See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275304272

Initial wash profiles from a ship propeller using CFD method

Article  in  Ocean Engineering · November 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.07.010

CITATIONS READS

8 26

3 authors:

Wei Haur Lam Gerard Hamill

Tianjin University Queen's University Belfast
130 PUBLICATIONS   778 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Desmond Robinson
Queen's University Belfast
35 PUBLICATIONS   590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SALINA Project View project

The Use of Subsurface Physical Barriers to Control Seawater Intrusion in Heterogeneous Coastal Aquifer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wei Haur Lam on 30 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Initial wash profiles from a ship propeller using CFD method

W.H. Lam a,b,n, G.A. Hamill b,1, D.J. Robinson b,1
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen′s University Belfast, David Keir Building, Belfast BT9 5AG, UK

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present paper was aimed at presenting the time-averaged velocity and turbulence intensity at the
Received 31 October 2012 initial plane from a ship′s propeller using a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach. Previous
Accepted 13 July 2013 experimental studies found that the maximum velocity occurred at the initial plane within a jet, but no
Available online 31 July 2013
agreement was found with regards to the position of this maximum velocity and the velocity distribution
Keywords: across the initial plane. All work to date has been empirical in nature and new approaches are required to
Ship′s propeller jet provide a better understanding of the flow field. The current investigation was conducted using a
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach, and found the position of the maximum velocity
Laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) occurred at a distance of 0.585 Rp from the rotation axis. The CFD prediction showed that the axial
component of velocity is the main contributor to the velocity magnitude, followed by the tangential and
radial velocities which are 78% and 3% of the maximum axial velocity respectively. The axial velocity
distribution across the section showed a two-peaked-ridge profile with a low velocity core at the
rotation axis.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction been established. The impingement velocities are therefore used to

The findings from investigations into predicting the velocity
within a ship′s propeller jet are of particular interest to those
involved in the design of marine structures. The potential damage
resulting from propeller action is being cited by Whitehouse
(1998) among others. The impact of the propeller jet in relation
to seabed scouring is also described in Sumer and Fredsøe (2002)
and Gaythwaite (2004). These authors proposed the velocity
prediction within the ship′s propeller jet as the initial step to
investigate the scouring made by the propeller jet. The hydro-
dynamics forces within a manoeuvring ship are described in
Maimun et al. (2011) and Dubbioso and Viviani (2012). Ryan and
Hamill (2011) proposed equations used to predict the propeller
wash induced scour depth using artificial neural network and the
equations were validated by Ryan et al. (2013).
The conceptual problem regarding the action of a propeller wash
is presented in Fig. 1. An unconfined propeller jet is preliminary
investigated in order to determine the propeller induced seabed
scouring. The influences of the rudder (Ryan, 2002; Hamill et al.,
2009), hull and the berth geometry to the velocity within the wash
will normally be included after the unconfined propeller jet has
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineer-
ing, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel.: +60 3 7967 7675;
fax: +60 3 7967 5318.
E-mail addresses: wlam@um.edu.my, joshuawhlam@hotmail.com (W.H. Lam).
1
Tel./fax: +44 28 9097 4006.
determine the erosion extent and erosion rate within the seabed
(Bergh and Cederwall, 1981; Fuehrer and Römisch, 1987; Dargahi,
2003; van Blaaderen, 2006). The influence of the bed material,
which resists jet impingement, will be considered in order to
propose an effective remedial action (Prosser, 1986). The problem
of the ship′s induced scour was also investigated by using a
simplified round jet, which has been documented by Yeh et al.
(2009) and Yülsel et al. (2005).
A rotating ship′s propeller draws in water, accelerates and then
discharges this water downstream to propel a ship. The discharge
of water is a high velocity flow which is capable of scouring the
bed if unchecked (Lam et al., 2011a). In an unrestricted area, the
velocity of the flow decays proportionally to the distance from the
propeller face by entraining the surrounding still water (Stewart
et al., 1991). If this jet is restricted, this high velocity jet will not
decay naturally by entraining the surrounding water, but will
cause damage to the adjacent area. If the movement of a jet is
restricted by the sea bed, this will cause sea bed scouring, as
documented by Hamill and Johnston (1993). Lam et al. (2010,
2012a–c) investigated the initial velocity field from a ship′s
propeller using an experimental approach. The decay of the ship
propeller jet can be found along the rotation axis from the initial
flow field (Lam et al., 2011b, 2011c).
The propeller wash is a complicated flow with axial, tangential
and radial components of velocity. Experimental investigation is
traditionally used to develop the predicting equations for the ship′s
propeller wash (Fuehrer and Römisch, 1977; Blaauw and van de

0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.07.010
258 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266

Nomenclature Rmo location efflux velocity (m)

u0 u0 , v0 v0 , w0 w0 turbulent fluctuations of x-, y- and
Ct thrust coefficient of the propeller z-components
Dh diameter of hub (m) u0 v0 , u0 w0 turbulent shear stresses
Do diameter of orifice exit (m) Va axial velocity (m/s)
Dp propeller diameter (m) Vt tangential velocity (m/s)
Eo efflux velocity coefficient suggested by Hashmi (1993) Vr radial velocity (m/s)
I overall turbulence intensity Vref reference velocity
k turbulence kinetic energy Vmax maximum velocity (m/s)
Lm length term dependant on the number of blades Vo efflux velocity (m/s)
n speed of rotation of the propeller (rps)
N number of blades Greek symbols
P′ propeller pitch ratio
r radial distance from propeller centre (m) θ rake angle (deg)
r, θ, z radial, angular and axial distances (m), (deg), (m) in β blade area ratio
cylindrical coordinate system ν kinematic viscosity of the fluid
Rp radius of propeller (m) ς efflux velocity coefficient suggested by Stewart (1992)
Rh radius of hub (m) ζ vorticity
Reprop Reynolds number of the propeller
Reflow Reynolds number of the flow

Kaa, 1978; Berger et al., 1981; Verhey, 1983; Hamill, 1987). The
validity of these equations has not yet been confirmed for complex
propeller geometries, (van Blaaderen, 2006). These researchers
found that the maximum velocity occurred at the initial plane
within a jet, but there are disagreements with the position of this
maximum velocity and the velocity distribution across the initial
plane. Ryan (2002) defined the maximum velocity taken from a
time-averaged velocity distribution along the initial propeller
plane as the efflux velocity and the initial plane is called the
efflux plane.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been used to inves-
tigate the velocity distribution within a ship′s propeller jet by
solving the Reynolds Averaging Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations.
RANS equations were used to analyse the flow characteristic of the
initial plane from a ship′s propeller instead of Direct Navier–Stokes
(DNS), which is too computationally expensive for the present
application. Four equations, the continuity equation and three
from the x-, y- and z- momentum equations are sufficient to find
the four unknowns in this case. The four unknowns are pressure
(p) and three components of velocity (u, v, w). The detail of
the Navier–Stokes equations can be found in Versteegs and
Malalasekera (1995).
RANS equations used the time-averaged process, which is also
known as Reynolds-averaging, to simulate the turbulent flow. The
Propeller Propeller speed,
clearance diameter, rudder angle
Hull Propeller Berth
and Rudder Geometry
Define initial jet
velocity and direction
statistical averaging of the Navier–Stokes equations give rise to
extra unknown terms (ρu0 2 , ρu0 v0 , ρu0 w0 etc.) due to the fluctuating
component of the flow. The terms are known as the Reynolds
stresses (Hinze, 1975; Pantan, 1984). The existence of the Reynolds
stresses means the equations are no longer a closed set. A
turbulence model, is required to resolve the unknown Reynolds
stress terms. The standard k ω model, which is based on using
the transport equations for the turbulence kinetic energy (k) and
the specific dissipation rate (ω), was used to obtain these addi-
tional unknowns. The application of the turbulence model is able
to reduce the computational effort to resolve a turbulent flow.
2. Methodology
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been adopted to
investigate the initial velocity field from a ship′s propeller, and
has become relatively inexpensive compared to experimental
investigations. However, the application of CFD models is on a
case by case basis. There is no universal CFD model that can be
used in all the different cases (Fluent User Manual, 2003). The CFD
package should be able to provide a reliable prediction of the
velocity field within the jet and able to recreate the propeller
geometry similar to the prototype. The propeller geometry in this
study is complicated, especially the helicoidal surface of the
propeller blade. To produce a good model for the investigation,
the generated geometry should be able to conform exactly to the
shape of the actual propeller. The velocity prediction and the
geometry creation can be done by using the Fluent™ solver and
Gambit™ modeller.
2.1. Computational geometry creation

Propeller Jet
The propeller blade is the twisted fin that projects out from the
Geometrical influence on jet Propeller speed, diameter,
rudder angle hub as shown in Fig. 2. The blade region connected to the hub is
Flow patterns and termed as the root and the other end of the blade is termed as the
impingement velocities tip. A propeller blade is formed by enclosing the propeller face and
propeller back with a small thickness in between, Gerr (2001). The
Bed Material
Remedial action propeller face is the side facing aft of a ship, whereas the propeller
Erosion Extent
Erosion Rate back is the side facing ahead. The propeller face and back are
sometimes termed as the pressure face and the suction face due to
Fig. 1. Parameters of the seabed scouring (Prosser, 1986). their functions. The pressure face and the suction face are
 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266 259

Fig. 2. Propeller geometry (a) aft view; (b) starboard view.

Table 1 Table 2
Propeller characteristics. Geometrical data of the blade of propeller-76.

Propeller-76 Section radii Pitch Datum to trailing edge Datum to leading edge
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Propeller diameter, Dp 76 mm
Hub diameter, Dh 14.92 mm 10.1 76 11.2  11.2
Blade number, N 3 15.2 76 13.6  13.6
Rake angle, θ 01 20.3 76 14.4  14.4
Pitch ratio (P′) 1 25.3 76 14.0  14.0
Blade area ratio, β 0.473 30.4 76 12.1  12.1
Thrust coefficient, Ct 0.4 35.5 76 7.6  7.6
38.0 (tip) 76 0 0

normally used by a ship architect to explain the propulsion of a unstructured mesh of tetrahedral cells. The size function was used
ship, Gerr (2001). A propeller hub is required to provide sufficient in order to control the mesh density of the computational domain.
strength to hold the blades to the shaft when it is rotating. As a
practical matter, the propeller hub is seldom less than 14% of the
2.3. Grid independence analysis
propeller diameter in order to provide sufficient strength. The
geometrical characteristic of the propeller is shown in Table 1.
A grid independence test was carried out to ensure that the
A three-bladed 3D model with zero-blade-thickness was cre-
numerical results are not affected by further grid refinement. The
ated for this investigation. The face of each blade was assumed to
grid independence was analysed by increasing the grid density
be a true helicoidal surface which could be generated by a series of
from 77,360 cells to 99,243 cells and then to 242,121 cells. The
radial lines which rotate about an axis. The points of the blade
results dictate that further refinement after 99,243 cells is insig-
helicoidal surface in cylindrical coordinate (r, θ, z) were identified
nificant, which leads to only 1% variation. Hence it can be
by using (Carlton, 1994; EN-ISO-3715-1, 2004; Table 2),
concluded that the grid is independent at 99,243 cells, therefore
P it was chosen for the analysis.
Φ ¼ tan 1 ð1Þ
2πr

sin Φ ¼ z=L ð2Þ 2.4. Mesh movement

cos Φ ¼ rθ=L ð3Þ
where Φ is the inclined angle of an expanded helix, P is the pitch, r
is the radial distance from the rotation axis and L is the distance of
trailing edge/leading edge to the datum. The r, θ, z are the radial
coordinate, angular coordinate, and axis coordinate from the
central axis of the propeller.
2.2. Grid generation
An unstructured grid was chosen for the grid generation.
A small cylinder surrounding propeller blade was created to act
as rotating part, the rotor. A bigger cylinder was created to
surround the rotor to act as the water domain (stationary part).
A small cylinder with 1.2 Dp in diameter and 0.5 Dp in length was
created. The grid generation was initiated from edge meshing to
face meshing. Finally, the volume was meshed with an
Wilcox (1998) developed the standard k–ω turbulence model to
improve the turbulence model in predicting the flow predictions
at walls. Wilcox incorporates the modification of the low-Reynolds
number effects and spreading of the shear flow to the model. The
standard k ω turbulence model is likely to predict well the
spreading rate of the shear flow for wake, mixing layers and jets.
The rotating reference frame, with the method rotating the
reference frame of the propeller relative to the inertial reference
frame, which is always stationary, is used to rotate the propeller in
this investigation. By rotating the reference frame in the opposite
direction of the rotating propeller, this can produce the same
effects as if the propeller is rotating. In the present studies, the
rotor is rotated using the rotating frame method at the speed of
1000 rpm. Selection of a sliding mesh method, for example,
proved to be computationally intensive for a personal computer,
and required weeks of processing to develop a complete propeller
jet depending of the grid resolution of a mesh.
260 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266

2.5. Boundary condition

The pressure inlet and outlet were chosen to represent the inlet
and outlet boundaries of the model. The selection of pressure inlet
and outlet boundary conditions overcame the recirculation pro-
blem caused by the jet impinging on the boundary which occurred
if a wall boundary condition was chosen for the inlet and outlet.
The selection of the pressure inlet and pressure outlet can avoid
the impingement of the jet, which the jet can penetrate through
the outlet boundary condition without breaching the conservation
of mass.
The no-slip wall was used to represent the propeller. The no-
slip wall allows viscous effects at the propeller faces and leads to
the formation of a boundary layer. In the real world, a boundary
layer occurs at the propeller faces. Therefore the no-slip wall
should be able to represent the real world situation. In the outer
water domain, the free-slip wall boundary condition was defined.
Unlike no-slip wall, the movement of the free-slip wall relative to
the fluid motion is zero. Therefore no viscous effects occurred at Fig. 3. Convergence.

the wall.

2.6. Discretisation scheme 1.2

LDA
In the current investigation, the first order discretisation 1.0
scheme was initially used to reach convergence and followed by k-ω
a second order discretisation scheme which may produce a better
0.8
prediction. A second order discretisation scheme was used to Hamill
approximate the partial differential equations as algrebraic equa- (1987)
Va/Vmax

tions over the discrete cells of the computational grid. The 0.6 Albertson et
standard and SIMPLE (Versteegs and Malalasekera, 1995) discreti- al. (1950)
sation schemes were used to discretise the equations of pressure 0.4
and pressure–velocity coupling (Fluent User Manual, 2003)
respectively. The upwind differencing scheme was implemented
0.2
to simulate the flow direction. Physically diffusion affects the
transported quantity along its gradients in all directions, whereas
convection influences only in the flow direction. Therefore in 0.0
problems where fluid flow plays a significant role, the upwind
differencing scheme should be used instead of the central differ- -0.2
encing scheme. The anisotropic characteristic of the upwind 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
differencing scheme allows it to model the directional nature of r/Rp
the flow and makes it the best choice for the simulation.
Fig. 4. Dimensionless time-averaged axial velocity distribution axial at efflux plane.

2.7. Near-wall treatment 3. Model validation

Turbulent flow is significantly influenced by the presence of
walls (blades in this case). The influences of the flow due to the
wall can be determined by investigating the y plus (y+) or y star
(y*) at the wall. The wall function was used to capture the
turbulent feature close to the blades. The near-wall region can
be resolved by using a fine near wall resolution. However, this
method is more computationally expensive compared to the wall
function.
The numerical code was validated by comparing the results of
the time-averaged axial, tangential and radial components of
velocity with experimental results derived based on LDA measure-
ments. A detailed explanation of the LDA experimental setup of
the current propeller model is presented in Lam et al. (2010,
2011a–c, 2012d).

2.8. Convergence analysis 4. Results and discussions

CFD uses an iterative method to solve a huge number of
equations. The results can only be reliable after convergence is
reached. Convergence means the values of the physical quantity of
flow would not change significantly even after running more
iteration. Four points at different radial distance from rotation
axis were selected to observe the convergency of the simulation.
The velocity with 10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm and 40 mm radial
distances at the efflux plane seem to be constant after 1930
iterations, showing a straight line from 1930 up to 2500 iterations
as shown in Fig. 3.
4.1. Model validation
Plots of the time-averaged axial, tangential and radial compo-
nents of velocity and turbulent features are shown in Figs. 4–10.
The lateral section from the rotation axis to the jet boundary
(r/Rp ¼1.36) was plotted instead of a full section across the
propeller jet due to the axisymmetrical characteristic of the jet.
These velocities have been non-dimensionlized by the predicted
maximum axial velocity at the efflux plane, which were 1.30 m/s
for CFD and 1.365 m/s for LDA.
 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266 261

0.9 0.80
0.8
0.70 LDA

Turbulence kinetic energy (m2/s2)

0.7
LDA 0.60 k-ω
0.6
k-ω
0.5 0.50
Vt/Vmax

0.4 0.40
0.3 0.30
0.2
0.20
0.1
0.0 0.10

-0.1 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
r/Rp r/Rp
Fig. 5. Dimensionless time-averaged tangential velocity distribution at efflux
Fig. 8. Turbulence kinetic energy distribution at efflux plane.
plane.

500.00
0.5
450.00

0.4 400.00 calculated

LDA 350.00
direct
Vorticity (1/s)

0.3 k-ω 300.00

Vr/Vmax

250.00
0.2
200.00

0.1 150.00
100.00
0.0 50.00
0.00
-0.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
r/Rp
r/Rp
Fig. 9. Comparison of the direct output and the calculated output from fluent for
Fig. 6. Dimensionless time-averaged radial velocity distribution at efflux plane. vorticity magnitude distribution at efflux plane.

0.5 200.00

0.4 100.00
0.4
0.00
Turbulence intensity

0.3
Vorticity (1/s)

0.3 -100.00

0.2 Vorticity-x
-200.00
Vorticity-y
0.2
-300.00 Vorticity-z
0.1

0.1 -400.00

0.0 -500.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
r/Rp r/Rp
Fig. 7. Turbulence intensity distribution at efflux plane. Fig. 10. Vorticity distribution at efflux plane.
262 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266

4.2. Time-averaged axial component of velocity
The axial component of velocity is the main contributor to the
total velocity magnitude. Earlier researchers were solely interested
in the axial velocity field within the ship′s propeller jet, due to the
large contribution made by the axial velocity to seabed scouring.
The current CFD prediction shows a velocity peak in between the
rotation axis (r/Rp ¼0) and the jet boundary, with a low velocity
core at the rotation axis, as shown in Fig. 4. The low velocity core
at the rotation axis may be due to the hub of the propeller does not
contribute any thrust to the jet compared to the blade.
The current CFD predictions are in better agreement with
Hamill (1987) compared to LDA measurements at the hub region.
An additional disturbance with high velocity was occasionally
found at the rotation axis, as shown in the LDA measurement. The
axial velocity distribution of the ship′s propeller jet shows a
different curve pattern compared to the round jet (Albertson
et al., 1950). A flat line was found at the round jet representing
the potential core. The flat line does not happen at the efflux plane
of a ship′s propeller jet, as shown in Fig. 5.
4.2.1. Efflux velocity
The equation derived from the axial momentum theory has
been adopted by the majority of researchers to predict the efflux
velocity. Hamill (1987), Stewart (1992) and Hashmi (1993) refined
this theoretical equation through experimental investigation. The
current CFD prediction shows that the efflux velocity is 1.30 m/s.
The comparisons of the CFD prediction with the measured efflux
velocity and those proposed by earlier works are shown in Table 3.
The CFD prediction is higher than the theoretical value of axial
momentum theory but lower than the measurement. The axial
momentum theory assumed “all elements of fluid passing through
the disc undergo an equal increase of pressure” (Carlton, 1994).
This implies an average velocity at the initial plane was taken
rather than a maximum velocity across the section. This may be
the reason why the theoretical efflux velocity is lower than the
CFD prediction.
The CFD prediction shows agreement with the equation of axial
momentum theory, those proposed by Hamill (1987), Stewart
(1992) and Hashmi (1993) and measured value with variations of
2.0%, 18.0%, 5.4%, 5.9% and 4.6% respectively. The consideration of
geometrical characteristics of a propeller by Stewart (1992) and
Hashmi (1993) seemed to reduce the deviation from the CFD
Table 3
Comparison of efflux velocity between current CFD prediction and previous works.
Source Equation Efflux velocity Variation
(m/s)
prediction compared to Hamill (1987)′s equation. The variation
between the CFD prediction and measured value is 4.6%, which is
higher than the prediction of axial momentum theory.
4.2.2. Position of the efflux velocity
The CFD prediction showed that the position of the maximum
velocity at the efflux plane is not located at the rotation axis, as it
would be for a plain water jet (Albertson et al., 1950). Berger et al.
(1981) proposed the equation Rmo ¼0.67(Rp  Rh) to predict the
location of maximum axial velocity, from the rotation axis, at the
efflux plane. When Rp is 38 mm and Rh is 7.46 mm in this study,
the position of the efflux velocity is therefore 20.46 mm radial
distance from the rotation axis based on Berger et al. (1981)′s
equation.
Berger et al. (1981)′s equation is a well-accepted equation to
predict the position of efflux velocity. The comparisons between
Berger et al. (1981)′s equation and Prosser (1986), Hamill (1987),
Stewart (1992), McGarvey (1996)′s and the current measurements
are shown in Table 4.
The efflux velocity position predicted by CFD is at 17.86 mm
radial distance from the rotation axis. The variation between the
Berger et al. (1981) equation and CFD prediction is 12.7%. This
variation is relatively small compared to McGarvey (1996)′s varia-
tion, which is 30%.
The CFD prediction validated the accuracy of Berger et al. (1981)
equation with 12.7% variation. For this propeller with Rp ¼38 mm and
Rh ¼7.46 mm, a coefficient 0.585 giving Rmo ¼0.585(Rp  Rh) is more
accurate in representing the position of efflux velocity. The current
coefficient 0.585 is lower than the coefficients 0.67, 0.6 and 0.7
suggested by Berger et al. (1981), Prosser (1986) and Hamill (1987).
4.2.3. Contraction of the propeller jet
Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978), Verhey (1983) and Robakiewicz
(1987) suggested a contraction in the size of the jet occurs with
the subsequent jet diameter, Do, being smaller in diameter than
the original source propeller diameter, i.e.,
Do =Dp ¼ 0:707 ð8Þ
If the theoretical Eq. (8) is valid, it would imply that the axial
velocity at a distance of 26.9 mm from the rotation axis should be
equal to zero. The current CFD prediction shows the axial velocity
at this position is approximately 0.71 m/s, and the zero velocity
occurs at a radial distance r/Rp ¼1.09. There is no evidence of a
contraction occurring in a propeller jet from the CFD investigation.
The contraction may not be shown by using a k  ω turbulence
model which may be due to the over-diffusive characteristics of
the k  ω model.
(%)

CFD prediction – 1.30 –

Table 4
Measured value – 1.365 4.6
Comparison of the position of efflux velocity between the current CFD prediction
pffiffiffiffiffi
Axial momentum V 0 ¼ 1:59nDp C t 1.274 2.0 and previous works.
theory n¼ 16.67 revolution/s
Dp ¼0.076 m Source Equation Position Variation
C t ¼0.4 (mm) (%)
pffiffiffiffiffi
Hamill (1987) V o ¼ 1:33nDp C t 1.066 18.0 Berger et al. Rmo ¼ 0:67ðRp Rh Þ 20.46 –
pffiffiffiffiffi (1981) Rp ¼38 mm
Stewart (1992) V o ¼ ςnDp C t 1.230 5.4
Rh ¼ 7.46 mm
ς ¼ Dp 0:0686 P 01:519 β0:323
Prosser (1986) Rmo ¼ 0:6ðRp Rh Þ 18.32 10
P′¼ 1.0
Hamill (1987) Rmo ¼ 0:7ðRp Rh Þ 21.38 4
β ¼ 0.47
Stewart (1992) Agree with Berger et al.′s (1981) – 2–5
pffiffiffiffiffi
Hashmi (1993) V o ¼ Eo nDp C t 1.223 5.9 equation
 0:403 McGarvey Agree with Berger et al.′s (1981) – 30
C t 1:79 β0:744
D
Eo ¼ Dph (1996) equation
Dh ¼ 14.92 mm CFD predictions – 17.86 12.7
 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266
4.3. Time-averaged tangential component of velocity
McGarvey (1996) reported that the tangential component of
velocity is the second largest contributor to the resultant velocity
field of the propeller jet. Prosser (1986) estimated that the
magnitude of the maximum tangential velocity is approximately
30% of the maximum axial velocity.
The current CFD prediction confirmed that the tangential
component of velocity is the second largest contributor to the
resultant velocity field. However, the maximum tangential velocity
of the CFD prediction is 1.01 m/s, whereas the maximum axial
velocity of CFD is 1.30 m/s, as shown in Fig. 5. The maximum
tangential component of velocity is therefore 78% of the maximum
axial velocity, which contradicts the 30% approximation by Prosser
(1986). The CFD predictions show a good agreement with the
measured maximum tangential velocity. The maximum tangential
measurement is 1.12 m/s and 82% of the measured maximum axial
velocity.
4.3.1. Extent of the tangential component of velocity at the efflux
plane
Petersson et al. (1996) reported the tangential velocity profile
to have two peaks in between the rotation axis and the jet
boundary. The first peak corresponds to the point at which the
hub and the propeller blades were joined and the second peak was
present at a point near to the tip of the propeller. However,
Petersson et al. (1996) believed the first peak was located at radial
distance r/Rp ¼ 0.15 from the rotation axis, the second peak located
at r/Rp ¼0.65.
The current CFD predictions show the two velocity peaks to
occur at radial distances r/Rp ¼ 0.13 and r/Rp ¼0.81, as shown in
Fig. 5. The CFD predictions are in close agreement with the LDA
measurement. The first peak of LDA measurement located at a
radial distance of r/Rp ¼0.13 and the second peak located at
r/Rp ¼0.66. However, the CFD prediction shows the dimensionless
velocity at rotation axis is 0.22, whereas the LDA measurement
shows a higher value of 0.62. The high velocity of LDA measure-
ment may due to additional disturbance of the hub effect at
rotation axis, which happened at measured axial velocity as well.
The CFD prediction shows a wider radial distribution of tangential
velocity compared to the LDA measurement, which may be due to
the over-diffusive characteristics of the k  ω turbulence model.
According to CFD prediction, the position of the first velocity
peak close to the hub has a 15% variation compared to the position
reported by Petersson et al. (1996). The variation of the second
velocity peak close to the tip between the position of CFD
prediction and that reported by Petersson et al. (1996) is 25%.
4.4. Time-averaged radial component of velocity
McGarvey (1996) reported that the magnitude of radial com-
ponent of velocity was approximately 30% of the axial velocity
along the face of the propeller. The current CFD prediction shows
the radial velocity is 0.04 m/s, which is 3% of the axial velocity
(1.30 m/s for this case). The radial velocity predicted by CFD is
lower than the 30% of axial velocity suggested by the McGarvey
(1996). LDA measurement shows that the maximum radial velo-
city is 0.19 m/s. However, the LDA measurement shows an extreme
velocity of 0.65 m/s (48% of the measured efflux velocity) at the
rotation axis, but the CFD prediction does not show any peak at
the rotation axis. The extreme velocity of the LDA measurement is
treated as an additional disturbance rather than a maximum
velocity at efflux plane. CFD prediction was obtained through
mathematical approximation and LDA measurement was acquired
through a physical model in laboratory.
263
4.4.1. Extent of the radial component of velocity at the efflux plane
McGarvey (1996) reported that the radial component of velo-
city increased from the hub to a peak velocity and thereafter
decreased towards the blade tip. A portion of flow was directed
towards the rotation axis to penetrate the low velocity core.
The current CFD prediction found that the radial velocity
increases from the hub to a peak velocity and thereafter decreases
towards the blade tip (Fig. 6), as reported by McGarvey (1996). The
current CFD predictions show the flow close to the rotation axis
penetrates into low velocity core and the flow at the jet boundary
entrains the ambient still water into the jet. The CFD prediction
shows negative radial velocity from rotation axis up to r/Rp ¼0.66,
which means the flow is directed towards the rotation axis
penetrating the low velocity core, and positive radial velocity from
r/Rp ¼0.66 up to r/Rp ¼0.92, which means the flow is directed
outward the rotation axis to allow fluid mixing at jet boundary.
4.5. Turbulence intensity at the efflux plane
The overall turbulence intensity was used in the current
investigation, which can be defined as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð1=3Þðu′u′ þ v′v′ þ w′w′Þ
I¼ ð9Þ
V ref
where I is the overall turbulence intensity, u′u′, v′v′, w′w′are the
x-, y- and z-components of turbulent fluctuations and V ref is the
reference velocity. Reference velocities are maximum axial velo-
cities of CFD prediction and LDA measurement, which are 1.30 m/s
and 1.365 m/s respectively.
In Fluent (Fluent User Manual, 2003), the output is an overall
turbulence intensity,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð2=3Þk
I¼ ð10Þ
V ref
1 ′2
k¼ ðu þ v′2 þ w′2 Þ ð11Þ
2
where k is the turbulence kinetic energy, V ref is the reference
velocity specified by user, which is the mean velocity magnitude
(1 m/s by default) and u′, v′, w′ are the turbulent fluctuations in x,
y and z directions.
At sections across the propeller jet, Hamill (1987) reported that
the location of the highest turbulence intensity between a ship′s
propeller jet and a plain water jet is different. The highest
turbulence intensity of a ship′s propeller jet was found close to
the hub and both sides of the jet boundary, where the fluid mixing
occurs. For a plain water jet, high turbulence intensity was only
found at both sides of the jet boundary where the fluid mixing
occurs. Lee and Chu (2003) reported that the turbulence intensity
shows peaks at the plain jet′s boundary.
The current CFD prediction shows that the peak of overall
turbulence intensity occurs at rotation axis and r/Rp ¼0.46, as
shown in Fig. 7. The peak at rotation axis and the peak at
r/Rp ¼0.46 are 0.17 and 0.22 respectively. The CFD prediction
shows that the turbulence intensity remains a magnitude of 0.16
at r/Rp ¼ 1.40, whereas the LDA measurement is close to zero at this
position. The high turbulence intensity of CFD prediction at the
region in between r/Rp ¼ 0.86 and r/Rp ¼1.40 maybe due to the
effect of artificial turbulent viscosity used in the turbulence model.
The artificial viscosity may not represent the turbulent feature
well at the region beyond the jet boundary. The CFD prediction
shows a smaller peak at rotation axis compared to the peak close
to the jet boundary. The deviation due to the additional distur-
bance of the hub effect does not seem significant influence the CFD
prediction.
264 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266
The current measurements found that the overall turbulence
intensity shows a peak at rotation axis and the second peak at
radial distance r/Rp ¼0.66. The peak at the rotation axis (r/Rp ¼0) is
higher, which may be due to additional disturbance in the region
close to hub (hub effects). The hub effect was introduced by
Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978) as a disturbance to the flow pattern,
which occurs in the measured axial velocity profiles as well. The
magnitude of the measured peak at the rotation axis is a
magnitude of 0.42 and LDA measurement shows that the position
of peak close to jet boundary is located at the radial distance
r/Rp ¼0.66 with a magnitude of 0.22.
Both the CFD prediction and LDA measurement found that the
turbulence intensity distribution is axisymmetric about the rota-
tion of axis as mean velocity.
4.6. Turbulence kinetic energy at the efflux plane
Turbulent kinetic energy (k) within a ship′s propeller jet cannot
be found from the earlier works (Fuehrer and Römisch, 1977;
Blaauw and van de Kaa, 1978; Berger et al., 1981; Verhey, 1983;
Hamill, 1987). The turbulence kinetic energy per unit mass is
defined as Eq. (11) and the distribution of turbulence kinetic
energy is shown in Fig. 8. The turbulence kinetic energy is a
derivative of the turbulence intensity. The curve pattern of the
overall turbulence intensity and the turbulence kinetic energy are
therefore the same but with different magnitude.
Both CFD prediction and LDA measurement show two peaks in
a range from the rotation axis up to r/Rp ¼ 1.40. The CFD peaks are
located at the rotation axis and r/Rp ¼ 0.46, whereas the LDA peaks
are located at the rotation axis and r/Rp ¼0.66. The magnitudes of
the CFD peaks at rotation axis and r/Rp ¼0.66 are 0.09 m2/s2 and
0.12 m2/s2 respectively. The magnitudes of the LDA peaks are
0.67 m2/s2 and 0.20 m2/s2 respectively. The CFD prediction shows
a lower peak at the rotation axis compared to the peak at
r/Rp ¼0.46.
The propeller hub does not contribute to the thrust compared
to a blade and therefore the peak at the rotation axis (close to the
hub) should be lower than the peak close to the blade. However,
LDA measurement shows that the peak at the rotation axis is
higher than the peak close to the jet boundary, which may be
caused by the additional disturbance (hub effect) as documented
by Blaauw and van de Kaa (1978).
4.7. Vorticity at the efflux plane
Brown and Roshko (1974) concluded that the large coherent
vertical structures were the intrinsic features of a mixing layer.
Guo et al. (2009) conducted a vertical mixing layer water tunnel,
which is specifically designed for free-shear flow experiments
with multi-velocity ratios and concluded that the vorticity caused
the wake motion rapidly decreased. The vorticity may cause the
deceleration of the velocity across the initial plane of the jet and
therefore the vorticity field was investigated in this study.
In propeller jet investigation, vorticity is a measure of the
rotation of a fluid element as it moves in the flow field, and is
defined as the curl of the velocity vector (Fluent User Manual,
2003):
ζ¼∇V ð12Þ
The direct output of vorticity and the calculated vorticity using
x-, y- and z-components from Fluent™ were compared in order to
verify the CFD predictions. The comparison shows that the CFD
predictions are in a reasonable agreement with variations in a
range between 5.6% (rotation axis) and 48% (r/Rp ¼0.35), as shown
in Fig. 9. The higher variations were occurred in the region of low
velocity where the division has exaggerated the variation. The
vorticity showed that two peaks across the section were located at
the rotation axis and the r/Rp ¼1.02. The first peak at the rotation
axis showed a magnitude of 445 s  1, whereas the second peak at
r/Rp ¼1.02 showed a magnitude of 57 s  1. The vorticity in the low
velocity core is 7.8 times more than the region close to the jet
boundary and therefore fluid mixing is more intense in the low
velocity core.
Vorticity-x, vorticity-y and vorticity-z are the x-, y- and z-
components of the vorticity vector respectively. The x-component
in the Cartesian coordinate system corresponds to the axial compo-
nent, the y-component corresponds to the tangential component
and the z-component corresponds to the radial component.
Vorticity-x shows two peaks at the r/Rp ¼ 0.07 and r/Rp ¼1.02,
with the magnitudes of 140 s  1 and  47 s  1 respectively.
Vorticity-x moves in the axial direction of the jet from the rotation
axis up to r/Rp ¼0.24, as shown in Fig. 10. Vorticity-x moves in a
negative axial direction from the r/Rp ¼0.24 up to the rest of radial
distance. Vorticity-x at the rotation axis is 70 s  1.
Vorticity-y shows a peak at the r/Rp ¼ 0.16 with a magnitude of
 46 s  1 and vorticity-y at the rotation axis is 31 s  1. Vorticity-y
moves in the tangential direction of the jet from the rotation axis
up to r/Rp ¼0.07. Vorticity-y turns to be a negative tangential
direction from the r/Rp ¼0.07 up to r/Rp ¼ 0.35 and then fluctuates
with positive and negative tangential directions at a low magni-
tude up to 11 s  1.
Vorticity-z shows two peaks, which are at the rotation axis and
r/Rp ¼1.06 respectively. Vorticity-z of two peaks are  439 s  1 and
36 s  1 respectively. The peak at the rotation axis is 12.2 times
higher than the peak at r/Rp ¼1.06. Vorticity-z moves in a negative
radial direction from the rotation axis up to r/Rp ¼0.83. Vorticity-z
turns to be a negative tangential direction from the r/Rp ¼0.07 up
to r/Rp ¼0.35. Vorticity-z drops rapidly down to  10 s  1 at
r/Rp ¼0.35 from the peak at rotation axis and then remains a low
vorticity fluctuation along the radial distance.
Conclusions
The study of time-averaged velocity and turbulent character-
istics at the initial plane from a ship′s propeller using a Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been demonstrated. The CFD
predictions showed a one-peaked-ridge axial velocity profile with
a low velocity core at the rotation axis, which is similar to the LDA
measurements and those reported by Hamill (1987, 2009), Hamill
et al. (2004), Stewart (1992) and McGarvey (1996). By analysing
the CFD predictions, the axial, tangential and radial components of
velocity and their turbulent features were investigated and the
following conclusions can be drawn,
1. CFD predictions show that the axial component of velocity is
the main contributor to the velocity magnitude. The tangential
component contributes to the rotation while the radial com-
ponent which contributes to the diffusion, are the second and
third contributors to the velocity magnitude at the efflux plane
of a ship′s propeller jet. The maximum velocity of the
tangential component and the radial component are approxi-
mately 78% and 3% of the maximum axial velocity respectively.
2. The absolute value of efflux velocity from the CFD predictions
has variations of 2.0%, 18.0%, 5.4%, 15.9% and 4.6% respectively
compared to the axial momentum theory, those proposed
by Hamill (1987), Stewart (1992) and Hashmi (1993) and also
measured value.
3. For this propeller with the propeller radius, Rp ¼ 38 mm and
the hub radius, Rh ¼ 7.46 mm, a coefficient 0.585 giving Rmo ¼
0.585(Rp  Rh) is more accurate in representing the position of
 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266
efflux velocity compared to Berger et al. (1981)′s equation,
Rmo ¼ 0.67(Rp  Rh).
4. Contraction at the efflux plane is insignificant and the 0.707 Dp
contraction derived from a plain water jet is not valid based on
the CFD prediction. The zero velocity occurs at a radial
distance r/Rp ¼1.09 with no contraction.
5. For the distribution of tangential velocity, CFD predictions
found two velocity peaks to occur at the efflux plane at radial
distance of r/Rp ¼0.13 and r/Rp ¼0.81. The peak close to the hub
has a 15% variation compared to the position reported by
Petersson et al. (1996).
6. For the distribution of radial velocity at the efflux plane, CFD
predictions found that the radial velocity increases from the
hub to a peak velocity and thereafter decreases towards the
blade tip, as reported by McGarvey (1996).
7. The overall turbulence intensity shows two peaks where are
located at the rotation axis and r/Rp ¼0.46. The turbulence
intensity at the peaks of rotation axis and r/Rp ¼ 0.46 are 0.17
and 0.22 respectively.
8. Turbulence kinetic energy shows two peaks located at the
rotation axis and r/Rp ¼0.46 respectively based on CFD inves-
tigation. The peaks of CFD predictions at the rotation axis and
jet boundary are 0.09 m2/s2 and 0.12 m2/s2 respectively. LDA
measurement also shows two peaks, which are located at the
rotation axis and the jet boundary (r/Rp ¼0.66) with magni-
tudes of 0.67 m2/s2 and 0.20 m2/s2 respectively.
9. Vorticity-x shows two peaks at the r/Rp ¼0.07 and r/Rp ¼1.02,
which the magnitudes are 140 s  1 and  47 s  1 respectively.
Vorticity-y shows a peak at the r/Rp ¼ 0.16 with a magnitude of
 46 s  1. Vorticity-z shows two peaks, which are at the
rotation axis and r/Rp ¼1.06 respectively. Vorticity-z of two
peaks are 439 s  1 and 36 s  1 respectively.
10. The distribution of axial velocity, tangential velocity, radial
velocity, turbulence intensity, turbulence kinetic energy and
vorticity are axisymmetry about the axis of rotation.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to extend their gratitude to the Ministry of
Higher Education in Malaysia for the financial support under the
UM/MOHE High Impact Research Grant (H-1600-00-D000047)
and the research was previously supported by SPUR studentship
from Queen′s University Belfast.
References
Albertson, M.L., Dai, Y.B., Jensen, R.A., Rouse, H., 1950. Diffusion of a submerged jets.
Transcript of the A.S.C.E 115 (Paper no. 2409), pp. 639–669.
Berger, W., FelKel K., Hager, M., Oebius, H., Schale, E., 1981. Courant provoque par les
bateaux protection des berges et solution pour eviter l’erosion du lit du Haut
Rhin, P.I.A.N.C., 25 Congress, Endinburgh, 1981, Section I-1.
Bergh, H., Cederwall, K., 1981. Propeller erosion in harbours. Bulletin no. TRITA-VBI-
107, Hydraulics Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Blaauw, H.G., van de Kaa, E.J., 1978. Erosion of bottom and sloping banks caused by
the screw race of manoeuvring ships. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands.
(Publication no. 202, July 1978).
Brown, G.L., Roshko, A., 1974. On density effects and large structure in turbulent
mixing layers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 64, 775–816.
Carlton, J.S., 1994. Marine Propellers and Propulsion. Butterworth Heinemann,
London.
Dargahi, B., 2003. Three-dimensional modelling of ship-induced flow and erosion.
In: Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water & Maritime
Engineering Issue WM2, pp. 193–204.
Dubbioso, G., Viviani, M., 2012. Aspects of twin screw ships semi-empirical
maneuvering models. Ocean Engineering 48, 69–80.
EN-ISO-3715-1, 2004. Ships and marine technology, propulsion plants for ships,
part 1: vocabulary for geometry of propellers. Tech. rep., European Committee
for Standardisation.
265
Fluent User Manual, 2003. Fluent User′s Guide. Fluent Inc, Lebanon, USA.
Fuehrer, M., Römisch, K., 1977. Effects of modern ship traffic on islands and ocean
waterways and their structures. In: P.I.A.N.C. 24th Congress. Vol. sections 1–3,
Leningrad.
Fuehrer, M., Römisch, K., 1987. Propeller jet erosion and stability criteria for bottom
protection of various constructions. In: P.I.A.N.C. Vol. Bulletin no. 58.
Gaythwaite, J., 2004. Design of Marine Facilities for the Berthing, Mooring, and
Repair of Vessels. ASCE Publications, Virginia, U.S.
Gerr, D., 2001. Propeller Handbook, The Complete Reference for Choosing, Instal-
ling and Understanding Boat Propellers. International Marine, Camden.
Guo, F., Chen, B., Guo, L., Zhang, X., 2009. Effects of velocity ratio on turbulent
mixing layer at high Reynolds number. Journal of Physics: Conference Series
147 (2009), 012049.
Hamill, G.A., 1987. Characteristics of the screw wash of a manoeuvring ship and the
resulting bed scour (Ph.D. thesis). Thesis submitted to the Queen′s University of
Belfast for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Hamill, G.A., Johnston, H.T., 1993. The decay of maximum velocity within the
initial-stages of a propeller wash. Journal of Hydraulic Research 31 (5),
605–613.
Hamill, G.A., McGarvey, J.A., Hughes, D.A.B., 2004. Determination of the efflux
velocity from a ship′s propeller. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Maritime Engineering 157 (2), pp. 83–91.
Hamill, G.A., Ryan, D., Johnston, H.T., 2009. Effect of rudder angle on propeller wash
velocities at a seabed. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Maritime Engineering 162, pp. 27–38.
Hashmi, H.N., 1993. Erosion of a granular bed at a quay wall by a ship′s screw wash
(Ph.D. thesis). Thesis submitted to the Queen′s University of Belfast for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Hinze, J.O., 1975. Turbulence. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York.
Lam, W., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., 2010. Observations of the
initial 3D flow from a ships propeller. Ocean Engineering 37, 1380–1388.
Lam, W., Hamill, G.A., Song, Y.C., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., 2011a. A review of
the equations used to predict the velocity distribution within a ship′s propeller
jet. Ocean Engineering 38 (1), 1–10.
Lam, W., Song, Y.C., Raghunathan, S., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., 2011b. Investiga-
tion of a ship′s propeller jet using momentum decay and energy decay.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 38, 605–615.
Lam, W., Hamill, G.A., Song, Y.C., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., 2011c. Experi-
mental investigation of the decay from a ship′s propeller. China Ocean
Engineering 25, 265–284.
Lam, W.H., Robinson, D.J., Hamill, G.A., Zhao, J.F., Jia, M., 2012a. Time-averaged
velocity and turbulence intensity at the initial downstream flow from a
six-bladed ship propeller. Ocean Engineering 51, 85–93.
Lam, W.H., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., 2012b. Semi-empirical
methods for determining the efflux velocity from a ship′s propeller. Applied
Ocean Research 35, 14–24.
Lam, W.H., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., Raghunathan, S., Song, Y.C., 2012c. Analysis
of the 3D zone of flow establishment from a ship′s propeller. KSCE Journal of
Civil Engineering 16 (4), 465–477.
Lam, W.H., Hamill, G.A., Robinson, D.J., 2012d. An effective method for comparing
the turbulence intensity from LDA measurements and CFD predictions within a
ship propeller jet. Ocean Engineering 25, 105–124.
Lee, J.H.W., Chu, V.H., 2003. Turbulent Jets and Plumes, A Lagrangian Approach.
Kluwer Academic, Massachusetts, U.S.
Maimun, A., Priyanto, A., Muhammad, A.H., Scully, C.C., Awal, Z.I., 2011. Manoeuvr-
ing prediction of pusher barge in deep and shallow water. Ocean Engineering
38 (11–12), 1291–1299.
McGarvey, J.A., 1996. The influence of the rudder on the hydrodynamics and the
resulting bed scour, of a ship′s screw wash (Ph.D. thesis). Thesis submitted to
the Queen′s University of Belfast for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Pantan, R.L., 1984. Incompressible Flow. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, U.S.
Petersson, P., Larson, M., Jonsson, L., 1996. Measurements of the velocity field
downstream of an impeller. Journal of Fluids Engineering, ASME 118 (3),
602–610.
Prosser, M., 1986. Propeller induced scour. Tech. rep., BHRA Project RP A01415, The
Fluid Engineering Centre, Cranfield.
Robakiewicz, W., 1987. Bottom erosion as an effect of ship propeller action near the
harbour quays. P.I.A.N.C. (Bulletin no. 58), pp. 89–106.
Ryan, D., 2002. Methods for determining propeller wash induced scour in harbours
(Ph.D. thesis). Thesis submitted to the Queen′s University of Belfast for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Ryan, D., Hamill, G.A., Johnston, H.T., 2013. Determining propeller induced erosion
alongside quay walls in harbours using artificial neural networks. Ocean
Engineering 59, 142–151.
Ryan, D., Hamill, G.A., 2011. Estimating propeller scour at quays alongside a
berthing ship, Journal of Maritime Engineering In: Proceedings of the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers. London, vol. 164, issue MA2, pp. 59–70, issn:1751-7737.
Stewart, D.P.J., 1992. Characteristics of a ships screw wash and the influence of quay
wall proximity (Ph.D. thesis). Thesis submitted to the Queen′s University of
Belfast for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Stewart, D.P.J., Hamill, G.A., Johnston, H.T., 1991. Velocities in a ship′s propeller
wash. In: International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics, Rotterdam.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 2002. The Mechanics of Scour in the Marine Environment.
World Scientific, Singapore.
van Blaaderen, E.A., 2006. Modelling bow-thrusters induced flow near a quay wall
(Master′s thesis). Delft: University of Technology.
266 W.H. Lam et al. / Ocean Engineering 72 (2013) 257–266

Verhey, H.J., 1983. The stability of bottom and banks subjected to velocities in the
propeller jet behind ships. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands p. 1983.
(Delft Publication no.303, April).
Versteegs, H.K., Malalasekera, W., 1995. An Introduction to Computational Fluid
Dynamics the Finite Volume Method. Prentice Hall, Essex.
Whitehouse, R., 1998. Scour at Marine Structures: a Manual for Practical Applica-
tions. Thomas Telford, London.
Wilcox, D.C., 1998. Turbulence Modelling for CFD. DCW Industries, Inc., La Canada,
California.
Yeh, P.H., Chang, K.A., Henriksen, J., Edge, B., Chang, P., Silver, A., Vargas, A., 2009.
Large-scale laboratory experiment on erosion of sand beds by moving circular
vertical jets. Ocean Engineering 36, 248–255.
Yülsel, A., Celikóglu, Y., Cevik, E., Yüksel, Y., 2005. Jet scour around vertical piles and
pile groups. Ocean Engineering 32, 349–362.

View publication stats