Propeller Design for Minimum Induced Vibrations

Mosaad, M. A., Mosleh, M., El-Kilani, H., and Yehia,W.

ABSTRACT

Propeller skew is the single most effective design parameter which has significant influence on
reducing propeller induced vibration without sacrificing the efficiency. Up to date applications of
propeller skew for a certain propeller almost does not has a specified criteria. In this paper a
proposed concept design criteria for propeller skew is presented. Computational results for the flow
patterns of skewed propellers with different skew angles, for cavitating and non- cavitating
propellers are presented. The simulation work is carried out by FLUENT software using
unstructured grids, based on Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics
method. The selection of the best propeller skew angles is based on comparative analysis of these
numerical results. The overall results of the proposed approach may be considered practical for
propeller designs with minimum induced vibrations.
Key-Words: - Propeller skew, Vibrations, Cavitations

1. INTRODUCTION

During recent years Computational FluidDynamics (CFD) models have demonstrated to

rapidly become effective tools to analyse
marine propeller single-phase flows. In
contrast to this, cavitation presents complex
two-and multi-phase flow phenomena that are
still difficult to accurately simulate [1].
Cavitation occurs on nearly all ship propellers.
It may lead to expensive problems if not
acknowledged in an early design stage. The
two most frequently occurring problems are
vibrations and noise in the afterbody due to
cavitation-induced pressure fluctuations on the
hull, and cavitation erosion on propeller blades
and appendages. Early recognition of these
adverse effects is important, not only to ensure
compliance with contract requirements, but
also because often cavitation has to be
controlled at the cost of propeller efficiency
[2]. To ensure that the propeller meets the
requirements that relate to comfort (vibration
and noise) and safe and economic operation
(erosion), model scale experiments or
computations that address cavitation are to be
conducted prior to construction [2].
Due to high operational costs of experimental
investigations it is highly desirable to be able
to study cavitation with reliable CFD
techniques [3].

The paper presents optimum skew range based

on RANS comparative study of flow pattern
characteristics of two new families of skewed
propellers. These propellers are characterized by
the presence or absence of cavitation inception.
The first family is a skewed propeller family of
DTMB-P4119 to be studied as non-cavitating
propellers. The second is a family of INSEANE779A as cavitating propellers.
2. NUMERICAL SETUP AND COMPUTATIONAL
APPROACH

General conservative form of the Navier Stokes

equation is presented as the continuity equation
Continuity equation,

xi

( ui )

Sm
(2.1)

Where:
= density, [kg/m3]

ui

= is the velocity component in the ith direction,

m/s
(i =1, 2, 3) and
S m = source terms.
In case of incompressible flows the density is
considered to be constant. Since the propeller flow
has been considered as steady and incompressible,
the continuity equation gets modified as,

xi

( ui )

0
(2.2)

The momentum equation will be,

( ui )
p
xi

xj
ij

(2.3)

gi

xj

The outlet boundary condition with a static

( ui u j )

can be calculated as given in [3]:

Fi

(2.6)

Where:

uj

u
[ ( i
xj

ij

xi

)]

2
3

ul
xl

Where:
ij

, (2.4)

ij

= is the Reynolds stress tensor

p = static pressure, [N/m2]
gi = gravitational acceleration in the ith direction ,
[m/s2]
Fi = external body forces in the ith direction and, N
ij is the Kronecker delta and is equal to unity when
i=j; and zero when i j.
The Reynolds-Averaged form of the above
momentum equation including the turbulent shear
stresses is given by:

ui

xj
p
xi

xj
ui
xj
xj

outlet pressure based on the cavitation number

ui u j
uj
xi

2
3

ui
xi

ui u j
(2.5)

Where:

u i'

= is the instantaneous velocity component, m/s (i

= 1,2, 3).

In the present work, the SST (Shear Stress

Transport) k- turbulence model is chosen for
turbulence closure. The SST k- model is
currently one of the most widely used
turbulence models for propeller flow
simulation [4].
For the cavitating propeller cases, the
cavitation model was activated, using a multiphase CFD setup with water and water vapor
under normal conditions as the working
fluids.[3]
Regarding the Boundary Conditions for
cavitation cases were set in the same way as
for the non-cavitating cases. The only
difference was at the exit boundary, where a
constant exit pressure was set to match the
given cavitation number ( ) [5].

Pout= outlet pressure,[ pa]

Pv= vapour pressure, [pa]
n = rotation cavitation number
(2.7)
D =Propeller diameter, [m]
N= Rate of revolutions of propeller, [rps]
P= Static pressure at point of interest, [pa]
3. PROPOSED CONCEPT DESIGN FOR MINIMUM
PROPELLER INDUCED VIBRATION

In this concept design three elements were

identified as being influential in determining
propeller vibratory response. The three elements
of importance are pressure fluctuation, propeller
loading, and cavitation inception. The objectives
of the proposed concept design are:
Minimize pressure fluctuation, within the
neighbourhoods of the propeller flow
field.
Blades elements unloading throughout
minimized pressure distribution of
chordwise elements along the span of the
propeller blades.
Avoid cavitation inception which
dramatically magnifies the propeller
induced vibratory forces
The achievement of the three objectives in
design will result in many successful propellers.
4. NON-CAVITATING PROPELLER

This study aims to analyze a family of skewed

propeller of different skew angle to assess the
influence of skew in the objectives of the
concept design. The selected propeller geometry
is DTMB-P4119 which is a right handed, threebladed fixed-pitch propeller with pitch diameter
ratio of 1.084 of typical diameter D=0.305 m,
the full details of geometry data for this
propeller was given in [6].
The original design of this propeller is without
skew, i.e. skew angle=zero. Different propeller
geometries of the same propeller dimensions
2

have been modeled with only difference in the

skew angles. Skew angles ( S ) applied from
15:75 degrees with increment of 15 degree.
The geometries of these propellers are shown
in Fig.1. For the simulation purpose, design
advance coefficient J=0,833 was selected.

0.0 deg .

30 deg .

15 deg .

45 deg .

60 deg .
75 deg .
S
Fig. 1 Skewed Propeller Family of DTMBP4119
S

4.1 Spanwise Pressure Distribution

The pressure distribution on the blade surfaces
is an important factor for blade designs,
considering the cavitation suppression and
material strength issues [7, 8].
(4.1)
Where:
Cp= pressure coefficient
P= Static pressure at point of interest, [pa]
Po=Reference Pressure at infinity, [pa]
Figures 2, 3 present comparison of spanwise
pressure distribution expressed in terms of
pressure coefficient Cp versus distance from
the leading edge non-dimensionalized by the
chord length (X/C) at 0.7 R, 0.9 R as examples

for the Skewed Propeller Family of DTMBP4119.

4.2 Pressure Fluctuation
The predominant factor for propeller vibrations
is pressure fluctuations. In the present study of
DTMB-P4119 family of skewed propellers the
numerical results of pressure fluctuation have
been predicted.
Figure 4 shows a direct comparison between the
resultant circumferential pressure fluctuations at
0.7 R of the studied geometries.
4.3 Influence of Skew on Tip Speed
The logic resultant consequence of skew
application which plays role in reducing the
blade pressure loading and fluctuation is the
increase in tip speed. Figure 5 shows results of
the circumferential speeds on the propellers tips
for different skew angles. The velocity analysis
was that the propeller's skew angle has only an
insignificant influence on the mean values of the
tip flow velocity
4.4 Discussion of non cavitating propeller
Results
Application of propeller skew has been shown to
be effective in reducing blade loading along the
span of propeller blade. This reduction can be
easily investigated along the applied skew range
of 0:60 degree (Figures2, 3) Skew of 75 degrees
results in increase of the negative pressure i.e.
the propeller back in the tip region at 0.9 R.
Concerning the pressure fluctuation the increase
of propeller skew almost improve the pressure
fluctuation in the propeller flow field
neighborhoods (Figure 4).
The increased velocity as a direct consequence
of pressure reduction has been also investigated.
Fig. 5 shows the slight increase in the propeller
tip speed which might be negligible.
Finally, based on the aforementioned analysis, a
moderate skew range of 45:60 degree is
recommended from hydrodynamic and vibration
points of view.

Fig. 2 Chordwise Distribution of pressure coefficient for DTMB-P4119 Skewed Family at 0.7 R, J=0.833

Fig. 3 Chordwise Distribution of pressure coefficient for DTMB-P4119 Skewed Family at 0.9 R, J=0.833

Fig. 4 Pressure Fluctuation of DTMB-P4119 Skewed Family at 0.7 R, J=0.833

5
Fig. 5 circumferential Tip Speeds of DTMB-P4119 Skewed Family, J=0.833

5. CAVITATING PROPELLER

The purpose of this study is to examine the

proposed concept design and the criteria of
skew application for attest case of cavitating
propeller with different number of blades. The
propeller model selected for the present study
is INSEAN (Italian Ship Model Basin) E779A
which is a four blade propeller, 4.5 degree
skewed, with a uniform pitch (pitch/diameter =
1.1), a forward rake angle of 4 3 and a
diameter of 227.2 mm.
Three other geometries have been also
modelled by skew angles of 45, 60, and 75
degrees to apply and examine the proposed
concept design. This was to build a family of
skewed E779A propeller. Figure 6 shows these
geometries.

4.5 deg .

4.5 deg .

60 deg .

45 deg .

60 deg .
75 deg .
S
Fig. 7 Back Cavitation on Skewed Propeller
Family of E779A
S

45 deg .

4.5 deg .

45 deg .

75 deg .

Fig. 6 Skewed Propeller Family of E779A

For the simulation purposes, the following
operating condition is considered: Uniform
flow at speed V = 5.808 m/s and propeller
rotational speed n = 36.0 rps, (advance
coefficient J = 0.71); cavitating number of
n = 1.763 [1].
5.1 Cavitating Flow
Cavitating flow condition is simulated at the
design advance coefficient and cavitation
number. Figure 7, 8 compares the predicted
extensions of cavitating regions on the
propeller face and back.

60 deg .
75 deg .
S
Fig. 8 Face Cavitation on Skewed Propeller
Family of E779A
S

5.2 Spanwise Pressure Distribution

Figures 9: 11 show a chordwise distribution of
cavitating pressure at 0.6, 0.7, and 0.9 R for the
purpose of comparison of the application of the
proposed concept design for the Skewed
Propeller Family of E779A propeller.

Fig. 9 Chordwise Distribution of pressure coefficient for E779A Skewed Family at 0.6 R,
J=0.71

Fig. 10 Chordwise Distribution of pressure coefficient for E779A Skewed Family at 0.7 R,
J=0.71

Fig. 11 Chordwise Distribution of pressure coefficient for E779A Skewed Family at 0.9 R,
J=0.71

5.3. Pressure Fluctuation

Figure 12 shows the pressure fluctuation at 0.7
R for the family of E779A skewed propellers.
.

5.4. Influence of skew on tip Speed

For the cavitated propeller test case Figure 13
shows measurements of the circumferential
speeds on the propellers tips for different skew
angles. As shown in the figures, the increase in
the mean value of tip flow velocity is small and
can be also negligible.

Fig. 12 Pressure Fluctuation of E779A Skewed

Fig. 13 Circumferential Tip Speeds of E779A

Family at 0.7 R, J=0.71

Skewed Family, J=0.71

8

5.5. Discussion of cavitating propeller Results

10. REFERENCES:

The analysis of non-cavitating propeller results

came with a recommended beneficial skew
range of 45:60 degree. The efficiency of this
range examined for a cavitating propeller and
has shown success in the objectives of the
concept design. This recommended skew range
decreases the propeller blade elements loading
along the cavitated propeller diameter (Figures
5.4: 5.6). This unloading reduces the cavity
volumes developed on the propeller back
(Figures 5.2, 5.3). The sheet cavitation
developed on the original design of the
propeller model with 4.5 degree skew has been
transferred to only slight tip cavitation by 60
degree skew. While 75 degree skew results in
excessive negative pressures on the propeller
back, and reproduced higher cavity volume on
the propeller tip region. The pressure
fluctuation also decreased by implementing the
proposed skew (Figure 5.7). Regarding the
effect of skew on the tip speed slight increment
has been visualized (Figure 5.8).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

9. CONCLUSIONS

The proposed propeller concept design of skew

shows a beneficial effect in reduction of the
pressure fluctuation and blade hydrodynamic
unloading, and achieving higher margin
against cavitation inception. Increase in skew
angles over 60 degree can result in higher
hydrodynamic loading of blades negative
pressure near tip regions. It is concluded that
this rise in the propeller skew has been resulted
in reproducing cavitation volumes on the
propeller reloaded blade elements. From the
vibration point of view cavitation inception is
dramatically magnifies the induced vibratory
effects. To minimize propeller induced
vibration, the propeller design should be in
good balance between blades loading and skew
angle. The increase in the mean velocities for
the applied skew angles shows insignificant
influence on propeller tip loading. To
summarize, a moderate skew of 45:60 degree is
proposed from a hydrodynamic and vibration
points of view.

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Francesco Salvatore1, F., Streckwall, H.,

Propeller Cavitation Modelling by CFD Results from the VIRTUE 2008 Rome
Workshop, First International Symposium
on Marine Propulsors smp09, Trondheim,
Norway, June 2009
Tom, J.C., Terwisga, Van. Cavitation
Research on Ship Propellers- A Review of
Achievements And Challenges, Sixth
International Symposium on Cavitation
CAV2006, Wageningen, The Netherlands,
September 2006
Lifante,C., Frank, T., Investigation of
Pressure Fluctuations Caused by Turbulent
And Cavitating Flow Around A P1356 Ship
Propeller, ANSYS Germany GmbH,
Otterfing, Germany, NAFEMS Seminar:
Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008
Krasilnikov, V., Jiaying, S., CFD
Investigation in Scale Effect on Propellers
with Different Magnitude of Skew in
Turbulent Flow, First International
Symposium on Marine Propulsors smp09,
Trondheim, Norway, June 2009
Shin, R, Kawamura, T. Propeller
Cavitation Study Using an Unstructured
Grid Based Navier-Stokes Solver, ASME
Journal of Fluids Engineering, September
2004
Brizzolara, S., Villa, D., A systematic
comparison between RANS and Panel
Methods for Propeller Analysis, 8th
International
Conference
on
Hydrodynamics, Ecole Centrale, Nantes,
2008
Validation of RANS Predictions of Open
Water Performance of A Highly Skewed
Propeller with Experiments, Proceedings
of the Conference of Global Chinese
Scholars on Hydrodynamics, Vol 18, Issue
3, July 2006, Pages 520-528
Abdel-Maksoud, M., Menter, and F.,
Wuttke, H., Viscous Flow Simulations for
Conventional and High-Skew Marine
Propellers, Ship Technology Research,
Vol. 45, No. 2, 1998.