Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

A comprehensive study on noise reduction methods of marine propellers

and design procedures
A. Ebrahimi, A.H. Razaghian, M.S. Seif ⇑, F. Zahedi, A. Nouri-Borujerdi
Sharif University of Technology, Center of Excellence in Hydrodynamic and Dynamic of Marine Vehicles, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The noise generated by the propeller is one of the most important components of the vessels noise.
Received 1 January 2018 Therefore, reducing this noise will significantly decrease the total noise of the vessel.
Received in revised form 27 November 2018 Underwater noise of vessels has destructive effects on marine life. In addition, this noise affects the
Accepted 3 December 2018
health and comfort of the crew and passengers of the ship. Moreover, high noise may cause warships
to be detected easily. In this paper, first, common methods of noise reduction, including blade coating,
modern propellers, propeller hub modification and ducted propellers are investigated. Then, relevant
Keywords:
optimization methods are presented. Next, the effects of the geometric parameters like number of blades,
Propeller noise
Noise reduction
propeller diameter, expanded area ratio, geometric pitch, rake and skew angles on the noise and the oper-
Geometric parameters ational range of each parameter are studied. Finally, a new algorithm is suggested to optimally design a
Design algorithm propeller considering hydrodynamics as well as acoustics concerns.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the design of marine propulsion systems has
been developed significantly. One of the important factors in the
design of such systems is the noise reduction of their propeller
[1]. The sound generated by surface vessels and underwater vehi-
cles is the vessel noise, which is investigated in this paper. Admis-
sible noise levels for different propellers vary depending on the
vessel’s application. For warships, the noise generated by the pro-
peller, machinery and the ship’s hull is of high importance. In fact,
this noise not only may reveal the warship location, but also inter-
feres with the important vessel internal systems such as the navi-
gation and measuring equipment. Furthermore, the propeller noise
can cause the discomfort of the crew and passengers of the mer-
chant vessels. In addition, this ship noise may have destructive
impacts on the marine life as well as the sea environment. For
example, the ship noise frequency often has a great overlap with
the communication frequency of marine animals, like whales,
and hence this overlap may cause serious problems for these ani-
mals. Consequently and according to the mentioned points, it is
clear that there is a true need for noise reduction of the vessels.
Literature review shows that the majority of the available
researches on the propeller noise and its reduction approaches
are based on experimental and numerical methods. For instance,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: seif@sharif.edu (M.S. Seif).
numerous researches have been carried out in the field of propeller
noise measuring by means of cavitation tunnel, which were pub-
lished by the international towing tank conference for the first
time in 1987 [2]. First reports of this field are related to the tests
conducted in 1985 and 1986 by Kato and Yamaguchi at Tokyo
University of Japan [2]. Since that many other researchers have
tried to study the methods of measuring and reducing noise of
the propellers. The papers by Sharma et al. [3] in 1990, Atlar
et al. [4] in 2001, Seol et al. [5] in 2007, Korkut et al. [6] in 2012,
Bagheri et al. [7] in 2015, and Kowalczyk et al. [8] in 2016 can be
mentioned as the most important works in this regard.
On the other hand, numerical solutions for calculating the noise
of propellers have become more common in recent years. In most
cases, first, FW-H1 equations are solved using numerical methods
such as finite volume or finite element methods, and then the pro-
peller noise is calculated. The papers by Seol et al. [9] in 2002, Jin
Ming et al. [10] in 2012, Pan et al. [11] in 2013, and Bagheri et al.
[7] in 2015 can be mentioned as some of the examples in this
regard. The researches on noise reduction of propellers will be
explained in the following sections.
Propellers are one of the most important sources of noise gen-
eration in the vessels, and reducing their noise can significantly
decrease the total noise of the vessel. Therefore, the generated
noise by the propellers should be kept at the minimum possible
value during the propeller design [12].
Marine propeller noise can be classified into cavitating and non-
cavitating types. All submerged propellers have non-cavitating

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.12.004
0003-682X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69

noise and the intensity of this noise may vary due to different pro-
peller operating conditions. However, cavitating noise is only gen-
erated by the propellers in which cavitation occurs. It is worth
mentioning that cavitation is the formation of bubbles in a liquid
when the pressure reaches the vapor pressure and the cavitation
noise is generated when these bubbles collapse. Basically, cavitat-
ing propellers operate in high revolutions and high advance speeds
(VA). Advance speed is the freestream fluid velocity entering into
the propeller disk. In fact, neglecting wake of the ship hull, advance
speed is equal to forward speed of the ship. On the other hand, the
total velocity of fluid relative to the propeller is a result of rota-
tional as well as advance speeds of the propeller. Therefore, higher
rotational or advance speeds of the propeller leads to bigger fluid
velocity and consequent pressure drops, which may causing cavi-
tation to occur. In case of occurrence, cavitation of the propeller
is the most prevalent source of underwater noise in oceans and
is often the dominant noise source of a marine vehicle [9]. The
magnitude of each of the two above-mentioned noise types may
vary due to the geometric characteristics and operating conditions
of the propeller, such as the blade profile, the expanded area ratio,
number of blades, the propeller RPM, the advance speed and other
various parameters. Since the cavitating noise would be predomi-
nant in case of cavitation, in most studies, attempts have been
made to postpone the cavitation inception by using different meth-
ods [13].
In this paper the main goal is to present a systematic method to
reduce the noise generated by the propeller for given hydrody-
namic properties when cavitation occurs or optimistically post-
pone the cavitation inception, if possible. The propeller noise has
four main sources: the water displacement by the propeller
blades, the pressure difference between the face and back surfaces
of the blade, the periodic fluctuations of the bubbles volume on
the blade and the collapse of the cavitation bubbles. Consequently
and in order to minimize the propeller noise, the effects of these
four sources should be investigated [14]. To this end, here, first,
various existing methods of the propeller noise reduction are
reviewed. Most of these investigations have been conducted
numerically or experimentally, in the world’s famous cavitation
tunnels, including Emerson (England) and Marine Engineering
Research Center of Sharif University (Iran). Then, the effect of dif-
ferent parameters on reducing the noise level of marine propellers
has been investigated. Finally, according to the conducted
researches, a design algorithm for the propeller with an optimal
hydrodynamic and acoustic performance is suggested. In this algo-
rithm, all of the important geometric and non-geometric parame-
ters are considered.
According to the available literature, methods used to improve
the hydro-acoustic performance of the propellers can be divided
into two main groups:
2.1. Coating the propeller surface
Coatings have been used for many years in the marine indus-
tries. For the first time, coatings were used for preventing foulings
from sticking to the surface of the ship’s hull; because this matter
increases the frictional resistance of the hull. There is a similar
problem for propellers as well. Here, sticking of the foulings to
the blade surface leads to excessive roughness which reduces the
propeller efficiency [6]. Atlar’s research on the propellers coating,
for instance, showed that the use of coatings can increase the pro-
peller efficiency by 6% compared to a propeller without coating
[15]. In fact, coating increases the propeller efficiency during the
ship operation time by reducing the amount of the foulings. The
first research about the coating effects on the propeller noise was
carried out by Atlar in 2012. In this study, the utilized coating
was a four-layer of standard colors (Intersleek 900), which was
applied on a 3-blade propeller model of a merchant ship and tested
in Emerson’s cavitation tunnel under different conditions. The
obtained results showed that the noise reduction can only be real-
ized for high advance ratios by the coating. Here, it should be men-
tioned that advance ratio is defined as J = VA/n.D, where n is the
rotational speed and D is the diameter of the propeller, respec-
tively. Fig. 1 illustrates the main results obtained by [15] for two
advance ratios.
Furthermore, Bagheri et al. conducted experimental studies on
the noise of a 3 blade model propeller in the cavitation tunnel of
Sharif University of Technology. These measurements were carried
out under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions. Bagheri and
his coworkers have also studied the effects of Intersleek 700 coat-
ing of 200 lm thickness on the noise of a 5-blade propeller. The
results of this study show that the coating has a great influence
on the cavitation inception. Indeed, for the uncoated model, cavita-

– Using equipment and modern propellers

– Modification of the propeller geometry

Each of these methods will be explained and discussed in the

following sections.

2. Using equipment and modern propellers

One of effective methods for reducing the propeller noise is to

use special equipment and modern propellers that change the
flow characteristics around the propeller. In this method, the
equipment is utilized in a way that it does not impose any nega-
tive effect on the propeller operation and even improves its
performance. Fig. 1. Effects of the blade coating on the propeller noise [15].
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69 57

tion occurred at 1400 RPM and the tunnel pressure of 90 kPa while
for the coated propeller, cavitation did not occur under the same
conditions. According to [16], only a small amount of cavitation
on the blade was observed by dropping the tunnel pressure to
lower value of 85 kPa. Fig. 2 illustrates the coating effects on the
cavitation inception reported by [16].
Furthermore, the propeller noise measured by [7] for both non-
coated and coated propellers are presented in Fig. 3 for the advance
ratios of 0.2 and 0.3.
As it can be observed from Fig. 3, the noise of the propeller has
dropped by about 2–4 dB after coating. Moreover, according to
Fig. 3 and for frequency range above 1 kHz, the coating has no

(i) Cavitation tunnel of Sharif University of Technology

(ii) Uncoated mode: (a) J=0.3, p=90 kPa (b) J=0.2, p=90 kPa (c) J=0.17, p=90 kPa

(iii) Coated mode: (a) J=0.3, p=90 kPa (b) J=0.2, p=85 kPa (c) J=0.17, p=90 kPa
Fig. 2. The effect of coating on the cavitation inception [16].
58 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69
Fig. 3. Comparison between noise for coated and uncoated propellers [7].
appreciable effect on the propeller noise. This result is similar to
the Atlar’s work (see Fig. 1) where, even for high advance ratios,
the coating did not show any significant effect on the propeller
noise at high frequencies.
2.2. Contracted and loaded tip (CLT)
Taking advantage of special modern propellers is another solu-
tion to the noise reduction problem. Shape of these special pro-
pellers is usually different from common ones and often has
attachments that reduce the propeller noise. CLT propellers are
one type of these propellers. In this special propeller, the blade
tip has a backward perpendicular or oblique plate, which acts like
a barrier between the back and face sides of the blade. This barrier
decreases the water flow from the high to the low pressure sides of
the blade and consequently improves the propeller efficiency by 5
to 8 percent. Furthermore, the existence of the plate at the blade
tip increases the blade strength [17]. Moreover, in the CLT pro-
peller, the probability of the tip vortex cavitation and the conse-
quent noise decreases [18]. Indeed, In CLT propellers, the
endplate, can cause major reduction in second harmonic and the
other multiples of BPF [19].
The CLT propeller has been installed on more than 280 vessels
with a wide variety of applications and dimensions [20]. A CLT pro-
peller is shown in Fig. 4. Probably the only disadvantage of this
propeller compared to the conventional ones is its complex manu-
facturing process.
2.3. Kappel propeller
In Kappel propellers, the blade tip is curved towards its suction
side. This special propeller form is inspired by the wing shape of
Fig. 4. A CLT propeller.
the birds like eagle and helps to reduce the pressure drops occur-
ring at the tip of surfaces with lifting force. As a result, the lift to
drag ratio increases [21]. Fig. 5 represents an example of the Kap-
pel propeller.
For the first time in 1982, the Danish Maritime Institute con-
ducted a research on this type of the propeller. In 1993, a 5-
blade model of this propeller was tested in the HSVA laboratory.
The results of this study showed that the propeller efficiency
increased by 3 to 6%. The first full-scale Kappel propeller was
installed on a vessel in 2002. The results showed that the pro-
peller’s efficiency increased by about 4% [21]. Use of these pro-
pellers is not limited only to ships. In 2009, Anderson et al. [22]
tested four models of the submarine propellers with the geometric
characteristics listed in Table 1 in the SVA cavitation tunnel.
Among the 4 tested propellers, type 4, which was a Kappel, had
more favorable conditions in terms of acoustic and hydrodynamic
performances. Therefore, in the second stage of the design, this
propeller was taken as the reference one and its geometric param-
eters were modified based on the first order vibration frequency
and optimization concepts. As a result, two new propellers, namely
No. 5 and No. 6 of the table were designed, in which the propeller
number 6 was of the Kappel type. Observations of a submarine
wake showed that the propellers with even number of blades
had a better performance. For this reason, in the final stage of
the optimization, the tests were performed on 4 models of 8-
blade Kappel propellers with different diameters and a conven-
tional 7-blade propeller.
Table 2 represents the force as well as torque fluctuations of the
propellers No. 4, 6 and 8. As it can be seen, the thrust fluctua-
tionsðDkx=KxÞin the 8-blade propellers have reduced by about
80% compared to the 7-blade propeller, whereas the thrust and tor-
que fluctuations in the propellers No. 4 and 6 are not significantly
different.
In Fig. 6, the variations of sound pressure level of propeller No. 8
at various frequencies are compared with its corresponding value
for the propeller No. 6.
Fig. 5. Kappel propeller.
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69 59

Table 1
Designed propellers at the SVA center for using in underwater vehicles.

1st design stage 2nd design stage 3rd design stage

Propeller 1 Propeller 2 Propeller 3 Propeller 4 Propeller 5 Propeller 6 Propeller 7 Propeller 8
Diameter (relative) 1.06 0.96 0.96 1.0 0.94 1.0 0.94 1.0125
Pitch ratio 0.83 1.02 1.05 1.03 1.04 1.09 1.21 1.09
Skew, degree 13.75 15.03 22.99 30.8 31.6 29.7 31.4 29.6
Blade area ratio 0.52 0.50 0.76 0.59 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59
No. of blades 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8

Table 2
Thrust and torque fluctuations of three Kappel propeller models.

Propeller Propeller 4 Propeller 6 Propeller 8(1) Propeller 8(2) Propeller 8(3) Propeller 8(4)
D, (relative) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.025 1.05 1.1
No. of blades 7 7 8 8 8 8
Force Fluctuations Dkx=Kx 0.1993 0.1918 0.0352 0.0429 0.0458 0.0549
Dky=Kx 0.0358 0.0306 0.0381 0.0366 0.0355 0.0333
Dkz=Kx 0.0274 0.0273 0.0682 0.0657 0.0641 0.0642
Torque Fluctuations Dkmx=Mx 0.1757 0.1827 0.0398 0.0472 0.0494 0.0571
Dkmy=Mx 0.0740 0.0768 0.1208 0.1211 0.1209 0.120
Dkmz=Mx 0.1179 0.1232 0.2244 0.2307 0.2375 0.2615

Ouchi and its coworkers [25–28] between 1989 and 1992 car-
ried out several researches on the PBCFs and reported the following
main results:

– 3–6 dB reduction of the propeller noise

– 2–6 percent increment in the propeller efficiency
– %4 reduction in the fuel consumption of the vessel

Furthermore, according to the Junglewitz report in 1996, using

Fig. 6. Comparison between sound pressures of 8-blade propeller and 7-blade
propeller [22].
Both propellers have been tested at the speed of 13 rps. There-
fore, the first blade passing frequency for propellers No. 7 and 8
will be 91 and 104 Hz, respectively. According to Fig. 6, it can be
observed that for these frequencies at which the propellers have
the highest noise; noise difference between the two propellers is
more than 10 dB [22]. Consequently, it can be concluded that using
even number of blades in Kappel propellers results in significant
noise reduction.
hub fins reduces the hub vortex, resulting in a 2 to 5 percent
increase in efficiency [29]. In 2011, Hansen et al. [23], also used
the PBCF for a full-scale Aframax tanker propeller for the first time.
The results of this study indicated that the use of PBCF has reduced
the engine fuel consumption by 4%. In addition, Hao Pong et al. [30]
conducted several tests on two 3-blade propellers using PBCF at a
naval facility in Beijing. The efficiency results of these propellers
for different advance ratios ðJÞ are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen
that the PBCFs increased the efficiency of both propellers.
Moreover, Gassmann et al [31] has reported a 6 dB decrement of
the sound pressure level in a low frequency band (8–100 Hz) due
to propellers with boss cap fins and operation of container vessels
in greater depths. According to the above researches, it can be con-
cluded that the use of PBCF can increase the efficiency of the pro-
peller about 2 to 4% and reduce the engine fuel consumption. Also

2.4. Propeller hub modification

The propeller hub is one of the components that plays an

important role in pressure variations and its irregular distribution.
Therefore, the hub has a special effect on the noise of the propeller.
Propeller boss cap fins1 (PBCF) is considered as a practical way of
reducing the noise caused by the propeller hub. Indeed, the use
of PBCF, in addition to reducing the flow circulation and the hub
vortex, decreases the cavitation effect [18]. Two Japanese compa-
nies, for the first time in 1987, investigated the application of this
equipment [21]. In Figs. 7 and 8, a sample of PBCF and its effect on
the hub vortex of the propeller are shown, respectively. Fig. 7. PBCFs on a marine propeller [23].
60 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69

Fig. 8. Effect of PBCF on the propeller hub vortex (a) without PBCF (b) with PBCF [24].

Fig. 9. Effect of using PBCF on the propeller efficiency (a) propeller A (b) propeller B [30].

the best design of propellers with boss cap fins can reduce noise of cluded that when the flows enter uniformly, the duct does not
marine vessels up to 6 dB. actually affect the propeller efficiency.

2.5. Ducts 3. Geometric optimization of the propeller

Ghadimi et al. [32] in 2014, investigated the noise generated by
a 5-blade propeller of series B in a duct which is illustrated in
Fig. 10. The corresponding propeller characteristics are given in
Table 3.
The obtained results indicate that the duct, in addition to flow
modification around the propeller, prevents cavitation and thrust
fluctuations, which leads to noise reduction. Fig. 11 compares the
propeller noise in the presence and absence of the duct which is
given by [32].
Furthermore, Mirzazadeh et al. [33] investigated the perfor-
mance of a ducted 5-blade propeller model of a fishing ship using
CFD and experimental methods at the Marine Engineering
Research Center of Sharif University of Technology. Fig. 12 shows
the duct installation and the thrust coefficient ðK T ¼ T=qn2 D4 Þ
variations in terms of the advanced coefficient.
According to Fig. 12, using duct for a uniform flow increases the
thrust around the design point (Advance ratio over 0.4). According
to [33], however, the propeller efficiency does not vary signifi-
cantly in the presence or absence of the duct. Therefore, it is con-
In order to detect a military ship by a passive sonar from a spec-
ified distance, noise of the ship must be higher than a certain value.
Hence, reducing this noise, even for a small value, may protect the
military ship from the sonars. On the other hand, for commercial
ships, a slight noise reduction can dramatically decrease its
destructive effects. In this paper, our aim is to reduce the propeller
noise without decreasing the propulsive efficiency.
One of the most important factors in the propeller noise gener-
ation is pressure fluctuations on the propeller blades. Therefore,
decreasing the pressure fluctuations is considered as one of the
most effective ways in reducing the propeller noise [34]. This
implies that the propeller noise can be reduced to some extent
by changing and optimizing the propeller’s geometry. Fig. 13 rep-
resents the main parameters of the propeller’s geometry.
According to the available literature, the following changes in
the blade geometry may reduce the propeller noise:
– Increasing the blade area ratio
– Increasing the skew angle
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69 61

Fig. 10. Duct geometry around the propeller [32].

Table 3 – Increasing number of the blades

Geometric characteristics of the propeller. – Changing the blade pitch distribution
Parameter Value – Geometric modification of the leading and trailing edges of the
Skew B series standard
blade
Rake 0
Hub Diameter (m) 0.2 Limited research works have been done on the noise reduction
The Expanded Area Ratio 0.7 of marine propellers in terms of geometry optimization. Kerwin
Pitch (m) 1
et al. [35], for instance, conducted a series of systematic tests on
Diameter (m) 1
several propeller models in 1978 to investigate the effect of rake
and skew on the propeller cavitation and the relevant vibrational
forces. Also, Mossad et al. [36], using numerical simulations,
explored the effects of rake and skew on the cavitation of several
propeller models in 2011. Furthermore, Aristotelis et al. [37] ana-
lyzed a DTNSRDC 4381 propeller to study the effect of the geomet-
ric parameters on the cavitation phenomenon and the related
noise. As mentioned before, the cavitation noise is one of the most
important noise sources. Therefore, if the cavitation occurrence can
be prevented or even delayed through geometric optimizations,
the propeller noise will be reduced significantly. In this paper,
efforts have been made to propose a new algorithm for the pro-
peller design which restricts the cavitation and the consequent
noise via blade geometry optimization. To this end, the geometric
parameters that affect the cavitation inception are discussed in the
following sections.

3.1. Number of propeller blades

The number of propeller blades for ships is usually between 3

Fig. 11. The generated noise by propellers with and without duct [32].
and 6 while 4, 5 and 6 blades are more common. In some fishing
ships and tugboats, 3 blades are also used [38]. Submarine pro-
pellers usually have between 2 and 7 blades where 7 blades are
more common [39]. The odd number of blades in submarines that
have cross-shaped control surfaces (rudders and fins) has particu-
62 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69

Fig. 12. Duct installation and the thrust coefficient due to the presence of the duct [33].

Fig. 13. Propeller’s geometric parameters.

lar importance. For even number of blades, in each rotation of the
propeller, at a moment, blades symmetrically place against the
control surfaces. At this moment, due to the (intense) changes of
the fluid velocity entering the propeller, a shock occurs which
causes severe fluctuations in the propeller efficiency. Thus, in each
propeller rotation, this phenomenon recurs alternatively and sub-
marine is subjected to (instantaneous) fluctuations in thrust that
lead to hydrodynamic and path instability.
Aristotelis et al. [37] studied the effect of the geometric charac-
teristics on the propeller noise. In this research, 40 models of pro-
pellers with geometric variations and different number of blades
have been studied and the cavity volume as well as the amount
of cavitation have been investigated. Furthermore, these research-
ers have selected a 5-blade propeller with a thickness distribution
of NACA08 and a camber line of a modified NACA66 (see Table 4) as
the original model. The final changes made to this original model
are as follows [37]:
– Final rake of 15 degrees
– Final skew of 16.3 degrees
– A maximum camber equal to 0.01 of the cord length
– Distribution of the linear pitch ratio based on the 5-blade B
series
Fig. 14 illustrates the number of blades effects on the cavity vol-
ume. It is clear that this volume can be significantly reduced via
increasing the number of blades. Indeed, higher number of blades
leads to larger expanded area of the propeller. This larger area
reduces the pressure difference between back and face sides of
the blade and hence decreases the cavitation volume. Therefore,
according to Fig. 14, it can be concluded that opting the number
of propeller blades between 5 and 7 is quite appropriate as it
greatly reduces the cavity volume. On the other hand, it should also
be noted that increasing the number of blades results in a heavier
propeller with a lower overall efficiency [40]. Hence, in military
vessels where noise reduction is more important than the hydro-
dynamic efficiency, 5–7 blade propellers are suggested.
3.2. Propeller diameter
The propeller diameter is one of the most important and effec-
tive factors on its generated thrust force and torque. Indeed, the
generated thrust and torque are proportional to the fourth and fifth
power of the propeller diameter, respectively. Furthermore and in
order to select the diameter of the ship propeller, in addition to
hydrodynamic calculations, the stern shape and its limitations
should also be considered.
Usually, data of Wageningen-B series are used in the design of
marine propellers. For ship propellers, the values of the thrust
and torque coefficients are in the range of 0 to 1 and 0 to 0.2,
respectively, and for submarine propellers, these coefficients are
in the range of 0 to 0.8 and 0 to 0.15, respectively. It should be
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69 63

Table 4
Geometric information of the initial propeller (DTNSRDC 4381).

Number of blades: 5
Hub diameter ratio: 0.2
Expanded area ratio: 0.725
Section mean line: NACA08
Section thickness distribution: NACA66-MOD
Design advance coefficient: 0.889
r/R c/D P/D hs xs/D tmax/c fmax/c
0.2 0.174 1.332 0 0 0.0434 0.0351
0.25 0.202 1.338 0 0 0.0396 0.0369
0.3 0.229 1.345 0 0 0.0358 0.0368
0.4 0.275 1.358 0 0 0.0294 0.0348
0.5 0.312 1.336 0 0 0.0240 0.0307
0.6 0.337 1.280 0 0 0.0191 0.0245
0.7 0.347 1.210 0 0 0.0146 0.0191
0.8 0.334 1.137 0 0 0.0105 0.0148
0.9 0.280 1.066 0 0 0.0067 0.0123
0.95 0.210 1.031 0 0 0.0048 0.0128
1.0 0 0.995 0 0 0.0029 –

Fig. 14. Effect of the number of propeller blades on cavitation at r ¼ 0:15 [37].

noted that according to the military requirements, it is possible to
change the propeller coefficients to achieve the optimum acoustic
performance level and provide proper stealth from near and far
sonars.
Fig. 15 shows variations of the cavity volume versus the pro-
peller diameter for the cavitation number of 0.15. According to this
figure, for a given advance ratio, the cavity volume increases
quadratically by the propeller diameter. This increase is more evi-
dent for lower advance ratios [37]. Generally, larger propeller
diameters result in higher generated thrusts which in effect
improve the propeller efficiency. In addition, previous researches
show that increasing the propeller diameter has positive effects
on its acoustic behavior. In reality, however, due to the vessel size,
aft shape of the vessel and shaft limitations, diameter of the pro-
peller can’t easily be increased and it should be determined as
large as possible.
3.3. Blade area ratio
The next important propeller geometric parameter is its blade
area ratio1 (BAR) which has a significant impact on the propeller
cavitation. Specifically, for a fixed desired thrust, larger blade area
leads to less distributed load on the blades which consequently
reduces the cavitation probability. Therefore, the BAR should be
greater than a minimum value to ensure that the cavitation occurs
within permissible extent. On the other hand, bigger BARs lead to
larger blade frictional drags which result in lower propeller effi-
ciencies [38].
One of the area ratios that is usually considered for determining
the cavitation inception is the propeller expanded area ratio. This
parameter is defined as EAR ¼ AE =Ao where AE is the expanded area
(the surface area) of the propeller while A0 is area of the propeller
disk (A0 ¼ pD2 =4). According to the available literature, the follow-
ing two criteria have been developed to avoid the cavitation:
64 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69
Fig. 15. The effect of propeller diameter variations on cavitation at [37].
– The Wageningen criterion:
AE 0:692
 :T
Ao D2 ðPo  P V Þ0:75 V 0:5
A ð1:067  0:229 DÞ
P the propeller efficiency decreases [41]. Therefore, although
which simply says that the expanded area ratio should not be less
than a certain value.
– The Keller criterion:
AE ð1:3 þ 0:3zÞ
 T þK
Ao ðPo  PV Þ  D2
in which k is equal to 0, 0.1 and 0.2 for high speed, ordinary
twin and single screw vessels, respectively. Furthermore, in Eqs.
(1) and (2), z is the number of the propeller blades, T is the thrust
force, Po is the atmospheric pressure, Pv is the vapor pressure, D is
the propeller diameter, VA is the advance speed and finally P/D rep-
resents the pitch ratio [38].
The effects of the propeller area ratio on the cavitation phe-
nomenon have been investigated, for instance, by Aristotelis
et al. [37] and the obtained main results are illustrated in Fig. 16.
This figure shows the variations of the cavitation versus the blade
area ratio. According to this figure, for higher cavitation numbers,
increasing the blade area ratio leads to cavitation volume reduc-
tion. For lower cavitation numbers, however, the trend is inverse.
Furthermore, according to [38], by increasing the BAR, the blade
frictional drag increases which results in the efficiency reduction.
On the other hand, although lower blade area ratios give a better
efficiency, the required torque is bigger [41] and hence there is
an optimal value for the BAR. Therefore, selecting the optimum
BAR is an essential step in the propeller design. It can keep hydro-
dynamic characteristics in the desirable level based on the total
vessel drag and its engine power limitations and reduce the pro-
peller noise as much as possible.
3.4. Geometric pitch
Another effective parameter is the propeller geometric pitch
ratio. Basically, for submerged propellers, the advance of the pro-
peller increases by increasing the geometric pitch. But, for a spec-
ified advance ratio, increasing the pitch ratio leads to bigger
cavitation volumes. In marine submerged propellers, while the
thrust and torque are increased by geometric pitch increment,
ð1Þ
increasing the pitch improves the propeller hydrodynamic charac-
teristics like thrust and torque, it also increases the cavitation [38].
To be more precise, typically, for advance ratios greater than 0.4
and operational conditions of submerged and submarine pro-
pellers, larger propeller geometric pitches result in bigger cavita-
tion volumes [37]. Finally, to have suitable acoustic behavior, low
geometric pitch ratios is recommended but the thrust, torque
ð2Þ
and the vessel velocity are the limitations that should be consid-
ered here.
3.5. Rake angle
As shown in Fig. 17, aft of the ship hull is often steep. Therefore,
in case of positive rake, the clearance of the blade tip from the hull
increases and the designer can select larger propeller diameters.
As a result, this not only improves the propeller efficiency but
also allows the rotational speed (n) to be selected appropriately.
Hayati et al. [42], for instance, explored the effects of the rake
angles between 5 and 20 degrees. They showed that all of the
hydrodynamic coefficients (thrust, torque and efficiency) have
improved by increasing the rake angle. However, propeller with
positive rake and large diameter, especially for higher speeds,
requires thick blades which in effect reduces the propeller effi-
ciency. Therefore, in low speed propellers, blades sometimes have
positive rakes up to 15 degrees, but in the high speed ones, positive
rakes are usually avoided [43].
Furthermore, for marine propellers, research studies show that
changes in the rake angle do not have much effect on the cavita-
tion. Consequently, this parameter should be determined based
on the structural design as well as hydrodynamic performance
3.6. Skew angle
The skew angle is defined as the angle between the propeller
reference line and a line drawn through the shaft center line and
mid-chord point of the last section of the propeller (see Fig. 18)
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69 65

Fig. 16. The effect of BAR on cavitation (right: cavitation number of 0.15, left: cavitation number of 0.25) [37].

Fig. 18. Skew of the propeller.

namic and cavitation performance of the propeller. Also, this range

Fig. 17. Positive, zero and negative rake.
in the projected view. Propellers often have balanced skew but in
special cases, they are designed with biased skew.
Skewed propellers make the inlet flow to the propeller gradual,
and therefore the unsteady forces produced by varying wake
become stable and uniform to somewhat and the thrust and torque
would be generated in a revolution with low fluctuations. How-
ever, some problems related to the structural strength appear that
require special structural considerations [27].
The skew angle has a positive effect on changing the propeller
cavitation behaviour. The results of the research done by Mossad
et al. [36]on numerical modelling of two propellers show that a
skew angle of 45 to 60 degrees is appropriate considering hydrody-
of the skew angle reduces the pressure fluctuations on the pro-
peller blade. In addition, The experimental results reported by Ker-
win et al. [35] also show that propellers with skew angle greater
than 45 degrees have better performance in aspect of cavitation
inception. This researchers, furthermore, reported that by changing
the skew angle from 0 to 36 degrees, the vibrational forces on the
propeller decreased by 40 percent. Moreover, Aristotelis et al. [37]
showed that by increasing the skew angle, the inception of sheet
cavitation in the propeller decreases. This phenomenon is more
appreciable for advance ratios above 0.4. Fig. 19 shows the results
of reference [37] for the effect of the skew angle on the propeller
cavitation.
Therefore and according to the mentioned points, for better per-
formance of the propeller and reducing its cavity volume, the skew
angle between 45 and 60 degrees is recommended.
66 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69

Fig. 19. Effect of the skew angle on the cavitation volume [37]

4. The algorithm for acoustic design of the propeller rupole noise sources including shear stress and turbulence in fluid
are negligible. Consequently, the total acoustic pressure consists of


After finishing the hydrodynamic design, the propeller must be two components: thickness pressure P0T and loading pressure.

0
checked in terms of acoustic behavior and, if necessary, it should P L The first one is monopole source and caused by water dis-
be modified. Experimental or numerical methods can be used to placement due to the propeller blade and the next one is dipole
measure the noise of a propeller. In an experimental method which source which is generated by pressure difference between the face
often carried out in the cavitation tunnel, a propeller model is and back sides of the blade. Accordingly, total acoustic pressure
installed on the tunnel dynamometer and starts to rotate in a can be considered as follows [46]:
desired operational condition. By installing a hydrophone at a      
! ! !
desired distance from the propeller, the noise generated by the P0 x ; t þ P 0T x ; t þ P0L x ; t ð3Þ
propeller can be recorded and analyzed. Despite the good accuracy
of this method, it costs a lot and cannot easily be done. Another These components are calculated by the following equations:
method for obtaining the propeller noise is numerical modeling. Z " #
qm_ n
In this method, the propeller noise equations are solved using 4pP0T ðx; tÞ ¼ ds
numerical methods and the propeller sound pressure level is rð1  M r Þ2 ret
f ¼0
2  3
obtained. The results of this method are less accurate than the Z qmn rM_ i^ri þ cMr  cM2
experimental ones. However, due to lower cost and availability, þ 4 5 ds ð4Þ
numerical simulations are used in many researches. To numeri- f ¼0 r ð1  M r Þ3
ret
cally predict the propeller noise, first, the governing equations of
the fluid flow (RANS) must be solved via CFD or other suitable Z " #
q_ cosh _ i qcosh
^ri M
computational methods. The outputs of this step are the fluid flow 4p P0L ðx; tÞ ¼ þ ds
parameters such as pressure, velocity, shear stresses, etc. Utilizing f ¼0 crð1  M r Þ2 r ð1  M r Þ3 ret
2   3
these parameters in noise governing equations, next, noise predic- Z Mr  M2 qcosh
tion is done for any location of the receiver. The accuracy of this 4 qð cosh  M n
i i Þ 5 ds
þ þ ð5Þ
method is highly dependent on the accuracy of the numerical solu- f ¼0 r 2 ð1  M r Þ2 r 2 ð1  M r Þ3
ret
tion of the fluid flow. In general, if flow parameters calculated
accurately, noise prediction formulations are accurate and reliable where M is the Mach vector, r is the vector between the source and
[44]. the receiver of the sound and Mr is the image of M on the r vector.
The most important equation which is employed in numerical Furthermore, in these equations, q is the fluid density, c is the sound
! !
modeling of the propeller noise is the FW-H equation. This equa- speed, v is the body velocity relative to undisturbed fluid, r is the
tion is derived by developing the Lighthill equations for a rigid ! !
distance vector from source point y to the observer point x with
! !
the norm of r ¼ k r k, M ¼ vc is the Mach number, S is the body
body by Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings [45]. To solve the FW-H !
equation, Farassat [46] presented a method that can predict the
! !
noise generated by the motion of an object with a desired geome- surface and l ¼ p n is the pressure force resulting from pressure
try. The propeller noise is due to monopole, dipole and quadrupole !
p on the body in surface unit normal direction n . In addition, the
sources. For marine propellers with Mach number below 0.8, quad- dot over variables means a time derivative of that variable while
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69
_ r and M imply a dot product of that varible with
the subscripts n; n;
the subscripts. Here, all values are taken from the source at the
retarded time of t ret ¼ t  r=c.
After performing the necessary modifications to prevent cavita-
tion inception, acoustic optimization of the propeller will be done.
In acoustic optimization, one of the two methods of geometric
change or taking advantage of the noise reduction equipment is
used. Here, choosing the best optimization method depends on
the permissible noise level and the propeller design requirements.
Indeed, it is possible to apply geometric changes if the noise has
not decreased to the desired level using the equipment, and vice
versa. After making the geometric changes, the noise is calculated
by experimental or numerical methods, and if the noise is higher
than the desired level, modifications in the geometry should be
made again. Obviously, the hydrodynamic performance of the pro-
peller changes by the geometry modifications. Noise reduction in
this way may even reduce the propeller efficiency. This cycle is
repeated till the desired noise level is achieved. Fig. 20 represents
the hydro-acoustic optimization flowchart of the propeller.
In order to design the propeller in optimum conditions in terms
of hydrodynamic coefficients, cavitation and the generated noise, it
is necessary to follow the hydrodynamic flowchart as the first step.
Therefore, the propeller is initially designed to provide the desired
thrust, torque and efficiency considering the limitations. In the
next step, if the propeller noise is higher than the expected value,
Fig. 20. Propeller hydro-acoustic optimization flowchart.
67
noise reduction technologies including coating, tip loading, Kappel
form, etc. can be implemented to reduce the generated noise up to
10 dB and to improve the efficiency up to 6%. Utilizing these tech-
nologies, for higher revolutions, the cavitation inception can be
postponed or at least the cavity volume can be decreased. Finally,
the propeller noise is measured or predicted numerically. If this
value is still bigger than the desired level, geometry modifications
should be done to reduce the propeller noise. It is also very impor-
tant to note that the hydrodynamic properties should be kept
unchanged in this method. Indeed, while geometry modifications
are applied, the Hydrodynamic Design box should be always
rechecked as it is shown in Fig. 20. Using this method, the hydro-
dynamic coefficients (thrust, torque and efficiency) remain almost
unchanged, the cavitation is postponed and the cavity volume
decreases. Therefore, the propeller noise reduces where the reduc-
tion level is depending on the propeller type and its geometry. It
should also be noted that in some military vessels, noise reduction
may be more important than the propeller efficiency. Conse-
quently, for these vessels, geometric modifications can be done
to only reduce the propeller noise without considering its hydrody-
namic efficiency concerns.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Based on the previous arguments, it can be concluded that there
are two different solutions available for designers in order to
reduce the propeller noise. Each solution can be employed depend-
ing on its costs and its consequent effects on the vessel operation.
In the following lines we will discuss these solutions.
Using attachments and modern propellers: This includes blade
coating, CLT propeller, Kappel propeller, propeller hub modifica-
tion, and ducting. Most of the mentioned methods, improve the
propeller efficiency to some extent, in addition to reducing the pro-
peller noise. These methods are applicable to both ship and sub-
marine propellers, and some of them have been tested and used
in full scales. Among the above methods, CLT propellers seem to
have a higher technical and economic efficiency. For this reason,
so far, this type of propeller has been installed for more than 280
vessels. Utilizing Kappel propellers and modifying the propeller
hub have the same advantages as the CLT propellers, and will cer-
tainly be further investigated and used in the future.
Propeller geometry modification: In this method, a propeller is
chosen as the reference and then in order to reduce its noise,
changes are applied to its geometric parameters like pitch, number
of blades, skew, rake, etc. In most of the cases, the purpose of these
changes is to prevent or delay the cavitation and thus to reduce the
consequent propeller noise. The following results have been
obtained for the geometry of propellers and its corresponding
effects on the generated noise:
– Although increasing the number of blades reduces cavitation,
this change increases the blade area and hence the frictional
drag of the propeller. Therefore, the number of blades should
be selected in such a way that both of the above parameters
be in an optimal condition. Furthermore, for submarines with
cross shaped control surfaces, even number of blades has a bet-
ter hydro-acoustic performance while for ships, this number is
often selected between 3 and 6, depending on the type and
speed of the vessel.
– For a certain advance ratio, increasing the diameter of the pro-
peller increases the cavitation volume quadratically. This
increase is more evident for lower advance ratios.
– For higher cavitation numbers, the cavity volume decreases by
increasing the area ratio, but for lower cavitation numbers, this
trend is reversed. Therefore, for submarines operating in deep
68 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69
Table 5
Summary of noise reduction methods.
Noise Reduction Technologies Blade Coating
CLT Propeller
Kappel Propeller
Propeller Hub Modification
Ducted Propellers
Geometry Modification Number of Blades
Propeller diameter
Blade area ratio (BAR)
Geometric pitch
Rake angle
Skew angle
waters where the propeller RPM is in a stealth condition and the
cavitation number is high, the area ratios of 0.7 to 0.8 are
appropriate.
– The positive rake angle makes it possible to use propellers with
larger diameters. This increases the propeller’s efficiency and
allows its rotational speed to be properly selected. Therefore,
it requires thicker blades that reduce the efficiency of the pro-
peller. For this reason, the rake angle is usually selected up to
15 degrees backwards for low speed propellers, but for high
speed propellers backward rake is avoided.
– By changing the rake angle, cavitation does not change signifi-
cantly. Thus this parameter should be determined based on
the hydrodynamic performance as well as the structural design.
– The skew angle has a positive effect on changing the cavitation
behavior of the propeller. The results of the available studies
indicate that the skew angle of 45 to 60 degrees is appropriate
considering the propeller hydrodynamic and cavitation perfor-
mances. Indeed, high skew angles make the inward flow grad-
ual and therefore the unsteady forces produced by the varying
wake become stable and uniform to somewhat. This conse-
quently results in low fluctuations in the generated thrust and
torque.
Optimization Procedure: Using numerical methods, a propeller
can be optimized in terms of hydrodynamic and acoustic perfor-
mances. To this end, the fluid flow (RANS) and related acoustic
(e.g. FW-H) equations are generally used in optimization proce-
dures. The accuracy and reliability of these equations for noise pre-
dictions are sufficient provided that the flow parameters like
pressure and velocity have been calculated accurately. By using
these equations, it is possible to design a propeller which is opti-
mized hydrodynamically by changing its geometry and other
related parameters. The possible geometry changes and their cor-
responding desired ranges are given in Table 5.
References
[1] Ross D. Ship sources of ambient noise. IEEE J Oceanic Eng 2005;30(2):257–61.
[2] Sasajima T, Tanibayasi H. Contribution to cavitation committee. Proceeding of
17 th International Towing Tank Conference, Sweden, 1987.
Effect on Noise
The propeller noise has dropped by about 2–4 dB after coating.
The probability of the tip vortex cavitation and the relevant noise
decreases.
Reduction in second harmonic and the other multiples of BPF
Using even number of blades in Kappel propellers can cause noise
reduction of more than 10 dB.
Best design of propellers with boss cap fins can reduce the
generated noise up to 6 dB.
Ducts have been shown to reduce the propeller noise up to 30 dB.
Desired Range
For ships, 3–6 blades while for submarines with cross shaped
control surfaces, odd number of blades are recommended.
Acoustic behavior of the propeller is improved by increasing its
diameter.
Optimum value of BAR should be determined according to the
hydrodynamic coefficients, cavitation volume and noise level.
For better acoustic behavior, low geometric pitch ratio is
recommended but thrust, torque and the vessel velocity are the
limitations that should be considered here.
Low speed propellers: positive rake up to 15 degrees.
High speed propellers: positive rake should be avoided.
For better performance of the propeller and reducing its cavity
volume: 45 to 60 degrees.
[3] Sharma S, Mani K, Arakeri V. Cavitation noise studies on marine propellers. J
Sound Vib 1990;138(2):255–83.
[4] Atlar M, Takinaci AC, Korkut E, Sasaki N, Aono T. Cavitation tunnel tests for
propeller noise of a FRV and comparisons with full-scale measurements.
http://resolver.caltech.edu/cav2001:sessionB8.007; 2001.
[5] Seol H-S, Park C-S, Kim K-S, Cho Y-J. Background noise analysis of the MOERI
cavitation tunnel & propeller BPF noise measurement. J Soc Naval Arch Korea
2007;44(4):408–16.
[6] Korkut E, Atlar M. An experimental investigation of the effect of foul release
coating application on performance, noise and cavitation characteristics of
marine propellers. Ocean Eng 2012;41:1–12.
[7] Bagheri MR, Mehdigholi H, Seif MS, Yaakob O. An experimental and numerical
prediction of marine propeller noise under cavitating and non-cavitating
conditions. Brodogradnja 2015;66(2):29–45.
[8] Kowalczyk S, Felicjancik J. Numerical and experimental propeller noise
investigations. Ocean Eng 2016;120:108–15.
[9] Seol H, Jung B, Suh J-C, Lee S. Prediction of non-cavitating underwater propeller
noise. J Sound Vib 2002;257(1):131–56.
[10] Ye J-M, Xiong Y, Fang L, Wang Z-Z. Numerical prediction of blade frequency
noise of cavitating propeller. J Hydrodyn Ser B 2012;24(3):371–7.
[11] Pan Y-C, Zhang H-X. Numerical prediction of marine propeller noise in non-
uniform inflow. China Ocean Eng 2013;27(1):33–42.
[12] Davaie Markazi AH, Nazarahari M. Application of DWT for ship’s acoustic
signal identification using feature extraction methods and ensemble learning.
Modares Mech Eng 2015;15(8).
[13] Ross D, Kuperman W. Mechanics of underwater noise. J Acoust Soc Am
1989;86(4). pp. 1626–1626.
[14] Clay CS, Medwin H. Acoustical oceanography: principles and applications.
Phys. Today 1977.
[15] Atlar M, Glover E, Candries M, Mutton R, Anderson C. The effect of a foul
release coating on propeller performance. International conference on Marine
Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability (ENSUS
2002). University of Newcastle upon Tyne; 2002.
[16] Bagheri MR, Seif MS, Mehdigholi H. An experimental study on the effect of
IS700 coating on the cavitation inception and development, and noise
reduction of a marine propeller. J Appl Mech Eng.
[17] Available: http://sistemar.sarein.com/CLTpropellers/Theoricalfundaments/
tabid/316/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
[18] Pty RMC. Reducing underwater noise pollution from large commercial
vessels. International Fund for Animal Welfare; 2009.
[19] González-Adalid J, et al. Full scale comparison between the performances of a
superferry fitted consecutively with high skew conventional blades and CLT
blades; 2006.
[20] Gennaro G, Gonzalez-Adalid J. Improving the propulsion efficien-cy by means
of contracted and loaded tip (CLT) propellers. Athens, Greece: The Society of
Naval Architects & Ma-rine Engineers; 2012.
[21] Andersen P, Friesch J, Kappel JJ, Lundegaard L, Patience G. Development of a
marine propeller with nonplanar lifting surfaces. Mar Technol 2005;42
(3):144–58.
[22] Andersen P, Kappel JJ, Spangenberg E. Aspects of propeller developments for a
submarine. First international symposium on marine propulsors, Trondheim,
Norway, 2009.
 A. Ebrahimi et al. / Applied Acoustics 150 (2019) 55–69
[23] Hansen HR, Dinham-Peren T, Nojiri T. Model and full scale evaluation of a
‘propeller boss cap fins’ device fitted to an aframax tanker. Second
International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, smp, 2011. vol. 11.
[24] Sun Y, Su Y, Wang X, Hu H. Experimental and numerical analyses of the
hydrodynamic performance of propeller boss cap fins in a propeller-rudder
system. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2016;10(1):145–59.
[25] Ouchi K, Ogura M, Kono Y. PBCF (propeller boss cap fins). J Soc Naval Arch Jpn
1988;163(6).
[26] Ouchi K et al. A research and development of PBCF (propeller boss cap fins). J
Soc Naval Arch Jpn 1988;1988(163):66–78.
[27] Ouchi K, Tamashima M. A study on correlation between propeller pitch
distribution and improvement of propeller efficiency by PBCF; 1992.
[28] Ouchi K, Tamashima M, Arai K. Reduction of propeller cavitation noise by PBCF
(propeller boss cap fins); 1991.
[29] Junglewitz, Der. Nabene influße im Schrauben propeller. Univ of Rostock;
1996.
[30] Cai H-p, Ma C, Chen K, Qian Z-f, Yang C-j. An integrative design method of
propeller and PBCF (propeller boss cap fins).
[31] Gassmann M, Kindberg L, Wiggins BM, Hildebrand A. Underwater noise
comparison of pre- and post-retrofitted MAERSK G-class container vessels.
Marine physical laboratory. University of California San Diego, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography; 2017.
[32] Feizi Chekab MA, Ghadimi P, Nourozi H. Investigation on the effects of
increasing the number of blades and using ducts to reducing noise of non-
cavitating propellers. J Iran Soc Acoust 2014;1(2).
[33] Mirzazadeh S. Design and construction of an optimized section for
improvement of propulsion system efficiency (Master of
Science). Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology; 2013.
69
[34] Renilson M, Leaper R, Boisseau O. Hydro-acoustic noise from merchant ships–
impacts and practical mitigation techniques. Third International Symposium
on Marine Propulsors, smp, 2013. vol. 13.
[35] Kerwin J, Lewis S, Kobayashi S. Systematic experiments to determine the
influence of skew and rake on hull vibratory excitation due to transient
cavitation; 1978.
[36] Mossad M, Yehia W. Skewed propeller design for minimum induced vibrations.
In: 1st international Symposium on Naval Architecture and Maritime. p. 24–5.
[37] Aristotelis O, Asimakopoulos A, Kaklis P. Effects of propeller geometry on
cavitation; 2016.
[38] Carlton J. Marine propellers and propulsion. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012.
[39] Renilson M. Hydro-acoustic performance. In: Submarine hydrodynamics.
Springer; 2015. p. 147–50.
[40] Ghose J. Basic ship propulsion. Allied Publishers; 2004.
[41] Belhenniche S, Aounallah M, Omar I, Çelik F. Effect of geometric configurations
on hydrodynamic performance assessment of a marine propeller. Brodogradnja:
Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 2016;67(4):31–48.
[42] Hayati A, Hashemi S, Shams M. A study on the effect of the rake angle on the
performance of marine propellers. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C 2012;226
(4):940–55.
[43] Brennen CE. Cavitation and bubble dynamics. Cambridge University Press;
2013.
[44] Ianniello S, De Bernardis E. Farassat’s formulations in marine propeller
hydroacoustics. Int J Aeroacoust 2015;14(1–2):87–103.
[45] Williams JF, Hawkings DL. Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in
arbitrary motion. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 1969;264(1151):321–42.
[46] Farassat F. Derivation of formulations 1 and 1A of farassat. NASA TM
2007:214853.