry in terms of performance and cavitation behavior. In order to apply and validate the design propeller program, a set of contra-rotating propellers has been designed and manufactured to be installed on a commercial pod system. The aim of the device, developed for this particular application in order to be mounted on the University of Genoa Cavitation Tunnel, is to assess global performance of a pod fitted with contra-rotating propellers. Thanks to the particular configuration of the test device tool, very useful information in term of thrust and torque coefficients were provided, along with a first insight of the complex interaction phenomena between front and rear propeller, which allows the designer to validate and check the design code. REFERENCES
[1] Brizzolara S, Tincani E, Grassi D. Design of Contrarotating Propellers for High-speed Stern Thrusters. Ships and Offshore Structures 2007(2): 169 182. [2] Grassi D, Brizzolara S. Numerical Analysis of CR Propeller Performance by Lifting Surface Theory. 8th International Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles, Naples, Italy 2008(1): 125-131.

[3] Grassi D, Brizzolara S. Numerical Analysis of Propeller Performance by Lifting Surface Theory. Proceeding of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Marine Research and Transportation, Ischia (Naples), Italy 2007. [4] Grassi D. Numerical Methods for Design and Analysis of Contra-Rotating Propellers. Ph.D. Thesis, Genova, Universit degli Studi di Genova, 2010. [5] Tincani E, Grassi D, Brizzolara S. A Design Method for Contrarotating Propellers Based on Exact Lifting Surface Corrections. 6th International Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles, HIPER 08. Napoli, Sept. 2008, 1: 201-214, ISBN/ISSN: 88-901174-9-4. [6] Tincani E, Brizzolara S. A Design Method for Contra Rotating Propellers with Non-Optimum Radial Loading Distribution. In: III Symposio Internacional de Disegno y Produccion de Yates de Motor y Vela. Madrid, June 2008, ETSIN, 1: 5-20. [7] Morgan W B. The Design of Counter-rotating Propeller Using LerbsTheory Trans. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1960, 68:6-31, Discussion: 32-38. [8] Greeley D S, Kerwin J E. Numerical Methods for Propeller Design and Analysis in Steady Flow. Trans Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1982, 90: 415453. [9] Lerbs H W. Moderately Loaded Propellers with a Finite Number of Blades and an Arbitrary Distribution of Circulation. Trans. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers 1952, 60:73-117, Discussion: 118-123. [10] Tachmindji A J. The axial velocity field induced of an optimum infinitely bladed propeller. David Taylor Model Basin report 1294, January 1959. [11] Connolly J E. Strength of Propellers. Trans. Royal Institution of Naval Architects 1961, 103: 139-154, Discussion: 155-160. [12] Grossi L. PESP: un programma integrato per la progettazione di eliche navali con la teoria della superficie portante. CETENA Report n. 1022 1980 (in Italian). [13] Castagneto E, Maioli P G. Theoretical and Experimental Study on the Dynamics of hydrofoils as Applied to Naval Propellers. 7th Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamic Rome, Italy 1968. [14] Kerwin J E, Lee C S. Prediction of Steady and Unsteady Marine Propeller Performance by Numerical Lifting Surface Theory. Trans. Society of Naval Architects And Marine Engineers 1978, 86: 218-253. [15] Miller M L. Experimental Determination of Unsteady Forces on Counter-rotating Propellers in Uniform Flow. DTRC Report SPD 659-01 1976. [16] Grassi D, Savio L, Viviani M, et al. Development of an Experimental Device for a Pod Fitted With ContraRotating Propellers. Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Ship and Shipping Research (NAV 2009), Messina, Italy, 2009.