Study of Stern Tunnel Wedge Shape on

Low Draft Shallow Water Vessels

Thesis submitted to
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of
Master of Technology
in

Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture Department

by

Doddugollu Suryachala Praveen

17NA60R07

under the guidance of

Prof. Om Prakash Sha

Department of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Kharagpur - 721302, West Bengal, India
April, 2019
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Department of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture
Kharagpur, West Bengal, INDIA

Spring-2019

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that

1. The work reported in this thesis is entirely original and has been carried out by
me under the supervision of Prof. Om Prakash Sha in the Department of Ocean
Engineering and Naval Architecture, IIT Kharagpur

2. This work has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma,
fellowship or similar title of any University or Institution

3. I have followed the guidelines provided by the Institute in preparing the report

4. I have conformed to the norms and guidelines given in the Ethical Code of
Conduct of the Institute

5. Whenever I have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, figures and texts)
from other sources, I have given due credit to them by citing them in the text
of the report and giving their details in the references. Further, I have taken
permission from the copyright owners of the source, whenever necessary.
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Department of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture
Kharagpur, West Bengal, INDIA

Spring-2019

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled “Study of Stern Tunnel Wedge
Shape on Low Draft Shallow Water Vessels”, submitted by Dod-
dugollu Suryachala Praveen(Roll No.17NA60R07) is a record of
bonafide work carried out by him, in the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
award of Degree of Master of Technology in Ocean Engineering & Naval Architecture
during the academic session 2017-19 in the Department of Ocean Engineering &
Naval Architecture, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.

Date : ———————————
Place: IIT Kharagpur (Prof. Om Prakash Sha)

Department of Ocean Engineering and

Naval Architecture
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Kharagpur-721302, India
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Department of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture
Kharagpur, West Bengal, INDIA

Spring-2019

CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION
This is to certify that we have examined the thesis entitled “Study of
Stern Tunnel Wedge Shape on Low Draft Shallow Water
Vessels”, submitted by Doddugollu Suryachala Praveen(Roll
No.17NA60R07)), a M.Tech student of Department of Ocean Engineering &
Naval Architecture. We hereby accord our approval of it as a study carried out
and presented in manner required for its acceptance in partial fulfilment for the
Master of Technology Degree for which it has been submitted. The approval does not
necessarily endorse or accept every statement made, opinion expressed or conclusion
drawn as recorded in this thesis. It only signifies the acceptance of the thesis for the
purpose for which it is submitted.

External Examiner : —————————–

Supervisor : —————————–
(Prof. Om Prakash Sha)

Head of the Department : —————————–

(Prof. Prasad K Bhaskaran)
Acknowledgement

I feel great pleasure in expressing my deep and sincere thanks and deep sense of
gratitude to my guide Prof. Om Prakash Sha, Department of Ocean Engineering
and Naval Architecture, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, for his valuable
guidance, keen co-operation, useful criticism and self-confidence which has contributed
much in the work and my personal encouragement.

I would like to thank to Prof. Prasad K Bhaskaran, Head of the Department of

Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture, IIT Kharagpur, Dr. Hari V Warrior,
faculty advisor of M. Tech (2017-19 batch) and Prof. Anirban Bhattacharyya for
providing me the best of facility during my work and my heartiest gratitude to all
the Professor and Non-teaching staff of the department.

I am thankful to Mr.Shanmukh Srinivas for the constant help and assistance during
experiments and my friends in IIT Kharagpur for providing a great working and
social environment during my stay here.

Finally, I thank my parents for their support and motivation they have provided
throughout my project work.
Praveen D S Ch

iv
Dedicated to My Parents, Sister and Friends

v
Abstract

The rise in global trade and global warming demands significant change in ship design
to keep transportation viable with reduced pollution. Energy saving devices and
efficient design for newly built ships has gained noticeable momentum in recent times
to fulfil the requirement of energy efficiency design index (EEDI). Recently, due to
cost effectiveness and lower emissions, there is a strong emphasis on developing inland
waterway transport in shallow waters where less design and research data is available.
Globally, the prominence of operating vessels in low draft shallow water region has
grown rapidly. Rivers, river mouths, inland channels, harbour areas, and high-speed
vessels near shoreline will fall under this category. Over the ages many concentrated on
hydrodynamics of these vessels to reduce resistance, squat and wash effects. However,
the design of these vessels are not evolved as it is evolved for deep water merchant
ships. In shallow waters, due to the increased speed below the hull, the flow around
propeller and wake pattern are completely different compared to deep water. It is
imperative to analyse stern shape to obtain a optimized propeller suitable for inland
vessels. This can be possible by investigating stern tunnel,and wake pattern depending
on various parameters; Froude number, depth Froude number, stern shape and water
depth to draft ratio.
Keywords: Shallow water, Inland vessel, Stern tunnel and Stern tunnel wedge

vi
Contents

Declaration i

Certificate ii

Certificate of examination iii

Acknowledgement iv

Abstract vi

Nomenclature xi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Jal Vikas Marg Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Design of low draft vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 State of the art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Scope and Objective of present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Methodology 6

3 Theory 8
3.1 Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1 Empirical methods to predict resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2 Numerical Resistance calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3 Experimental Resistance calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.1 Propeller design method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 Vessel Geometry 16
4.1 Vessel Particulars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Generation of stern tunnel and overhang wedge shapes . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Numerical Setup 20
5.1 Resistance Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1 Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.2 Mesh set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.3 Physics models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Open Water Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2.1 Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

vii
CONTENTS

5.2.2 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.3 Physics models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3 Self-Propulsion Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3.1 Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3.2 Physics models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3.3 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6 Results and discussions 29

6.1 Grid dependency study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2 Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3 Investigation of stern tunnel water entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.1 Investigation in Deep Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.2 Investigation in Shallow water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.3 Influence of wedge geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.3.4 Nominal wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3.5 Form factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3.6 Squat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3.7 Wave resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4 CFD Open water analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.5 Self-Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

7 Conclusion 46

8 Future work 48

Appendix A Propeller drawing code in python 52

Appendix B Propeller drawing script in Rhinopython 64

viii
List of Figures

1.1 Cost of Transportation in Rs. per metric tonne per km in India . . . . 1

1.2 Route map of National Waterway-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.1 Typical deepwater wave pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2 Typical shallow water wave patterns based on depth Froude number . . 10
3.3 General flow chart of propeller design using methodoligical series charts 15

4.1 Body plan of 110m inland vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.2 Line diagram of transom wedge shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3 Stern tunnel shapes of all variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.1 Domain extents in deep water case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.2 Perspective view of optimized mesh generated using various volumetric
refinements to capture accurate flow field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3 Ducted propeller mesh refinement for open water simulation . . . . . . 25
5.4 Surface mesh of duct, propeller and hull used in self-propulsion simulation 27

6.1 Resistance and its components comparison for fully loaded and ballast
loading conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2 Streamlines and pressure plot of stern tunnel flow in deep water . . . . 33
6.3 Streamlines and pressure plot of stern tunnel flow in shallow water . . 34
6.4 Wake plot in deep (h=17m) and shallow water(h=4m) . . . . . . . . . 36
6.5 Nominal wake and form factor comparison for two different h/T ratios
at two different speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.6 Comparison of deep and shallow water waves for base hull . . . . . . . 40
6.7 Non-dimensional representation of wave heights for both deep water
and shallow water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.8 Open water curve comparison with Ka-series ducted propellers . . . . . 41
6.9 Velocity plot of stern and stern tunnel for 9knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.10 Velocity plot of stern and stern tunnel for 7knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.11 Pressure plot of stern and stern tunnel for 9knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.12 Pressure plot of stern and stern tunnel for 7knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

8.1 Fibre reinforced plastic Model hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

8.2 Model propeller manufactured using 5-axis CNC machine . . . . . . . 50

ix
List of Tables

4.1 Main Particulars of inland vessel in full scale and model scale . . . . . 17

5.1 Domian size for resistance simulation for both fully loaded and ballast
loading condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2 Boundary conditions for half hull resistance simulations in deep water . 23
5.3 Domian extents for open water propeller simulation . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.4 Boundary conditions for propeller open water simulations . . . . . . . . 26

6.1 resistance simulation grid convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

6.2 Comparison of CFD squat values with empirical formulae at different
speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.3 Propeller Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4 Self-Propulsion point at two speeds 7knots and 9 knots for two variants
base hull and variant-3 in both deep and shallow water(h/T=1.78) depth 45
6.5 Wake fraction, thrust deduction factor, efficiencies and power delivered
at two speeds 7knots and 9 knots for two variants base hull and variant-3
in both deep and shallow water(h/T=1.78) depth . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.6 Comparison of model test and CFD results at 7Knots speed in shallow
water h/T=1.78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

x
Nomenclature

LWL Length on waterline

Lpp Length between perpendiculars
B Breadth
h Water depth
T Draft
V,U Vessel speed
CT Total resistance coefficient
Y+ Y plus value
w Wake fraction
Va Inflow velocity at propeller plane
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes Equation
Rf Frictional resistance
Rvp Viscous pressure
Rv Viscous resistance
Rw Wave resistance
RT Total Resistance
h/T Water depth to vessel draft
NW National Waterways
RO-RO Roll-on Roll-off
LAD Least Allowable Depth of River

xi
Chapter 1

Introduction

Maritime transport has been recognized as the most fuel efficient, cost effective
and environment friendly transport system. Carrying goods on water is cheaper,
more reliable and less polluting than by road or rail. Figure 1.1 illustrates cost of
transportation in rupees per metric tonne per kilometre. All developed countries
have based their development on their efficient maritime infrastructure and policies.
Maritime sector plays a vital role in the trade and commerce of any country, whether
it is internal trade or external trade.

Figure 1.1: Cost of Transportation in Rs. per metric tonne per km in India

India’s 14,500 km of navigable waterways comprise of rivers, canals, backwaters,

1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

creeks, etc, of which only 4382 km of waterways have been utilised. About 55 million
tonnes of cargo is being moved annually by Inland Water Transport (IWT), a fuel -
efficient and environment -friendly mode. Its operations are currently restricted to a
few stretches in the Ganga- Bhagirathi- Hooghly Rivers (NW-1).

A major factor in the design of inland and coastal vessels is the capability to
operate in shallow water conditions. The shallow water criterion is defined both
with respect to water depth and design speed. Typically for shallow water the
ratio of the water depth to vessel draft (h/T) is < 5.0. Similarly, the depth Froude
√
number V / gh < 1.0 for subcritical flow [1]. The operation regimes depending on
the speed of the vessel may be subcritical or in some cases supercritical. The design
development of these vessels are based on certain important considerations like -
components of resistance, operational regime, efficiency of transportation, propeller
or hull vibration and manoeuvring ability in shallow water. Minimization of the
damage to the shores due to wash waves generated from the vessel is also a major
consideration for such vessels. All these factors influence the choice of hull form,
propulsion and manoeuvring system to be used, and the system design has to be done
accordingly to obtain the economics of cargo pattern, route and range of operation
and the desired performance range.

1.1 Jal Vikas Marg Project

The Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Ministry of Shipping, Government
of India is implementing the Jal Marg Vikas Project for capacity augmentation of
navigation on National Waterway -1 (Varanasi to Haldia stretch) on the Ganga
Bhagirathi-Hoogly River System. The route map of NW-1(Varanasi to Haldia stretch)
is shown in Figure 1.2. The capacity augmentation includes development of the
infrastructural facilities i.e. river terminals with appropriate cargo handling capacity
and equipment for facilitating integration with other modes of transportation; one
navigational lock, provision of navigation aids; river information system; RO-RO

2
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

jetties; bank protection or slope protection; river training works; tow barges; inland
vessels; survey vessels including rescue boats and survey equipment and dredging
facilities. Among the interventions, construction of six IWT terminals, sites of three
terminals and one navigational lock have been identified.

Figure 1.2: Route map of National Waterway-1

1.2 Design of low draft vessels

Design of low draft inland vessels requires special attention due to its unique bottom
flow characteristics and propeller space constraint. These two problems create an
increase in resistance and propeller loading respectively. Therefore, special care is
required when it comes to design stern part of the hull. A stern tunnel is a viable
and proven option to reduce propeller loading by accommodating propeller of larger
diameter. However, if special care is not provided on tunnel shape, increase in viscous
resistance component is inevitable. This thesis deals with systematically varied stern
tunnel shapes and their influence on resistance and propeller loading using CFD and
experiments.

3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.3 State of the art

In early stages of inland transportation, the vessels are made with intuition with less
design calculations. From mid-20th century the evolution of shallow water design has
started. A bow breaking wave of a viscous wave nature can appear at the bow. This
type of wave and the additional resistance due to its generation had been studied in
[Baba,1976,1981; Kayo & Takekuma, 1981, etc] [1].

Majority of inner waterway vessels operating at sub-critical speeds, the form

of their ultimate hydraulic section, which is defined as the product of ship beam and
draft, is a high aspect ratio rectangle elongated transversely. A rational utilization
of ultimate hydraulic section determines the stern’s shape and the selection of the
type propulsor. There have been widely used tunnel-shaped lines to accommodate
propellers whose diameter is comparable or exceeds the ship draft. [1].

Different approaches for specifying the propulsor’s parameters, based on design

water depth and to minimize fuel consumption with an average higher speed over
the distance are discussed by VG Pavelenko [1961, 1964], GE Pavalenco [1961, 1962,
1978], Petrov [1964, 1966, 1968], Khrabrov [1982]. In all of these studies, problems
were considered based on the hydrodynamics of ships depending on the water depths
in question.

Methods for designing the vessels operating effectively in shallow water with
minimal fuel consumption had been developed in [Petrov, 1966; Bezzubov, 1982;
Pavlenko et al., 1985; Lyakhovitsky, 1988, 1998; ]. [1].

Bob Christopoulos and Robert Latorre had done a detailed work on River tow boat
hull and propulsion. In their work they studied different stern configurations with
ducted propellers and highlighted guide lines for stern tunnel shape. However, stern
tunnel shape recommendations are given only for tow boats. These recommendations
are based on trial data of 50 tow boats built at that time [2].

4
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Erik Rotteveel and Robert Hekkenberg had discussed about inland vessels aft
hull optimized shape in their paper, “The Influence of Shallow Water and Hull Form
Variations on Inland Ship Resistance”. In this work they presented the effect of
resistance with varying lateral position of propeller within stern tunnel. Conclusion
of this work is that the decrease in resistance for an optimized position has less
influence compared to the resistance increase due to shallow water [3].

1.4 Scope and Objective of present work

Considering aforementioned works, it is observed that stern tunnel shape and its
overhang details are not well established for inland cargo ships. A further detailed
investigation is required to probe on stern tunnel shapes to reduce resistance in full
load condition and propeller immersion in ballast condition. Therefore, the main
scope of this work is to investigate optimum shape of stern tunnel for less resistance
in fully loaded condition and stern tunnel water entrainment in ballast condition.
Subsequently, to study the complex flow properties of stern tunnel with and without
propeller and to compare propulsive efficiencies of different variants.

5
Chapter 2

Methodology

Inland vessels are mainly classified as sub-critical, critical and super critical based on
depth Froude number. In general, all cargo carrying slow speed vessels will fall under
the first regime whereas the latter will fall under fast ships. The present work is
restricted to sub-critical regime those which are slow moving barges with fuller lines.
Main Particulars of these vessels are characterized by river constrains. Therefore,
for a particular river, the maximum cargo carrying capacity will be moreover fixed.
Optimized hull form can be attained for less resistance and high propulsive efficiency
in all loading conditions.

Any inland cargo vessel is generally operated for two primary loading conditions; fully
loaded condition and ballast loading condition. In former case propeller immersion is
always assured, whereas in later case propeller will emerge out of water. To maximize
propeller efficiency, in fully loaded condition, a maximum possible propeller diameter
will be accommodated. This will give negative impact on ballast loading condition,
where propeller will emerge out of water. On the other side, if propeller is designed
for lowest possible draft line which is in general ballast condition, will lead to less
propulsive efficiency and more fuel consumption. Therefore, two possible ways to
design can be classified as mentioned below: Propeller designed for lowest possible
draft line with compromise on propulsive efficiency or, Propeller designed for fully
loaded condition and an optimum stern tunnel design to cater the issue of propeller
immersion in ballast condition. Second option can be a best option, if the hull can

6
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

be designed with a stern tunnel having an intrinsic property of water entrainment in

ballast condition.

The viscous resistance component typically prevails over the wave-making component.
The viscous resistance component is the sum of frictional resistance (Rf) and the
viscous pressure resistance (Rvp). The most promising directions of energy-efficient
propulsion for such vessels are associated with the physics of viscous resistance[1]. A
110m inland vessel which is operating in sub-critical regime in NW-1 is investigated
for study of optimum stern hull shape integrated with a stern tunnel. To prevent
atmospheric air access to the propellers when moving at the lowest operating draft, the
stern tunnel lines were made with side bilges and an aft overhang. Various overhang
shapes were studied for minimal viscous pressure resistance component and propeller
immersion. Stern tunnel is designed in such a way that a propeller of larger diameter
can be accommodated with a duct for improved performance at greater propeller
loading. The best hull form is chosen based on a comprehensive study for both deep
water and shallow water for various drafts and speeds. The present work will mainly
emphasize on stern design and highlight the behaviour of propeller wake, form factor
and squat for shallow water vessels. Numerical simulations are carried out at full scale
using RANS-VOF solver in Star CCM+.

7
Chapter 3

Theory

3.1 Resistance
From decades ago, the deep water resistance calculations are well established. The
main components of resistance in deep water are mainly classified as two distinct
components and each components are further sub divived as follows:

1. Viscous Resistance

(a) Flat plate friction

(b) Roughness

(c) Form effect on friction

(d) Viscous pressure

2. Wave making resistance

(a) Wave pattern resistance

(b) Wave breaking

When it comes to shallow water, the classification of components remains same

but the values of each component will amplify as water depth to vessel draft ratio
(h/T) decreases and depth Froude number, Fnh , increases. Flat plate friction and
roughness are having less influence in shallow waters but the other two components
of viscous resistance will change rapidly as h/T ratio varies. This phenomenon is due

8
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

to change in pressure distribution around the hull. However, the flat plate friction
and roughness will have slight increase in values due to change in velocity profile.

The influence of second component wave making resistance is quantified by depth

Froude number. As depth Froude number increases the significance of wave making
resistance component will grow rapidly. Also the wave pattern will change. A typical
deepwater waves are consisting of two types, divergent waves and transverse waves
called Kelvin wave pattern as shown in figure3.1. Whereas the shallow water wave
patterns are generally sub-divided into three types based on sub-critical, critical and
supercritical regimes. In figure3.2 the classification of each regime is shown by line
sketch on left hand side and numerically developed waves on right hand side for
corresponding depth Froude numbers. In sub-critical regime, the wave pattern will
be moreover similar to deepwater case. For critical regime the waves will become
dispersive as speed of vessel is equal to speed of wave. This made a significance
change in wave pattern with dominant transverse waves. Finally, in super-critical
regime, as vessel speed is more than than wave speed and divergent waves prevails
over transverse waves.

Figure 3.1: Typical deepwater wave pattern

9
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

Figure 3.2: Typical shallow water wave patterns based on depth Froude number

10
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

3.1.1 Empirical methods to predict resistance

The resistance can be claculated with Friudes hypothesis,

RT = RF + RR

Where,
CT
RT = 0.5·ρ·S·v 2
CF
RF = 0.5·ρ·S·v 2
CR
RR = 0.5·ρ·S·v 2

The frictional component can be calculated using ITTC 1978 model correlation line:

0.0776 60
CF = 2 +
log1 0Rn − 1.88 Rn

The residuary resistance coefficient can be estimated using H.E Guldhammer and
Sv.Aa.Harvard method where CR is expressed a function of length-displacement ratio,
L
∇1/3
, and prismatic coefficient. However, the graphs provided in this method are
generally not in range of inland vessels. Therefore, Denmark technical university
generated reasonable extrapolated polynomials suitable for inland vessels. Additional
to this value, several corrections has to be added such as breadth to draft ratio , LCB
and depth corrections as mentioned in report[4].

3.1.2 Numerical Resistance calculations

With recent developments in computational science made easier to solve resistance

using continuity and Navier-stokes equation for incompressible flows.

∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 (3.1)
∂x ∂y ∂z

 2
∂ u ∂ 2u ∂ 2u

∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u 1 ∂p
+u +v +w =− +ν + + (3.2)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂x ∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2

 2
∂ v ∂ 2v ∂ 2v

∂v ∂v ∂v ∂v 1 ∂p
+u +v +w =− +ν + + (3.3)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂x ∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2

11
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

 2
∂ w ∂ 2w ∂ 2w

∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w 1 ∂p
+u +v +w =− +ν + + (3.4)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂x ∂x2 ∂y 2 ∂z 2
Equation3.1 is continuity equation and next three equations 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5 are
Navier-Stokes equation in x, y, and z directions respectively. To solve these equations
directly will be complex and time consuming. Therefore, a reasonable method to
solve in computer is by discretizing fluid domain and then solve RANS equation and
turbulence models for suitable boundary conditions.

RANS equation:

∂ ūi ∂ 1 ∂ p̄ 1 ∂
+ (u¯j ūi ) = − + Fi + (σji + Rji ) (3.5)
∂t ∂x ρ ∂xi ρ ∂xj
where,
Rij = Rji = −ρu0i u0j

3.1.3 Experimental Resistance calculations

The results obtained from computational methods can be well used for comparison
study. However, experimental studies are recommended to validate CFD results.
There are two methods, Froude and ITTC methods, to extrapolate modal results
into full scale results. In Froude method, the total resistance is divided into flat plat
skin friction and residuary resistance. Whereas, in ITTC method the resistance is
subdivide into viscous resistance and wave-making resistance.

12
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

Froude hypothesis:

CT m (Rn, F n) = CF m(Rn) + CR m(F n) (3.6)

0.075
CF m = (3.7)
(log10 Rns − 2)2
CRm = CT m − CF m (3.8)

CRm = CRs (3.9)

0.075
CF s = (3.10)
(log10 Rns − 2)2
CT s = CF s + CRs + ∆CF s (3.11)
CT
RT = (3.12)
0.5 · ρ · S · v 2
(3.13)

ITTC78 method:

CT m (Rn, F n) = (1 + k)CF m(Rn) + CR m(F n) (3.14)

0.075
CF m = (3.15)
(log10 Rns − 2)2
CW m = CT m − (1 + k)CF m (3.16)

CRm = CRs (3.17)

0.075
CF s = (3.18)
(log10 Rns − 2)2
CT s = (1 + k) · CF s + CRs + ∆CF s + CAA (3.19)
CT
RT = (3.20)
0.5 · ρ · S · v 2
(3.21)

Where,

∆CF = 0.0004
AT
CAA = 0.001 ·
S

13
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

3.2 Propulsion
Once the resistance values are obtained either by empirical, numerical or experimental
methods, it is essential to estimate power to decide the engine required to ship.
Therefore, in ship design one of the important design stage is to obtain an efficient
propeller. The best propeller is always characterised by the propulsive efficiency with
less cavitation and propeller induced vibration. At initial stages, without propeller
parameters, propeller ideal efficiency can be checked by using following formula:

2
η= √ (3.22)
1 + 1 + CT
where CT is thrust loading coefficient.

This ideal efficiency defines the upper limit of efficiency for given propeller diameter.
For constant thrust value as diameter increases the ideal efficiency value increases
with reduction in propeller RPM. Therefore, it is always preferable to keep largest
diameter possible. Ideal efficiency can also indicates the loading on the propeller.
Ducted propellers will be an option when propeller loading exceeds the limits.

3.2.1 Propeller design method

The design of propellers can be done in several methods. The traditional way of
designing propellers is by using methodological series charts such as bp-δ and KT −KQ
charts. For ducted propellers, Ka series charts are generally used for propeller design
parameters along with Kort nozzle-19A. The process and sequence of propeller design
has clearly shown in figure 3.3. Thereafter, the propeller data will be further used to
generate propeller blade offset which gives propeller blade section offsets along chord
length.

14
CHAPTER 3. THEORY

Input Data:Vs vs RT , RPM, w, t, and D

Calculate: T=RT /(1-t)

Assume blade area ratio, AE /AO

Choose number of blades, Z

Assume N and calculate KT and J

From KT − KQ chart read P/D and ηo Yes No

Optimum N
with max ηo

Calculate AE /AO

Calculated AE /AO
= assumed AE /AO

Output: D, P/D, N, AE /AO , ηo

Figure 3.3: General flow chart of propeller design using methodoligical series charts

15
Chapter 4

Vessel Geometry

4.1 Vessel Particulars

Given the fact that shallow water vessels has distinct bottom flow characteristics
and are restricted by low draft to accommodate propeller of larger diameter, there is
need to investigate the stern shape in vicinity of propeller shaft centreline. From
past experiences, a stern tunnel shape is considered. Stern tunnel will help to
accommodate large diameter propeller which can increase propulsive efficiency and
vessel performance at lower operating drafts. However, shape of stern tunnel should be
optimized for better performance at lower drafts especially when the vessel is moving
at the ballast arrival condition where propeller is likely to emerge. An optimum stern
tunnel should also give better performance at fully loaded draft along with propeller
immersion in partially loaded or ballast arrival condition. Shape of stern tunnel will
be investigated for the following:

1. Most frequent operating drafts

2. Viscous pressure resistance, Rvp

3. Propeller immersion at lower operating drafts.

During fully loaded condition propeller will be completely immersed. Therefore, at

fully loaded condition optimum stern design is based on minimization of viscous
pressure resistance. In ballast arrival loading condition where propeller is likely to
emerge, viscous pressure resistance has less predominance over propeller immersion.

16
CHAPTER 4. VESSEL GEOMETRY

The stern tunnel shape will be selected so as to have full propeller immersion at both
the two loading conditions Therefore in this current study 110m inland vessel has
investigated for five different stern tunnel shapes with varying stern tunnel buttock
angles aft of propeller in the vicinity of shaft centreline. These vessels are categorised
as base hull and variants 1 to 4. Isometric view of same is shown in Figure 2. In
way of shaft centreline, buttock sections for all Variants with overhang angles are
highlighted and shown in Figure 3. Variant-1 is considered as the base hull. Table 1
gives the main particulars of inland vessels which are kept constant for all the variants.

A fibre reinforced plastic model has prepared as shown in figure 8.1 to validate CFD
results. The particulars and scale ratio are highlighted in table 4.1.
Main particulars of vessel is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Main Particulars of inland vessel in full scale and model scale

LWL 109.96 4.39 m

B 11.96 0.48 m
Tdesign 2.8m 0.112 m
Cb 0.91 0.91 –
∆(fully loaded) 3362 0.215 tonnes
Design speed 9 1.8 Knots

4.2 Generation of stern tunnel and overhang

wedge shapes
An over hang wedge shape near transom is systematically varied in longitudinal
direction. The fig 4.3 depicts 3D perspective view of base hull, V1, V2, V3, and
V4 hull variants. The base hull is having 25 degrees overhang wedge angle, whereas
V1, V2, V3, and V4 are having 6,4,2 and zero degrees respectively. These angles are
started from the propeller section and extended longitudinally to the transom. In
fig 4.3 main hull is highlighted in blue color, stern tunnel is highlighted in yellow and
overhang wedge is highlighted in cyan color.

17
CHAPTER 4. VESSEL GEOMETRY

Figure 4.1: Body plan of 110m inland vessel

Figure 4.2: Line diagram of transom wedge shapes

18
CHAPTER 4. VESSEL GEOMETRY

(a) perspective view

(b) Basehull (c) Variant-1

(d) Variant-2 (e) Variant-3

Figure 4.3: Stern tunnel shapes of all variants

19
Chapter 5

Numerical Setup

The usage of CFD is rapidly increasing from past couple of decades especially for
marine applications at preliminary design stage where optimization study is necessary
and experimental study is expensive. CD-adapco R STAR-CCM+ R as a CFD tool is
used for all full scale simulations. CFD is used as a tool for inland vessels optimisation
study for both deep and shallow waters. All the CFD simulations were carried out
in StarCCM+ R using finite volume method. Series of investigations are carried out
to understand the flow pattern of stern tunnel in and absence of propeller. VOF and
Double body methods are used to anlyse resistance and propulsion simulations. Since
Froude number is very less, free surface effects are neglected wherever it is possible
to save computational time. Shallow water resistance analysis has carried out to
understand the shallow water behaviours for various h/T ratios. As hull form and
flow behaviour is symmetric, symmetry plane is taken to reduce mesh size thereby
computational time.

In this thesis, the whole work is subdivide into three parts, resistance calculations,
open water test and self-propulsion test. The resistance simulations are carried out
for both deep water and shallow water as mentioned below:

1. In fully loaded condition, double body analysis is used to predict viscous

resistance , where resistance is decomposed into frictional resistance and viscous
pressure resistance,
Rv = Rf (1 + k) + Rvp

20
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

2. In ballast condition, Volume of fluids (VOF) option is used to investigate

resistance and air-water interface so that stern tunnel water entrainment
can be checked. The resistance is decomposed into frictional resistance and
wave-making resistance,

RT = Rf (1 + k) + Rvp + Rw

3. Propeller open water analysis using body rotating method to predict propeller
performance curves (KT − KQ ).

4. Double body analysis with body rotating propeller to predict stern tunnel and
propeller interference effects and thereby to predict propeller performance.

5.1 Resistance Simulation

5.1.1 Domain

A three-dimensional domain is created to capture air water interface for volume of

fluid analysis and for double body analysis only water interface is used. In deep water
case, the extents of domain are taken as shown in Table5.1. In shallow waters, the
depth of domain below water level has varied according to required h/T ratio and the
length of domain behind F.P has increased form 2.5L to 3.5L to capture shallow water
effects. Whenever the double body analysis has carried out the height of the domain
above W.L has kept zero. Figure5.1 shows the extent of domain.

Table 5.1: Domian size for resistance simulation for both fully loaded and ballast
loading condition

Length behind F.P 2.5L

Length forward of F.P 1L
Breadth from C.L 1.5L
Depth from W.L to bottom 1.5L
Depth from W.L to top 1L

21
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

Figure 5.1: Domain extents in deep water case

5.1.2 Mesh set-up

An automated mesh is generated in STAR-CCM+ R using surface and volumetric

refinements. The mesh is optimized using different volumetric shapes to capture flow
around the vessel with reduced cell count. Fine volumetric refinement has given at
free surface along with inclined boxed to capture kelvin wave pattern. Prism layers
are created near hull to maintain required Y plus values so as to capture near wall
flow. The Y plus is also chosen suitable to the wall model used in simulation. In
shallow water case, an additional prism layers are developed at bottom to incorporate
bottom wall effects.

22
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

Figure 5.2: Perspective view of optimized mesh generated using various volumetric
refinements to capture accurate flow field

5.1.3 Physics models

Boundary conditions

The boundary conditions of the domain has taken such that the hull is fixed and water
is coming with an equivalent velocity to ship speed through inlet and leaving from
outlet. Therefore, to replicate actual physical scenario, boundary conditions fro deep
water are given as highlighted in Table 5.2. In shallow water, the boundary conditions
will be same as deep water except at bottom where the boundary condition should be
moving wall with a speed equivalent to ship.

Table 5.2: Boundary conditions for half hull resistance simulations in deep water

Hull and C.P Symmetry Plane

Side Symmetry Plane
Outlet Pressure Outlet
Inlet Velocity Inlet
Top and Bottom Velocity Inlet
Hull Wall

23
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

Turbulence model

k-ω SST turbulence model is chosen along with all Y+ wall treatment. The wall law
is equivalent to logarithmic profile. Y+ value is maintained greater than 30. Near
hull, prism layers are used to capture boundary layer effects precisely.

VOF

The High Resolution Interface Capturing (HRIC) convection discretization scheme is

used to improve the VOF interface tracking capabilities. In deep water case trim
and sinkage is allowed using dynamic fluid body interaction (DFBI) whereas for
shallow water mesh morphing technique is adopted to capture the influence of bottom
interaction with hull.

Timestep

For resistance computations in calm water, the time step is determined by

0.005-0.01Lpp/U in accordance with the related guidelines of ITTC[5]. Smaller time
step 0.0035Lpp/U is used for shallow water case, since the flow in the shallow water
conditions is unstable

5.2 Open Water Simulation

Propeller open water simulation is carried out to obtain propeller thrust and torque
for a given propeller revolutions. Duct is also included to get combined effects of
ducted propeller.

5.2.1 Domain

The propeller along with duct has kept in a closed box. The extents of domain is as
shown in Table 5.3.

24
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

Table 5.3: Domian extents for open water propeller simulation

Length behind Propeller 13D

Length forward of Propeller 5D
Breadth from Propeller (P & S) 5D
Top and Bottom from Propeller 3D

5.2.2 Mesh

A trimmer cell mesh is chosen with more volumetric refinement near propeller and
duct. Two regions were created, static and rotating region with an interface between
them. The propeller is surrounded by rotating region with fine mesh to capture flow
and geometry of propeller blades. Feature edges are used at blade edges to create fine
surface edges and thereby retain the complex shape of blade edges. The propeller,
shaft, duct and interface surfaces are attached with thin prism layers to maintain wall
Y plus greater than 30. Figure 5.3 will show profile view of mesh refinement in the
domain.

Figure 5.3: Ducted propeller mesh refinement for open water simulation

5.2.3 Physics models

The motion of the propeller is modelled using rigid body rotation method. The
starting simulation file contains two regions, one for the rotating propeller, and the
other for the static fluid domain. Steady state moving reference frame is used to
address propeller rotating effects.

25
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

Boundary conditions

The inlet, outlet, wall and symmetry boundary are defined on the boundaries of the
domain. The velocity of the flow, VA, is set at the inlet, and as an initial condition
in the fluid domain. This velocity is defined by the advance coefficient, J:

VA
J=
n·D

The boundary conditions are taken as shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Boundary conditions for propeller open water simulations

Duct, propeller blades, hub, and shaft Wall

Interface Wall
Inlet Velocity Inlet
Outlet Pressure Outlet
Farfield Wall

Turbulence model

k- turbulence model is chosen along with Realizable k- Two-Layer and two layer
all y+ wall treatment. The wall law is equivalent to logarithmic profile. Y+ value
is maintained greater than 30. Prism layer thickness and first cell height size chosen
accordingly.

5.3 Self-Propulsion Simulation

The self-propulsion simulations are combination of resistance simulation and open
water propulsion simulation. However, there will be few changes required to capture
interference effects between hull and ducted propeller.

5.3.1 Domain

The domain remains same as resistance simulation as mention in 5.1.1.

26
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

5.3.2 Physics models

Instead of using the steady-state moving reference frame model, in self-propulsion

simulation uses the transient Rigid Body to consider propeller rotating effects. This
is to capture true wake and thrust deduction factor of the ship.

5.3.3 Mesh

Mesh settings are similar to resistance simulation mesh settings. However, an

additional rotating region is introduced to involve propeller action. Surface mesh
of duct, propeller and hull is shown in figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: Surface mesh of duct, propeller and hull used in self-propulsion simulation

Boundary conditions

Boundary conditions are similar to resistance simulation as mention in section 5.1.3.

Turbulence model

k- turbulence model is chosen along with Realizable k- Two-Layer and two layer
all y+ wall treatment. The wall law is equivalent to logarithmic profile. Y+ value

27
CHAPTER 5. NUMERICAL SETUP

is maintained greater than 30. Prism layer thickness and first cell height size chosen
accordingly.

28
Chapter 6

Results and discussions

In this section, various hull forms are investigated in two loading conditions; fully
loaded and ballast conditions for least resistance and water entrainment respectively.
Results and observations are emphasized and highlighted for following:

1. Grid convergence study

2. Stern tunnel and propeller immersion in deep water

3. Stern tunnel and propeller immersion in shallow water

4. Nature of wave patterns in deep and shallow waters

5. Variation of nominal wake for different water depths

6. Variation of form factors for different water depths

7. Squat

8. Propeller open water simulations

9. Self-Propulsion test results

6.1 Grid dependency study

To avoid numerical error and uncertainties, three distinct mesh sizes, coarse, medium
and fine are checked for grid convergence. Table 6.1 shows the values of number of
cells and total resistance coefficient (CT ) in three different levels of mesh settings.

29
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

[6, 7]. Table 6.1 shows that the deviation of CT has is nominal and it is about
2%. Therefore,in this work all the simulations were carried out with coarse mesh for
comparison study to save computational time with reasonable accuracy. The final
selected hull form simulation will be carried out with medium mesh to get accurate
values.

Table 6.1: resistance simulation grid convergence

No.of cells (Millions) CT CT /CT fine

Fine 8.08 3.012E-03 100%
Medium 4.7 2.991E-03 100.69%
Coarse 1.75 2.949E-03 102.1%

6.2 Resistance
Viscous resistance is assessed for all variants at a draft 2.8m (fully loaded condition)
and 1.2m (ballast arrival condition) with vessel speed of 9knots in deep water using
double body analysis. In this study wave resistance is neglected as Froude number
is very low (Fn = 0.14). Frictional resistance, viscous pressure and total viscous
resistance are highlighted in figure 6.1 for all the variants. Total shear force on hull is
highlighted by green color bar and total viscous pressure is highlighted by red color
bar. The total resistance is shown in blue color bar. The percentage change in total
viscous resistance from base hull is shown in figure 6.1 by black line.

In fully loaded condition, it is observed from figure 6.1 that frictional resistance is
constant for all variants whereas a noticeable change in viscous pressure is obtained
resulting a change in total resistance. In contrast, there is a little variation in the
viscous resistance for different Variants in ballast condition as shown in 6.1.

30
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 6.1: Resistance and its components comparison for fully loaded and ballast
loading conditions

31
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.3 Investigation of stern tunnel water entrain-

ment

6.3.1 Investigation in Deep Water

At 9knots speed, in ballast loading condition 1.2m draft, a VOF analysis is carried
out to capture the air water interface. All the variants are probed for physical
characteristics of the water entrainment into the stern tunnel. In basehull, variant-1,
and variant-2 water entrainment is attained and same has been shown from figure
6.2a to figure6.2c respectively, whereas for variant-3 has partial water entrainment
into stern tunnel as shown in figure 6.2d. Though variant-3 has partial entrainment
into stern tunnel, the propeller section is completely wet. On the other side, from
figure 6.2e it is noticed that Variant-4 has completely failed to entrain water into
stern tunnel and to the propeller section.

6.3.2 Investigation in Shallow water

Since Variant-4 and Variant-5 are having less resistance which can be observed from
figure 6.1, these two hull forms are chosen for further investigation of stern tunnel
and propeller immersion in shallow water (h/T=1.78). Variant-1 is also investigated
so as to compare with Variants-4 and 5. It is observed that all the Variants 1, 4 and
5 are capable of drawing water in shallow water case as shown from figure 6.3a, figure
6.12c and figure 6.12d for Variants 1, 4 and 5 respectively.

Due to shallow water bottom effects, velocity of water near bottom has increased and
increased the chances of better water entrainment into stern tunnel compared to deep
water case.

6.3.3 Influence of wedge geometry

Therefore, the better hull form can be the variant-3 and variant-4, where in all cases
the water entrainment is assured with least viscous pressure.

32
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) Basehull

(b) Variant-1 (c) Variant-2

(d) Variant-3 (e) Variant-4

Figure 6.2: Streamlines and pressure plot of stern tunnel flow in deep water

33
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) Basehull

(b) Variant-3 (c) Variant-4

Figure 6.3: Streamlines and pressure plot of stern tunnel flow in shallow water

34
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

6.3.4 Nominal wake

Nominal viscous wake is analysed for various water depth to vessel draft ratio (h/T)
ratios at speed of 4knots and 9knots in fully loaded condition. Figure 6.5 shows
form factor variation for two speeds As h/T ratio is decreasing, wake is increasing
exponentially. This effect has to be considered while designing propeller for vessel
operating in shallow water conditions.

6.3.5 Form factor

Form factor values are calculated for various h/T ratios for 4knots and 9knots speed.As
h/T ratio is decreasing, form factor is increasing exponentially. It is observed that,
the difference between form factor at two different speeds are minimal 3% approx.
Therefore, the result is in good agreement with assumption of form factor is constant
for different speeds but strongly influenced by the h/T ratio.

6.3.6 Squat

The flow beneath vessels operating at small underwater clearance are more horizontal
due to bottom proximity. This larger horizontal component of velocity changes
pressure distribution which leads to more dynamic sinkage and changes in trim[3,8].
Various squat formulas were developed for estimating maximum squat for vessels
operating in restricted and open water conditions with satisfactory results. The
most commonly used formulae are Barrass, Hooft, Eryuzlu ,Icorels, Yoshimura and
Romisch.[9]
Squat values obtained by using various empirical methods and from CFD for speeds
4knots (h/T=1.18) and 9knots (h/T=1.78) are tabulated in Table 7.

Baraas[8]:
K · Cb · Vk2
Smax = (6.1)
100
Eryuzlu[8]:
h2 Vs h
SB = 0.298 · ( √ )2.289 ( )−2.97 · Kb (6.2)
T gT T

35
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) wake at 4m water depth

(b) wake at 17m water depth

Figure 6.4: Wake plot in deep (h=17m) and shallow water(h=4m)

36
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) Nominal wake variation for varying water depth to vessel depth at two speed 4knots and
9knots

(b) Form factor variation for varying water depth to vessel depth at two speed 4knots and
9knots

Figure 6.5: Nominal wake and form factor comparison for two different h/T ratios at
two different speeds

37
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Hooft[8]:
∇ F n2h
Sm = Cz · 2 · p (6.3)
Lpp (1 − F n2h )
Icorels[9]:
∇ F n2h
Sm = Cs · · p (6.4)
L2pp (1 − F n2h )
Yoshimura[9]:

1 Cb 1 Cb 2 Ve2
SB = [(0.7 + 1.5 )( ) + 15 ( )] (6.5)
(h/T ) Lp p/B (h/T ) Lp p/B g

Romisch[9]:
SB = CV CF K∆T T (6.6)

where,

K = 5.74S 0.76
Vk =Vessel speed in knots
S is equivalent to 0.1 for unrestricted channel
Kb =1 for unrestricted channel
Vs =Vessel speed in m/s
√
F nh = Vs / gh; depth Froude number
Cz =1.4 to 1.53
Cs =2.4
Ve = Vs for unrestrcited channels
CV = 8(V /Vcr )[(V /Vcr − 0.5)4 + 0.0625]
p
K∆T = 0.155 ( Th )
√
Vc r = 0.58( ThLB )0.125 gh

6.3.7 Wave resistance

Deep water and shallow water waves are having similar wave length whereas wave
height is higher in case of shallow water (h/T=1.78). Change in Kelvin wave pattern
is observed from deep water waves to shallow water waves as shown in Figure 17 and
Figure 18 respectively. This is in good agreement with subcritical range of vessels[6].

38
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 6.2: Comparison of CFD squat values with empirical formulae at different speeds

speed V=4knots V=9Knots

Method SB %change from CFD SB %change from CFD
Barras 0.131 -27 0.522 -26
Eryuzlu 0.084 18 0.358 13
Hooft 0.076 26 0.317 23
Icorels 0.094 9 0.388 6
Yoshimura 0.090 13 0.352 15
Romisch 0.108 -5 0.261 37
CFD 0.103 – 0.413 –

Resistance is estimated using DTC empirical method [7] and CFD using in STAR
CCM+. Resistance graphs are shown in Figure 19.

6.4 CFD Open water analysis

An optimum hull form, variant-4 is chosen for further investigation at self-propulsion
point in both deep water and shallow water against base hull. A twin screw ducted
propeller is designed based on VOF resistance data obtained from CFD- bare hull
resistance tests, carried out in shallow water case for base hull, where the resistance is
high in all cases. A standard Ka series is used to obtain optimum propeller parameters
and propeller blade offset details. Standard 19A nozzle with length to diameter (L/D)
ratio 0.5 is used as a duct for propeller. Top most part of the duct is integrated to
hull form due to space constrain in shallow waters. Open water tests are simulated
using CFD to conform the published open water Kt, Kq, and efficiency lines. It is
observed that the values of Kt and Kq are not less than 2.5% compared to Ka series
ducted propellers open water characteristics.

Table 6.3: Propeller Parameters

S.No Parameters CT
1 Diameter 1.45
2 Number of blades 4
3 Blade area ratio 0.6
4 Pitch to diameter ratio 1.018

39
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) Deep water wave pattern

(b) Shallow water wave pattern

Figure 6.6: Comparison of deep and shallow water waves for base hull

40
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 6.7: Non-dimensional representation of wave heights for both deep water and
shallow water

Figure 6.8: Open water curve comparison with Ka-series ducted propellers

6.5 Self-Propulsion
The self-Propulsion tests are carried out for base hull and variant-3 using double
body analysis with body rotating propeller. In each case self-propulsion point is
attained by keeping vessel speed constant and RPM is varied for net thrust force
value equal to zero. Where the net thrust force is defined as the difference between

41
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

hull drag and to the total propeller plus duct thrust developed. The engine power
and RPM are restricted to 450kW and 410rpm respectively. The same engine details
have been used while designing propeller. These engine data has taken considering
economics if inland shipping.

Initially, basehull is investigated for 9knots in both deep and shallow water
case and it is observed that this speed is impossible to attain due to interference
effect of stern tunnel wedge and propeller. The high angle of wedge has become
an obstruction to the propeller slipstream and causes high pressure point on wedge
shape. This phenomenon can be observed form figure 6.10 and figure 6.12. Due to
this pressure point the viscous pressure component has grown to an larger extent
which are unrealistic and demanding high power. Furthermore, the best performing
hull from resistance test, variant-3, has also investigated for self-propulsion point
at 9knots and 7knots speed and observed that the pressure point and velocity
obstruction has greatly reduced. The results for 9knots and 7knots speed for deep
and shallow water are shown in table 6.4 and propeller performance coefficients are
shown in table 6.5. Variant-3 is performing well at all cases and observed that it has
highest propeller efficiency.

Finally, basehull model is compared with model test data obtained from IWAI and
from table 6.6 it can be seen that the order of QPC is same. Therefore, the
self-propulsion CFD results are justified for basehull. However, a further experimental
investigation is required for other variants for which a model propeller is made to
investigate the wedge effects on propeller. The model propeller is manufactured by
5-axis CNC machine and final propeller is shown in figure 8.2

42
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) Base hull (b) Variant-3

(c) Base hull (d) Variant-3

Figure 6.9: Velocity plot of stern and stern tunnel for 9knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom

(a) Base hull (b) Variant-3

(c) Base hull (d) Variant-3

Figure 6.10: Velocity plot of stern and stern tunnel for 7knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom

43
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

(a) Base hull (b) Variant-3

(c) Base hull (d) Variant-3

Figure 6.11: Pressure plot of stern and stern tunnel for 9knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom

(a) Base hull (b) Variant-3

(c) Base hull (d) Variant-3

Figure 6.12: Pressure plot of stern and stern tunnel for 7knots in deep water on top
and shallow water on bottom

44
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 6.4: Self-Propulsion point at two speeds 7knots and 9 knots for two variants
base hull and variant-3 in both deep and shallow water(h/T=1.78) depth

Variant depth VS N T Q RT Q0
– – Knots rpm kN kN.m kN kN.m
Base hull Deep Water 9 410 73.2 13 34.3 12.39
Base hull Shallow Water 9 410 78.5 13.4 34.3 12.73
Variant-3 Deep Water 9 297 30.5 6.0 25.9 5.96
Variant-3 Shallow Water 9 305 35.5 6.8 28.5 6.55
Base hull Deep Water 7 360 59.6 10.2 20.9 9.74
Base hull Shallow Water 7 330 51.5 8.7 21.8 8.34
Variant-3 Deep Water 7 230 18.7 3.7 16.0 0.31
Variant-3 Shallow Water 7 235 21.5 4.1 17.5 0.38

Table 6.5: Wake fraction, thrust deduction factor, efficiencies and power delivered at
two speeds 7knots and 9 knots for two variants base hull and variant-3 in both deep
and shallow water(h/T=1.78) depth

Variant depth VS w t ηH η0 ηR QPC PD

– – Knots – – – – – – kW
Base hull Deep Water 9 0.41 0.53 0.8 0.45 0.95 0.34 558
Base hull Shallow Water 9 0.41 0.56 0.74 0.39 0.95 0.28 575
Variant-3 Deep Water 9 0.28 0.15 1.18 0.55 0.98 0.64 188
Variant-3 Shallow Water 9 0.35 0.20 1.24 0.51 0.97 0.61 217
Base hull Deep Water 7 0.29 0.65 0.5 0.41 0.95 0.19 385
Base hull Shallow Water 7 0.44 0.58 0.75 0.37 0.96 0.27 301
Variant-3 Deep Water 7 0.31 0.14 1.25 0.53 0.99 0.66 89
Variant-3 Shallow Water 7 0.38 0.18 1.33 0.50 0.97 0.64 100

Table 6.6: Comparison of model test and CFD results at 7Knots speed in shallow
water h/T=1.78

Variant depth VS
– – Knots
PD 770 601
RT 65 44
Pe f f 234 158
QPC 0.30 0.26

45
Chapter 7

Conclusion

To a large extent, fuel savings along with propeller immersion at low drafts can be
attained by optimizing stern tunnel design for inland vessels operating in shallow
water subcritical regime.

Wave lengths in subcritical regime is more or less same as compared to deep

water waves. However, there is an increase in deep water wave height compared to
shallow water waves. In shallow waters, there is a marginal increase of frictional
resistance due to overspeed next to hull.

Form factor increases with decrease in h/T ratio. Which reflects increase in
viscous pressure resistance (Rvp) and this should be considered when extrapolating
model resistance to full scale. Nominal wake also increases rapidly with decrease
in h/T ratio. Therefore, it is important to take this into account while designing
propeller for shallow waters.

Squat values obtained are in general agreement with CFD estimation and the
empirical methods. Therefore, the empirical method could be used at preliminary
design stage to estimate under keel clearance for shallow water operations [9].

Influence of stern tunnel wedge shape on propeller performance is considerably

high. Higher wedge angle more prone to increase in obstruction to propeller

46
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION

slipstream and can cause rapid increase in pressure over the wedge. This phenomenon
will lead to reduce the propeller overall performance.

47
Chapter 8

Future work

1. Resistance and self-propulsion tests has to be carried out using prepared hull
and propeller models and compare with CFD results obtained in this thesis.

Figure 8.1: Fibre reinforced plastic Model hull

2. Stern tunnel transom wedge shape effects on propeller and their impact on hull
and propeller induced vibrations. Stern tunnel shape will be decided based on

48
CHAPTER 8. FUTURE WORK

Figure 8.2: Model propeller manufactured using 5-axis CNC machine

minimum noise to reduce the effect on marine mammals.

3. Study of flow characteristics when propeller is in action using LES. For optimized
propeller, investigate the effects of propeller slip stream on rudder. Obtain a
better stern tunnel with higher rudder lift.

4. Study of stern tunnel wedge shape influence on manoeuvring parameters.

49
Bibliography

[1] A. Lyakhovitsky, “Shallow water and supercritical ships,” 2007.

[2] G. Luthra, K. Tang, et al., “Improvement of inland waterway vessel and barge
tow performance: Translations of selected chinese, german and russian technical
articles,” tech. rep., University of Michigan, 1982.

[3] E. Rotteveel, R. Hekkenberg, and A. van der Ploeg, “Inland ship stern optimization
in shallow water,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 141, pp. 555–569, 2017.

[4] A. G. . S. C. Sorenson, “Report on collected data resulting methology for inland

shipping,” 2004.

[5] I. . R. Procedures and Guidelines, “Recommended procedures and guidelines

practical guidelines for ship cfd 2011,” 2011.

[6] Y. Liu1 , L. Zou, Z. Zou, T. Lu, and J. Liu, “Numerical predictions of hydrodynamic
forces and squat of ships in confined waters,”

[7] H. Raven, “A computational study of shallow-water effects on ship viscous

resistance,” in 29th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, 2012.

[8] P. S. Serban and V. N. Panaitescu, “Comparison between formulas of maximum

ship squat,” 2015.

[9] L. Larsson and H. Raven, “The principles of naval architecture series,” Ship resis-
tance and flow, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 2010.

50
Appendix A

Propeller drawing code in python

#input parameters
P_Engine=450
n=390
D=1.45
d_boss=D*0.167
v=9
h=2.05
R_t=np.array([10,24.4,47.5,96.97])
V=np.array([3,5,7,9])
#_r=float(input("Enter Gear Ratio: "))
#shaft_eff=float(input("Enter shaft efficiency: "))

w=.2
t=.2
eta_r=.98
rho=1
z=4

#nozzle data:
L_D=0.5

Kqe=P_Engine*eta_r/(2*3.144444*rho*D**5*(n/60)**3)

print(Kqe)
#variables
#p_d=float(input("Enter p_d start value: "))

#ka 4.55 series polinomials

bar1=0.55
bar2=0.7
bar=0.55
p_d=0
while p_d<=1.7:

51
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

J=v*(1-w)*0.5144/(n/60*D)

p_d=0.0001+p_d

Ct_55=np.array([-0.375,-0.203050,0.830306,-2.74693,0,0,0.067548 c
,→ ,0 ,2.030070,-0.392301,-0.611743,4.31984,-0.34 c
,→ 1290,0,0,-3.031670,0, 0,-2.007860 ,2.836970,0,0 c
,→ ,0.391304,-0.994962,0,0,0,0.015742,0,0,0.043782,0,0,0])
i=np.array([0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,5 c
,→ ,5,5,5,6,6,6,6])
j=np.array([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3,0,1,2,0 c
,→ ,1,2,4,0,2,4,6])
Kt_55=p_d**i*J**j*Ct_55
Kt_55=sum(Kt_55)
Cq_55=np.array([-0.034700, 0.018568, 0, 0, c
,→ -0.195582, 0.317452, -0.093739, c
,→ 0.022850, 0.158951, -0.048433, 0, c
,→ 0.024157, 0,-0.123376, 0,-0.212253, c
,→ 0,0,0,0.156133,0,0,0,0,0.030740,0.073587,-0.031826,-0 c
,→ .014568,-0.109363,0.043862,0.007947,0.038275,-0.021971,0.0007 c
,→ ])
Kqp_55=p_d**i*J**j*Cq_55
Kqp_55=sum(Kqp_55)
Ctd=np.array([-0.045100,0,0,-0.663741,-0.244626,0,0,0,0.244461,-0 c
,→ .578464,1.116820,0.751953,0,0,-0.089165,0,-0.146178,-0.917516 c
,→ ,0,0.068186,0.174041,0.102331,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-0.008581,0,0,0 c
,→ ])
Ktd_55=p_d**i*J**j*Cq_55
Ktd_55=sum(Ktd_55)

Ct=np.array([0.03055,-0.148687,0,-0.391137,0,0,0,0 ,-0.432 c
,→ 612 ,0,0,0.667657,0.285076,-0.172529,0,0,0,0, 0c
,→ ,0 ,-0.017293,0])
Kt_70=p_d**0*J**0*Ct[0]+Ct[1]*p_d**0*J**1+Ct[2]*p_d**0*J**2+Ct[3] c
,→ *p_d**0*J**3+Ct[4]*p_d**0*J**4+Ct[5]*p_d**0*J**5+Ct[6]*p_d**0 c
,→ *J**6+Ct[7]*p_d**1*J**0+Ct[8]*p_d**1*J**1+Ct[9]*p_d**1*J**2+C c
,→ t[10]*p_d**1*J**6+Ct[11]*p_d**2*J**0+Ct[12]*p_d**2*J**2+Ct[13 c
,→ ]*p_d**3*J**0+Ct[14]*p_d**3*J**2+Ct[15]*p_d**3*J**6+Ct[16]*p_ c
,→ d**4*J**0+Ct[17]*p_d**4*J**3+Ct[18]*p_d**5*J**1+Ct[19]*p_d**6 c
,→ *J**0+Ct[20]*p_d**6*J**1+Ct[21]*p_d**6*J**2

Cq=[0.006735, 0, -0.016306, 0, -0.007 c

,→ 244, 0, 0, 0, 0, -0.024012 c
,→ , 0, 0, 0.005193, 0.046605, c
,→ 0, 0, -0.007366, 0, 0, c
,→ -0.00173, -0.000337, 0.000861]

52
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

Kqp_70=p_d**0*J**0*Cq[0]+Cq[1]*p_d**0*J**1+Cq[2]*p_d**0*J**2+Cq[3 c
,→ ]*p_d**0*J**3+Cq[4]*p_d**0*J**4+Cq[5]*p_d**0*J**5+Cq[6]*p_d** c
,→ 0*J**6+Cq[7]*p_d**1*J**0+Cq[8]*p_d**1*J**1+Cq[9]*p_d**1*J**2+ c
,→ Cq[10]*p_d**1*J**6+Cq[11]*p_d**2*J**0+Cq[12]*p_d**2*J**2+Cq[1 c
,→ 3]*p_d**3*J**0+Cq[14]*p_d**3*J**2+Cq[15]*p_d**3*J**6+Cq[16]*p c
,→ _d**4*J**0+Cq[17]*p_d**4*J**3+Cq[18]*p_d**5*J**1+Cq[19]*p_d** c
,→ 6*J**0+Cq[20]*p_d**6*J**1+Cq[21]*p_d**6*J**2

Ctd=[0.076594, 0.075223, -0.061881, -0.13809 c

,→ 4, 0, -0.37062, 0.323447, -0.2713 c
,→ 37, -0.687921, 0.225189, -0.081101, c
,→ 0.666028, 0.734285, -0.202467, -c
,→ 0.54249, -0.016149, 0, 0.099819, c
,→ 0.030084, 0, 0, -0.001876]
Ktd_70=p_d**0*J**0*Ctd[0]+Ctd[1]*p_d**0*J**1+Ctd[2]*p_d**0*J**2+C c
,→ td[3]*p_d**0*J**3+Ctd[4]*p_d**0*J**4+Ctd[5]*p_d**0*J**5+Ctd[6 c
,→ ]*p_d**0*J**6+Ctd[7]*p_d**1*J**0+Ctd[8]*p_d**1*J**1+Ctd[9]*p_ c
,→ d**1*J**2+Ctd[10]*p_d**1*J**6+Ctd[11]*p_d**2*J**0+Ctd[12]*p_d c
,→ **2*J**2+Ctd[13]*p_d**3*J**0+Ctd[14]*p_d**3*J**2+Ctd[15]*p_d* c
,→ *3*J**6+Ctd[16]*p_d**4*J**0+Ctd[17]*p_d**4*J**3+Ctd[18]*p_d** c
,→ 5*J**1+Ctd[19]*p_d**6*J**0+Ctd[20]*p_d**6*J**1+Ctd[21]*p_d**6 c
,→ *J**2

Kqp=( Kqp_70- Kqp_55)*(bar-bar1)/(bar2-bar1)+Kqp_55

if round(Kqe,4)==round(Kqp,4):
pr80=(101.4*1000+rho*9.807*1000*(h-0.4*D)-1.724*1000)/(0.5*rh c
,→ o*1000*(v*0.5144*(1-w))**2)
p80_bar70=2.5988*J**(-1.853)
p80_bar55=3.178*J**(-1.834)
if round(pr80,4)<=round(p80_bar55,4) and
,→ round(pr80,4)>=round(p80_bar70,4):
bar=( bar2-
,→ bar1)*(pr80-p80_bar55)/(p80_bar70-p80_bar55)+bar1
Kt=( Kt_70- Kt_55)*(bar-bar1)/(bar2-bar1)+Kt_55
Ktd=( Ktd_70- Ktd_55)*(bar-bar1)/(bar2-bar1)+Ktd_55
eta=(J*Kt/(2*3.14*Kqp))
T=Kt*rho*(n/60)**2*D**4
else:
if round(pr80,4)>=round(p80_bar55,4):
bar=bar1
Kt=Kt_55
Ktd=Ktd_55
eta=(J*Kt/(2*3.14*Kqp))

else:

53
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

print("cavitation criteria is not complying. change

,→ propeller design parameters")

break

else:
print("inprogress")

J_chart=np.zeros(4)

Va=np.zeros(4)

T=np.zeros(4)
Kt_p=np.zeros(4)
Kq_p=np.zeros(4)
eta_p=np.zeros(4)
Kt_J2xJ2=np.zeros(4)
J_f=np.zeros(4)
Kt_f=np.zeros(4)
Kq_p=np.zeros(4)
eta_f=np.zeros(4)
n_p=np.zeros(4)
Pb=np.zeros(4)
Pb_e=np.zeros(4)

for k in range(0,4):
while J_chart[k]<=1.2:

J_chart[k]=0.0001+J_chart[k]

Ct_55=np.array([-0.375,-0.203050,0.830306,-2.74693,0,0,0.0675 c
,→ 48 ,0 ,2.030070,-0.392301,-0.611743,4.31984 c
,→ ,-0.341290,0,0,-3.031670,0, 0,-2.007860 ,2. c
,→ 836970,0,0,0.391304,-0.994962,0,0,0,0.015742,0,0,0.043782 c
,→ ,0,0,0])
i=np.array([0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4 c
,→ ,4,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6])
j=np.array([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,0,1,2,3,0,1,2,3,0,1 c
,→ ,2,0,1,2,4,0,2,4,6])
Kt_55=p_d**i*J_chart[k]**j*Ct_55
Kt_55=sum(Kt_55)

54
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

Cq_55=np.array([-0.034700, 0.018568, 0, c
,→ 0, -0.195582, 0.317452, -0.093739, c
,→ 0.022850, 0.158951, -0.048433, c
,→ 0, 0.024157, 0,-0.123376, 0, c
,→ -0.212253, 0,0,0,0.156133,0,0,0,0,0.030740,0.07358 c
,→ 7,-0.031826,-0.014568,-0.109363,0.043862,0.007947,0.03827 c
,→ 5,-0.021971,0.0007])
Kqp_55=p_d**i*J_chart[k]**j*Cq_55
Kqp_55=sum(Kqp_55)
Ctd=np.array([-0.045100,0,0,-0.663741,-0.244626,0,0,0,0.24446 c
,→ 1,-0.578464,1.116820,0.751953,0,0,-0.089165,0,-0.146178,- c
,→ 0.917516,0,0.068186,0.174041,0.102331,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-0. c
,→ 008581,0,0,0])
Ktd_55=p_d**i*J_chart[k]**j*Cq_55
Ktd_55=sum(Ktd_55)

Ct=np.array([0.03055,-0.148687,0,-0.391137,0,0,0,0 ,-0 c
,→ .432612 ,0,0,0.667657,0.285076,-0.172529,0,0,0,0, c
,→ 0,0 ,-0.017293,0])
Kt_70=p_d**0*J_chart[k]**0*Ct[0]+Ct[1]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**1+C c
,→ t[2]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**2+Ct[3]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**3+Ct[4 c
,→ ]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**4+Ct[5]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**5+Ct[6]*p c
,→ _d**0*J_chart[k]**6+Ct[7]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**0+Ct[8]*p_d* c
,→ *1*J_chart[k]**1+Ct[9]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**2+Ct[10]*p_d**1 c
,→ *J_chart[k]**6+Ct[11]*p_d**2*J_chart[k]**0+Ct[12]*p_d**2* c
,→ J_chart[k]**2+Ct[13]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**0+Ct[14]*p_d**3*J c
,→ _chart[k]**2+Ct[15]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**6+Ct[16]*p_d**4*J_ c
,→ chart[k]**0+Ct[17]*p_d**4*J_chart[k]**3+Ct[18]*p_d**5*J_c c
,→ hart[k]**1+Ct[19]*p_d**6*J_chart[k]**0+Ct[20]*p_d**6*J_ch c
,→ art[k]**1+Ct[21]*p_d**6*J_chart[k]**2

Cq=[0.006735, 0, -0.016306, 0, -0 c
,→ .007244, 0, 0, 0, 0, -c
,→ 0.024012, 0, 0, 0.005193, 0.0 c
,→ 46605, 0, 0, -0.007366, 0, c
,→ 0, -0.00173, -0.000337, 0.00 c
,→ 0861]

55
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

Kqp_70=p_d**0*J_chart[k]**0*Cq[0]+Cq[1]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**1+ c
,→ Cq[2]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**2+Cq[3]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**3+Cq[ c
,→ 4]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**4+Cq[5]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**5+Cq[6]* c
,→ p_d**0*J_chart[k]**6+Cq[7]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**0+Cq[8]*p_d c
,→ **1*J_chart[k]**1+Cq[9]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**2+Cq[10]*p_d** c
,→ 1*J_chart[k]**6+Cq[11]*p_d**2*J_chart[k]**0+Cq[12]*p_d**2 c
,→ *J_chart[k]**2+Cq[13]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**0+Cq[14]*p_d**3* c
,→ J_chart[k]**2+Cq[15]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**6+Cq[16]*p_d**4*J c
,→ _chart[k]**0+Cq[17]*p_d**4*J_chart[k]**3+Cq[18]*p_d**5*J_ c
,→ chart[k]**1+Cq[19]*p_d**6*J_chart[k]**0+Cq[20]*p_d**6*J_c c
,→ hart[k]**1+Cq[21]*p_d**6*J_chart[k]**2

Ctd=[0.076594, 0.075223, -0.061881, -0.1 c

,→ 38094, 0, -0.37062, 0.323447, c
,→ -0.271337, -0.687921, 0.225189, c
,→ -0.081101, 0.666028, 0.734285, c
,→ -0.202467, -0.54249, -0.016149, c
,→ 0, 0.099819, 0.030084, 0, c
,→ 0, -0.001876]
Ktd_70=p_d**0*J_chart[k]**0*Ctd[0]+Ctd[1]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]** c
,→ 1+Ctd[2]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**2+Ctd[3]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**3 c
,→ +Ctd[4]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**4+Ctd[5]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**5+ c
,→ Ctd[6]*p_d**0*J_chart[k]**6+Ctd[7]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**0+C c
,→ td[8]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**1+Ctd[9]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**2+Ct c
,→ d[10]*p_d**1*J_chart[k]**6+Ctd[11]*p_d**2*J_chart[k]**0+C c
,→ td[12]*p_d**2*J_chart[k]**2+Ctd[13]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**0+ c
,→ Ctd[14]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**2+Ctd[15]*p_d**3*J_chart[k]**6 c
,→ +Ctd[16]*p_d**4*J_chart[k]**0+Ctd[17]*p_d**4*J_chart[k]** c
,→ 3+Ctd[18]*p_d**5*J_chart[k]**1+Ctd[19]*p_d**6*J_chart[k]* c
,→ *0+Ctd[20]*p_d**6*J_chart[k]**1+Ctd[21]*p_d**6*J_chart[k] c
,→ **2

Kt_p[k]=( Kt_70- Kt_55)*(bar-bar1)/(bar2-bar1)+Kt_55

Va[k]= V[k]*(1-w)*0.5144
T[k]=R_t[k]/(1-t)
Kt_J2xJ2[k]=(T[k]*J_chart[k]**2)/(rho*D**2*Va[k]**2)

if round(Kt_J2xJ2[k],3)==round(Kt_p[k],3):
Kq_p[k]=( Kqp_70- Kqp_55)*(bar-bar1)/(bar2-bar1)+Kqp_55
n_p[k]=Va[k]*60/(J_chart[k]*D)
eta_p[k]=J_chart[k]*Kt_p[k]/(2*3.141*Kq_p[k])
J_f[k]=Va[k]*60/(n_p[k]*D)
Pb[k]=Kq_p[k]*rho*(n_p[k]/60)**3*D**5*2*3.144
Pb_e[k]=n_p[k]*P_Engine/n
# n.append(n_p)
else:

56
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

print("inprogress")
V_n=sum((J_f*(390/60)*1.45))/4/0.8/0.5144
plt.figure(1)
plt.plot(V,Pb)
plt.plot(V,Pb_e)
plt.plot((V_n,V_n,V_n,V_n),Pb_e)

print(round (Kt,4))
print(round (Kqp,4))
print(round (Ktd,4))
print(round (eta,4))
print(round (p_d,4))
print(round (J,4))
print(round (bar,4))

#propeller blade sections

r_R=np.array([0.2,0.3,0.4 ,0.5 ,0.6, 0.7, 0.8 ,0.9 ,1.0])

#p_dis=np.array([0.822,0.887 ,0.95 ,0.992, 1, 1 ,1 ,1.0,1])
p_dis=np.array([1,1 ,1 ,1, 1, 1 ,1 ,1.0,1])
c1=np.array([67.15,
,→ 76.59,85.19,93.01,100,105.86,110.08,112.66,112.88])
x0_c=np.array([0.3694,.4042,.4374,.4702,.5013,.5293,.5504,.5633,.5644 c
,→ ])
xm_c=np.array([.3498,.3976,.4602,.4913,.4998,.5,.5,.5,.5])
t_D=np.array([.04,.0352,.03,.0245,.019,.0138,.0092,.0061,.005])

#Blade Section Back Ordinates

u1_0=np.array([0.3333,0.2118,0.1347,0.0781,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_005=np.array([0.2062,0.1030,0.0444,0.0153,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_01=np.array([0.1604,0.0828,0.0389,0.0136,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_02=np.array([0.1052,0.0615,0.0292,0.0102,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_04=np.array([0.0437,0.0272,0.0139,0.0051,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_06=np.array([0.0146,0.0083,0.0042,0.0017,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_08=np.array([0.0021,0.0012,0,0,0,0,0,0,0])
u1_1=np.array([0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0])

u1=np.transpose(np.array([u1_0,u1_005,u1_01,u1_02,u1_04,u1_06,u1_08,u c
,→ 1_1]))

v1_0=np.array([0,00,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,0,0])
v1_005=np.array([0.2740,0.2757,0.2583,0.2224,0.2044,0.2288,0.269,0.31 c
,→ 87,0.3231])
v1_01=np.array([0.3875,0.3787,0.3472,0.3022,0.2859,0.3079,0.3439,0.38 c
,→ 87,0.3925])

57
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

v1_02=np.array([0.5500,0.5302,0.5000,0.4584,0.4358,0.4531,0.4816,0.51 c
,→ 75,0.52])
v1_04=np.array([0.7719,0.7562,0.7361,0.7046,0.6826,0.6924,0.7084,0.72 c
,→ 94,0.73])
v1_06=np.array([0.9083,0.9006,0.8889,0.8710,0.8589,0.8633,0.8704,0.88 c
,→ 09,0.88])
v1_08=np.array([0.9792,0.9763,0.9722,0.9677,0.9647,0.9658,0.9676,0.97 c
,→ 17,0.97])
v1_1=np.array([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1])

v1=np.transpose(np.array([v1_0,v1_005,v1_01,v1_02,v1_04,v1_06,v1_08,v c
,→ 1_1]))

#Blade Section face Ordinates

u2_0=np.array([0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0])
u2_02=np.array([0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0])
u2_04=np.array([0.0001,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0])
u2_06=np.array([0.0177,0.0107,0.0056,0.0017,0,0,0,0,0])
u2_08=np.array([0.0729,0.0462,0.0236,0.0068,0,0,0,0,0])
u2_1=np.array([0.2021,0.1385,0.0917,0.0662,0,0,0,0,0])

u2=np.transpose(np.array([u2_0,u2_02,u2_04,u2_06,u2_08,u2_1]))

v2_0=np.array([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1])
v2_02=np.array([0.9500,0.9586,0.9625,0.966,0.9647,0.9658,0.9676,0.971 c
,→ 7,0.97])
v2_04=np.array([0.824,0.8414,0.8569,0.8642,0.8589,0.8633,0.8704,0.880 c
,→ 9,0.88])
v2_06=np.array([0.6365,0.6663,0.6694,0.6859,0.6826,0.6924,0.7084,0.72 c
,→ 94,0.73])
v2_08=np.array([0.3823,0.3905,0.4056,0.4177,0.4358,.4531,0.4816,0.517 c
,→ 5,0.52])
v2_1=np.array([0.0,0.0,0.0,0.00,0,0,0,0,0])

v2=np.transpose(np.array([v2_0,v2_02,v2_04,v2_06,v2_08,v2_1]))

x1_xm=np.array([1,0.95,0.9,0.8,0.6,0.4,0.2])
x2_xm=np.array([0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1])

t_tmax_le=np.array([0.12,0.124,0.127,0.13,0.134,0.143,0.17,0.245,0.24 c
,→ 5])
t_tmax_te=np.array([0.057,0.068,0.075,0.085,0.1,0.12,0.152,0.245,0.24 c
,→ 5])

t_te=np.zeros(9)
t_le=np.zeros(9)

58
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

theta_s=np.zeros(9)

c=np.zeros(9)
xm=np.zeros(9)
x0=np.zeros(9)
xs=np.zeros(9)
t=np.zeros(9)

x1=np.zeros((9,7))
yf1=np.zeros((9,7))
yb1=np.zeros((9,7))
yf11=np.zeros((9,7))
yb11=np.zeros((9,7))
z_c1=np.zeros((9,7))

x2=np.zeros((9,6))
yf2=np.zeros((9,6))
yb2=np.zeros((9,6))
yf22=np.zeros((9,6))
yb22=np.zeros((9,6))
z_c2=np.zeros((9,6))

xf=np.zeros((9,13))
xb=np.zeros((9,13))
xf_d=np.zeros((9,13))
xb_d=np.zeros((9,13))
yf=np.zeros((9,13))
yb=np.zeros((9,13))
zf_c2=np.zeros((9,13))
zb_c2=np.zeros((9,13))

theta_distr=np.arctan(p_dis*p_d/(3.144*r_R))

for i in range(0,9):

c[i]=((c1[i]/100)*1.969*D*bar/z)
xm[i]=xm_c[i]*c[i]
t[i]=t_D[i]*D
x0[i]=x0_c[i]*1.969*D*bar/z

t_le=t_tmax_le*t
t_te=t_tmax_te*t

####################expanded offset#######################

for i in range(0,9):

59
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

for j in range(0,7):

x1[i][j]=x0[i]-xm[i]+(x1_xm[j]*xm[i])
yf1[i][j]=((t[i]-t_le[i])*u1[i][j])
yb1[i][j]=(t[i]-t_le[i])*(v1[i][j]+u1[i][j])+t_le[i]
z_c1[i,j]=(r_R[i]*D/2)

for i in range(0,9):
for j in range(0,6):
yf2[i][j]=((t[i]-t_te[i])*u2[i][j])

yb2[i][j]=((t[i]-t_te[i])*(v2[i][j]+u2[i][j])+t_te[i])

z_c2[i,j]=(r_R[i]*D/2)

x2[i][j]=x0[i]-xm[i]-(x2_xm[j]*(c[i]-xm[i]))

x=np.concatenate((x1,x2),axis=1)
yff=np.concatenate((yf1,yf2),axis=1)
ybf=np.concatenate((yb1,yb2),axis=1)
z_c=np.concatenate((z_c1,z_c2),axis=1)

for i in range(0,9):
for j in range(0,13):
yf[i,j]=x[i,j]*np.sin(theta_distr[i])+yff[i,j]*np.cos(theta_d c
,→ istr[i])
yb[i,j]=x[i,j]*np.sin(theta_distr[i])+ybf[i,j]*np.cos(theta_d c
,→ istr[i])
xf[i,j]=x[i,j]*np.cos(theta_distr[i])-yff[i,j]*np.sin(theta_d c
,→ istr[i])
xb[i,j]=x[i,j]*np.cos(theta_distr[i])-ybf[i,j]*np.sin(theta_d c
,→ istr[i])

for i in range(0,9):
for j in range(0,13):

xf_d[i,j]=((r_R[i]*D/2))*np.sin(xf[i,j]/(r_R[i]*D/2))
xb_d[i,j]=((r_R[i]*D/2))*np.sin(xb[i,j]/(r_R[i]*D/2))

zf_c2[i,j]=((r_R[i]*D/2))*np.cos(xf[i,j]/(r_R[i]*D/2))
zb_c2[i,j]=((r_R[i]*D/2))*np.cos(xb[i,j]/(r_R[i]*D/2))

for i in range(0,9):
plt.figure(2)
plt.plot(xf_d[i,:],yf[i,:])
plt.plot(xb_d[i,:],yb[i,:])

60
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

#
hub_len_f=(-x[0,0])*1.1
hub_len_b=(-x[0,12])*1.1
hub_dia=0.167*D
hub_dia_2=hub_dia+hub_len_f*2*2/3
hub_dia_1=hub_dia-hub_len_f*2*2/3

#duct offsets:

x_l=np.array([0,0.0125,0.025,0.05,0.075,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25,0.3,0.4,0.5 c
,→ ,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,0.95,1])
yi_l=np.array([0.1825,0.1466,0.128,0.1007,0.08,0.0634,0.0387,0.0217,0 c
,→ .011,0.0048,0,0,0,0.0029,0.0082,0.0145,0.0186,0.0236])
yo_l=np.array([0.1825,0.2072,0.2107,0.208,0.2042,0.2004,0.1928,0.1852 c
,→ ,0.1776,0.1700,0.1548,0.1396,0.1244,0.1092,0.0940,0.0788,0.0712,0 c
,→ .0636])

x_n=L_D*D*x_l
yi=L_D*D*yi_l
yo=L_D*D*yo_l

plt.figure(3)
plt.plot(x_n,yi)
plt.plot(x_n,yo)

x_n=np.concatenate((x_n,x_n),axis=0)
y_n=np.concatenate((yi,yo),axis=0)
zi=np.linspace(0,0,36)

with open("E:/Students/PRAVEEN/Thesis/03.WORK/08.Propeller
,→ Design/Python Code/offset_f.txt", "w") as file_handler:
for i in range(len(r_R)):
# rR=""
# rR=str(r_R[i])
# rR+="\n"
# file_handler.write(rR)

for j in range(0,13):

out_string_f=""
out_string_f+=str(xf_d[i][j])
out_string_f+=","+str(yf[i,j])
out_string_f+=","+str(zf_c2[i,j])
out_string_f+="\n"
file_handler.write(out_string_f)

61
APPENDIX A. PROPELLER DRAWING CODE IN PYTHON

with open("E:/Students/PRAVEEN/Thesis/03.WORK/08.Propeller
,→ Design/Python Code/offset_b.txt", "w") as file_handler:
for i in range(len(r_R)):
# rR=""
# rR=str(r_R[i])
# rR+="\n"
# file_handler.write(rR)

for j in range(0,13):

out_string=""
out_string+=str(xb_d[i][j])
out_string+=","+str(yb[i,j])
out_string+=","+str(zb_c2[i,j])
out_string+="\n"
file_handler.write(out_string)
#
with open("E:/Students/PRAVEEN/Thesis/03.WORK/08.Propeller
,→ Design/Python Code/duct.txt", "w") as file_handler:
for i in range(len(x_n)):

out_string_y=""
out_string_y+=str(x_n[i])
out_string_y+=","+str(y_n[i])
out_string_y+=","+str(zi[i])
out_string_y+="\n"
file_handler.write(out_string_y)

62
Appendix B

Propeller drawing script in

Rhinopython

import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs
import Rhino
z=4
D=1.45
L_D=0.5
clearance=0.003
file = open("D:/Students/PRAVEEN/Thesis/03.WORK/08.Propeller
,→ Design/Python Code/offset_f.txt", "r")
offset_f = file.readlines()
file.close()

file = open("D:/Students/PRAVEEN/Thesis/03.WORK/08.Propeller
,→ Design/Python Code/offset_b.txt", "r")
offset_b = file.readlines()
file.close()
#
file = open("D:/Students/PRAVEEN/Thesis/03.WORK/08.Propeller
,→ Design/Python Code/duct.txt", "r")
duct = file.readlines()
file.close()
#
def face(text_f):
items_f = text_f.strip("()\n").split(",")
x = float(items_f[0])
y = float(items_f[1])
z = float(items_f[2])
return x, y, z
def back(text_b):
items_b = text_b.strip("()\n").split(",")
x = float(items_b[0])
y = float(items_b[1])
z = float(items_b[2])

63
APPENDIX B. PROPELLER DRAWING SCRIPT IN RHINOPYTHON

return x, y, z
#
def off(text_y):
items_y = text_y.strip("()\n").split(",")
x = float(items_y[0])
y = float(items_y[1])
z = float(items_y[2])
return x, y, z

c_id_f=[]
c_id_b=[]
d_id_f=[]
d_id_b=[]

offset_f = [face(curve) for curve in offset_f]

offset_b = [back(curve) for curve in offset_b]
duct = [off(curve) for curve in duct]

r_1_y=rs.AddInterpCurve(duct[0:18])
r_2_y=rs.AddInterpCurve(duct[18:36])
rs.RotateObject(r_1_y,(0,0,0),90)
rs.RotateObject(r_2_y,(0,0,0),90)
xform = rs.XformTranslation([-clearance-D/2,-L_D*D/2,0])
rs.TransformObjects(r_1_y, xform)
rs.TransformObjects(r_2_y, xform)
rs.AddRevSrf( r_1_y, ((0,0,0), (0,1,0)) )
rs.AddRevSrf( r_2_y, ((0,0,0), (0,1,0)) )
#
for i in range(0,9):

a=int(i*13)
b=a+13
r_1_f=rs.AddInterpCurve(offset_f[a:b])
r_1_b=rs.AddInterpCurve(offset_b[a:b])
c_id_f.append(rs.AddInterpCurve(offset_f[a:b]))
c_id_b.append(rs.AddInterpCurve(offset_b[a:b]))

if a==104:
obj=[r_1_f,r_1_b]
c=rs.AddLoftSrf(c_id_f)
d=rs.AddLoftSrf(c_id_b)
e=rs.AddLoftSrf(obj)
plane1 = rs.PlaneFromFrame((0,-0.12771095002468666,0),
,→ (0,0,1), (4,0,1) )
d1=rs.AddCircle(plane1,0.127)

64
APPENDIX B. PROPELLER DRAWING SCRIPT IN RHINOPYTHON

plane2 = rs.PlaneFromFrame((0,0.12771095002468666,0),
,→ (0,0,1), (4,0,1) )

d2=rs.AddCircle(plane2,.09)
obj2=[d1,d2]
f=rs.AddLoftSrf(obj2)
r_R_02f=rs.AddInterpCurve(offset_f[0:13])
r_R_02b=rs.AddInterpCurve(offset_b[0:13])

# r_R_02f=rs.ScaleObject( r_R_02f, (0,0,0), (1.1,1.1,1), True

,→ )
# r_R_02b=rs.ScaleObject( r_R_02b, (0,0,0), (1.1,1.1,1), True
,→ )
#
# xform = rs.XformTranslation([0,-0.5,0])
# rs.TransformObjects(r_1_y, xform)
# rs.TransformObjects(r_2_y, xform)

# p1 = rs.ProjectCurveToSurface(r_R_02f, f, (0,0,-1))
# p2 = rs.ProjectCurveToSurface(r_R_02b, f, (0,0,-1))

for j in range(0,z-1):
polar_array=j*360/z+360/z
arrAxis = (0,1,0)
arrXform = rs.XformRotation2(polar_array, arrAxis,
,→ (0,0,0))
rs.TransformObjects ((c,d,e), arrXform, True)

65
APPENDIX B. PROPELLER DRAWING SCRIPT IN RHINOPYTHON

66