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

net/publication/330357061

A mathematical model of the propeller pitch change mechanism for the

marine propulsion control design

Chapter · September 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 650

3 authors:

M. Altosole Michele Martelli

University of Naples Federico II Università degli Studi di Genova
3 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 734 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stefano Vignolo
Università degli Studi di Genova
11 PUBLICATIONS 191 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Ship energy efficiency. Design & Operation. View project

Autonomous Ship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michele Martelli on 15 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A mathematical model of the propeller pitch change mechanism for the
marine propulsion control design
M. Altosole & M. Martelli
Department of Naval Architecture and Electrical Engineering, Genoa, Italy
S. Vignolo
Department of Production Engineering, Thermal Energetic and Mathematical Models, Genoa, Italy

ABSTRACT: The paper is mainly focused on the mathematical model of the control pitch mechanism for a
marine controllable pitch propeller (CPP), able to perform the propeller blade position change and to give a
proper information about the oil pressures, produced inside the CPP hub. In fact, too high pressures can be re-
sponsible for the mechanism failure, then they should be always under examination by the ship automation.
With regard to the traditional representation of the few spindle torque data reported in literature, in the pro-
posed mathematical model the transportation inertial forces and the Coriolis inertial forces acting on the pro-
peller blade are evaluated taking into account the yaw motion of the ship, the propeller speed (including shaft
accelerations and decelerations) and the blade turning during the pitch change. On the basis of the introduced
procedure, it is developed the CPP model which is part of an overall propulsion simulator, representing the
dynamic behaviour of a twin-screw fast vessel. The aim of the work is to represent the ship propulsion dy-
namics by time domain simulation, on the ground of which the automation designers can develop and test
several propulsion control options. A brief description of the simulation approach adopted for the vessel crash
stop is illustrated at the end of this paper. In particular, the propulsion control action is studied taking into ac-
count machinery performance and constraints, including also the control pitch mechanism feedback in terms
of allowable forces and pressures.

1 INTRODUCTION moving part of this mechanism. For this reason, a

Since several years University of Genoa is involved
in the development of propulsion control systems for
naval vessels, mostly propelled by powerful gas tur-
bines driving controllable pitch propellers (CPPs).
The increasing complexity of these recent propul-
sion systems requires control system functions able
to manage high power in several propulsion configu-
rations and during critical manoeuvres of the ship
(slam start, crash stop, severe turning circles, etc.).
Simulation techniques may be a very useful tool
to represent the marine propulsion dynamics, on the
ground of which the automation designers can de-
velop and test several propulsion control options
(Altosole et al. 2008). From this point of view, a
good design and optimization of the whole control
system, based on simulation, entails the need to rep-
resent in details the dynamics of the control pitch
mechanism of the CPP, by means of a reliable time
domain numerical model. Although the CPPs are al-
ready in use for many years, a well known mathe-
matical procedure, able to consider all the several
involved phenomena, does not yet exist. The main
problems are due to an approximate knowledge of
the loads acting on the propeller blade and on the
possible solution for this kind of problem is de-
scribed hereinafter and consequently the correspond-
ing simulation model of the control pitch mechanism
has been developed. The model is able to perform
the propeller blade position change and to give a
proper information about the oil pressures, produced
inside the CPP hub. In fact, too high pressures can
be responsible for the mechanism failure, then they
should be always under examination by the ship
automation. In fact, optimizing the whole propulsion
control system of the vessel, especially in critical
conditions, means to find the proper compromise
between performance and safety. In particular, each
propulsive component, including the pitch change
mechanism, has to be safeguarded from possible
dangerous overloads; at the same time a prompt an-
swer of the propulsion system, fuel saving and re-
duced cavitation phenomena should be pursued by
the automation designer.
The proposed differential and algebraic equa-
tions, representing the CPP behaviour over time,
form one of the several submodels of the overall
propulsion simulator of the ship. By this simulation
approach, it is possible to describe the dynamic per-
formance of the CPP mechanism during soft or criti- blade and it is calculated by the simulation model of
cal manoeuvres of the ship. the pitch change mechanism.
The kind of the considered mechanism is illus-
trated in Fig. 2, where on the left it is possible to see
2 SIMULATION APPROACH the rotation of the blade carrier, driven by the piston
inside the CPP hub, while on the right it is described
The ship performance is simulated by means of an the pin slot working (Wind 1978).
overall mathematical model that is able to predict
the interactions among the dynamics of the propul-
sion plant, the control system and the ship motions.
The model is depending on time and it consists of a
set of differential equations, algebraic equations and
numerical tables that represent the various elements
of the propulsion system. All the main elements of
the propulsion plant such as engines and their gov-
ernors, hull, propeller, rudder, shaft line and tele-
graph are modelled as separated subsystems, linked
each other. The whole simulation model is illus-
trated in Fig. 1, where it is possible to see the pro-
pulsion simulator block, managed by the overall
controller through its main inputs.
Figure 2. Pitch change mechanism.

The calculation process for the propeller pitch

dynamics is illustrated in Fig. 3. The pitch setpoint,
depending on the bridge lever position, is trans-
formed, by the mechanism controller, into a proper
oil flow, acting on the piston; finally, by solving the
pressure and motion equations, described in the fol-
lowing, it is possible to achieve the actual value of
the propeller pitch.

PUMPS NUMBER
PITCH OIL FLOW
SETPOINT

Figure 1. Simulation scheme. CONTROLLER P1

DIFFERENTIAL
The control functions regard both the propulsion and EQUATIONS P2
Qs SOLVER
the electric power management (PMS), while the FORCES
& ACTUAL
simulator is able to represent machinery dynamics MOMENTS PITCH
and ship manoeuvrability (Altosole et al. 2010).
Every numerical submodel is developed by Matlab-
Simulink® software, a wide used platform for the
dynamic systems simulation.
In particular, propeller thrust T and torque Qo , Figure 3. Calculation process of the actual pitch.
calculated in the simulator block, are given by:
2 4
T   K  D (1) 3 MATHEMATICAL MODEL
t
2 5 3.1 Main differential equations
Q   K  D (2)
o q The proposed mathematical model relies on two
where  = sea water density; Kt = propeller thrust main differential equations.
coefficient; Kq = propeller torque coefficient;  = The first one is the motion equation of a blade
propeller speed; and D = propeller diameter. around its f3 axis:
Coefficients Kt and Kq are derived from the open 1
  (Qh  Qs  Q ) (3)
water propeller tests, as a function of the propeller I 33
advance coefficient and pitch. The actual value of
the pitch depends on loads acting on a propeller
where QS  QSI  QSH  QSFr = the total spindle
torque acting on the blade: QSI = inertial forces
torque, QSH = hydrodynamic forces torque, QSFr =
frictional forces torque; Q = torque due to the in-
teraction forces between propeller blade and blade
bearing; Qh = hydraulic torque; and I33 = moment
of inertia of the blade about the spindle axis f3.
The second differential equation describes the
motion of the cylinder:
Figure 5. Ship fixed frame.
Z
meq  x  A1 p1  A2 p2  B p x    i (4)
i 1
 The hub fixed e-frame Oe , e1 , e2 , e3  . This frame is
fixed to the hub. The positive unit vector e1 points
where x = cylinder position; A1 and A2 = yoke areas towards the bow, e3 coincides with the spindle
of the astern chamber and of the ahead chamber re- axis of a given blade and e 2  e 3  e1 . The origin
spectively; p1 and p2 = pressures inside the two Oe of the frame is in the center of the shaft line.
Z
chambers; Bp = damping coefficient; and i 1
 i is

the resultant of the reaction forces due to the interac-

tion between each blade and the piston (Z denoting
the number of blades).
To properly implement the differential equations
(3) and (4), we have to evaluate all the forces and
moments acting on a single blade. This will be
shown hereinafter.
Figure 6. Hub fixed frame.

The blade fixed f-frame O, f 1, f 2 , f 3  . This frame is

3.2 Reference frames
The reference frames used in this paper are the fol- fixed to any single blade. The unit vector f3 coin-
lowing ones: cides with the spindle axis of the blade, while the
 The Inertial n-frame On , n1, n2 , n3  . It is a local unit vectors f1 and f2 describe the rotation of the
geographical frame fixed to the Earth. The posi- blade around its spindle axis as indicated in Fig. 7.
tive unit vector n1 points towards the North, n2 The origin O coincides with Oe
points towards the East, and n3 points towards the
centre of the Earth. The origin On is located on
mean water free-surface at an appropriate loca-
tion.

Figure 7. Blade fixed frame.

Figure 4. Inertial frame.
 The ship fixed b-frame Ob , b1, b2 , b3  . This
frame is fixed to the hull. The positive unit vector
b1 points towards the bow, b2 points towards
starboard and b3 points downwards. Often, for
marine vehicles, the axes of this frame are chosen
to coincide with the principal axes of inertia; this
determines the position of the origin of the frame.
Our aim is to study the propeller blade motion in
the blade fixed frame. Therefore, we need to de-
scribe any involved angular velocity. To this end, by
using the angular velocity composition theorem, it is
possible to write the angular velocities of a single
blade and the hub respectively as:
         b  e   f
B    3 1 3
(5)
 H        b 3  e1 (6)
3.3 Inertial and weight forces F  2M  H  v G
C r
(12)
The yaw motion of the ship , the rotation of the pro-
F  M a o  M  H  [ H  (G  O)]  M  H  (G  O)
S
peller and the turning of the blade give rise to corre-
sponding Coriolis and transportation inertial forces (13)
acting on each blade in the e-frame. Moreover, grav- The total contribution of inertial and weight forces
ity yields a sinusoidal varying force. acting on a blade is then given by the sum:
More in detail, the Coriolis force is defined by:
FI  F F F
W S C
(14)
F    2  b  H  v P d
C r
(7)

In addition to this, we need also to explicitly repre-
sent the moments with respect to the origin O of the
the transportation force is expressed as: above forces, namely:
F     b a O   H   H  ( P  O)   H  ( P  O)d M O   ( P  O)  Fd
S

(15)

(8)
Making use of the definition of inertia tensor:
and the weight force is given by:
I O (v)    ( P  O)  [v  ( P  O)]d (16)
F    b gd  M g
W
(9) 


where ao = acceleration of the origin O with respect after some calculations, we get the final expressions
to the inertial frame; b = mass density of the pro- for the moments of the inertial forces:
peller blade; (P-O) = position vector of a generic
M O     I O ( H )   H  I O (  )  I O (    H )
C
point P of the blade with respect to the origin O; and
= whole set of the points making up the blade.
(17)
v P  v 0     ( P  O)   f 3  ( P  O)
r r
(10) M
S
 M (G  O)  a O   H  I O ( H )  I O (
H)
O

is the velocity of a generic point P of the blade eva- (18)

luated in the e-frame. where     f 3 denotes the angular velocity of the
blade evaluated in the e-frame. The moment due to
the weight force is:
M O  M (G  O)  g
W
(19)

The total moment due to inertial and weight forces

acting on a blade is then the sum:
MI M M M
W S C
(20)

3.4 Hydrodynamic forces

To predict hydrodynamic loads, different theoretical
methods are proposed in literature but they are diffi-
cult to apply because the computation time cost is
enormously high compared with the standard simu-
lation time of the propulsive system. Therefore, the
hydrodynamic forces are evaluated with a quasi-
steady methodology that takes into account the
Figure 8. Propeller reference frames. change of force acting on a blade using the open wa-
ter characteristic diagrams and the steady state posi-
Recalling the definition of centre of gravity for a tion of the center of pressure. We assume that the
blade: sum of all forces in the f1 direction results in a total
thrust and the sum of all forces in f2 direction results
1
M 
(G  O)   b ( P  O)d (11) in a tangential force (Q/r). The forces in f3 direction
are neglected. The hydrodynamic spindle torque
MHD,f3 and the bending moments MHD,f1 , MHD,f2 are
where M = total mass of a blade. defined as the components along the unit vectors f3,
We can express the inertial forces (7) and (8) in f1 and f2 respectively of the resultant moment of hy-
the simpler form: drodynamic forces with respect to the origin O.
 The resultant forces are assumed to act in the hy-
drodynamic centre (xCH,yCH,zCH), so:
 M f 1  0  M HD , f 1  M R , f 1  M I , f 1  0 
M R , f 1   M HD , f 1  M I , f 1 (29)
FHD,b1  T * (21)

Q*  M f 2  0  M I , f 2  M HD , f 2  M R , f 2  0 
FHD ,b 2  (22)
zCH M R , f 2   M I , f 2  M HD , f 2 (30)
We define the vector MRAD as the projection of the
reaction moment on the plane generated by f1 and f2.
where T* = single blade thrust; and Q* = required
Its modulus is given by::
torque by a single blade.
T M RAD  M 2 R, f 1  M 2 R , f 2
T*  (23) (31)
Z
Q The radial component FR.f3 is supposed to be un-
Q*  (24) iformly distributed (see qF in Fig. 10), while the
Z
force distribution generating MRAD is considered not
T and Q are evaluated using expression (1) and (2). uniform (see qM in Fig. 10). The sum of these two
If we assume that the system of forces forms a paral- loads distributions will result in a total load distribu-
lel system of vectors, we obtain : tion (see q in Fig. 10).
Q*
M HD,b1   FHD,b 2  z CH    z CH Mrad 
z CH (25)
M HD,b2  FHD,b1  zCH  T *  zCH f1 f2
(26)
Mr,f1 Mr,f2
Q*
M HD,b3   FHD,b1  yCH  FHD,b2  xCH  T *  yCH   xCH t
zCH (27)
f3 f3
3.5 Frictional forces qF qM

The blade bearing supports the propeller blade in the t t

axial and radial direction. Here the friction forces f3 f3

will be derived for each direction separately, follow-
ing the procedure proposed by Godjevac and coau-
thors (Godjevac et al. 2009).
RADIAL PART
AXIAL PART
Figure 9. Scheme of blade bearing.
In particular, from the statics forces and moments
equations we derive the expressions of the radial
component of the reaction force FR.f3 along f3 and
the reaction moment components MR,f1, and MR,f2:
q u>1 q u<1
t t
Figure 10. Distribution of bending moment and radial force
over radial part of the blade bearing.
The radial part of a blade bearing can be considered
as split in two portions: one in the fore direction and
the other in aft one. If the load due to the radial force
is higher than the load caused by MRAD, only the
fore portion will be loaded. On the contrary, the total
load results to be the sum of the loads acting on both
parts. We can define a coefficient that describes the
ratio between the radial force and the maximum
force generated by the MRAD:
FRAD  r
u
2M RAD (32)

F f3  0  FI , f 3  FHD, f 3  FR, f 3  0  FR. f 3  FI , f 3

(28)
The total load distribution, shown in Fig. 10, is then:
FRAD 2M RAD  sen  Fax,f1
q  qF  qM   f1
2r r  2r (33) Fax,f2

Fax
where r = radius of the blade bearing.
The tangential component of the friction force f2
density fFR is defined as:

f FR   q Figure 11. Axial contact situation .

(34)
Also in this case we impose the statics equations for
where  = static friction coefficient. forces and moments :
The torque due to the radial friction is :
QFR , RAD  
2
f FR r 2 d F AX , f 1  0  FHD, f 1  FI , f 1  FAX , f 1  0  FAX , f 1  FHD, f 1  FI , f 1
0

(35) (41)

The final expression of the radial friction torque de- F AX , f 2  0  FHD, f 2  FI , f 2  FAX , f 2  0  FAX , f 2  FHD, f 2  FI , f 2
pends on the value of the coefficient u; if u>1 from (42)
(35) we obtain : FAX  F 2
AX , f 1 F 2
AX , f 2
(43)
2
F 2M RAD sin( ) 
QFR , RAD   r 2   RAD  d   FRAD r We consider the interaction between the blade
0
2r 2r 2  (36)
carrier and the hub as a pointwise contact.
On the contrary, if u<1 we can proceed in the fol- So the torque yielded by the sum of the axial forces
lowing way . is given by :
First find the angle where the load (q) equals
zero is : QFR , AX    FAX  d a
(44)
where da = distance between the point where the
FRAD 2M RAD  sin  0 
 0 axial force is supposed to be applied and the friction
2r r  2r seat hub of the propeller root.
F r 
 0   arcsin  RAD    arcsin( u )
 2M RAD  (37) 3.6 Hydraulic forces
The friction torque can be found by integrating : The oil pressure needed to turn the blade or, alterna-
tively, to hold it in the right position is supplied by
0  /2
QFR ,RAD  2    r 2  qd  2    r 2  qd one or two pumps. The considered actuating system
 / 2 0 (38) consists of a double effect actuator with single rod
and circular section. The developed force is propor-
Substituting (33) into (38), we obtain: tional to the yoke area and to the oil pressure, but
there is a difference between the thrust action and
RAD  sin( )
0 FRAD 0 2 M
QFR ,RAD  2    r 2  d  2    r 2   the traction ones, with the following relationship:
 / 2 2r  / 2 r  2r

RAD  sin( )
 /2  / 2 2M
 2   r2 
FRAD
d  2    r 2  D p 2 p
0 2r 0 r  2r FThrust 
4 (45)
(39)
 (D p 2  d r 2 ) p
FTraction 
The integration gives : 4 (46)

QFR ,RAD 

4

   M RAD 1  u 2  u  arcsenu   (40)
where Dp = piston diameter; dr = rod diameter; and
p = pressure produced inside the hub chamber.

The friction in the axial part of the blade bearing

depends on the sum of all forces in the axial direc-
tion as is show in Fig.11 :

Figure 12 . Main element of the pitch actuation system.
To evaluate the dynamic change of pressure, it
has been used:
The oil flow qi is properly provided by the model of
the local governor of the CPP mechanism, where it
is simply represented by the proportional action of
the valve, acting on the pitch error. In fact, the
bridge lever position sets the shaft speed and pitch
setpoints, which are compared with the correspond-
ing actual values; then, proportional and integral
regulations act on the two errors, in order to calcu-
late respectively the proper fuel flow of the engine
and the oil flow acting on the CPP piston. The fuel
flow is necessary for the engine torque calculation,
on the ground of which it is possible to achieve the
shaft speed by solving the shaft line dynamic equa-
tion (Altosole et al. 2009).

 state equation:

 oil   i ,oil  i ,oil p 100

B (47) 90

80

 continuity equation: 70

d (  oilV )  d
Ship Speed [%]
dV  60

 mi   mo  g dt
 g  oil V   oil
 dt

dt  (48) 50

40

where V = compartment volume; oil = oil den- 30

sity; and = oil Bulk modulus. 20

We ignore the dependence of the density on the 10

temperature and combining the two equations we 0

obtain : -10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

p Time [s]
qi  q o   V  V
B (49) Figure 12. Ship speed vs. time.
where qi = flow going in; and qu = flow going
out.
We define the leakage of the hydraulic actuator
between the two chambers through the following 100

coefficient : 90

Dp e3 1 80

Cip     
Shaft Speed [%]

2 L p 6 (50) 70

60

where e = orifice thickness; Lp = thickness of the

piston head; and = oil dynamic viscosity.
50

Finally the differential pressure equation becomes : 40

B
p i  (qi  Cip  pi  A  x )
30

A  x  V0 (51) 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time [s]

Figure 13. Shaft speed vs. time.

4 SIMULATION RESULTS

As an application of the model previously described,

some simulation results are reported in this para-
graph. In particular, they regard the time histories of
some important characteristics during the crash stop
of a twinscrew ship. The whole performance of the
vessel is given by the propulsion simulator, includ-
ing the overall control system, illustrated in Fig. 1.
 severe turning circles, slam start or crash stop of the
100 vessel. In these conditions, the whole propulsion
90
plant model is able to assess the numerical value of
80

70 Actual Pitch
some important variables such as the oil pressure,
60 Pitch Setpoint the propeller torque , thrust, etc ; the latter can to be
50
compared with the design limits or also to define
Blade Position [%]

40

30 such limits during design process.

20

10

-10 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
-20

-30

-40 The authors wish to thanks Fincantieri for the sup-

-50

-60
port received during the research activity.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time [s]

Figure 14. Blade position vs. time. 7 REFERENCES

Altosole, M., Benvenuto, G., Campora, U. & Figari, M. 2009.

Real-time simulation of a COGAG naval ship propulsion
100
system. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environ-
90 ment. Volume 223, Number 1/2009: 47- 62.
80
Astern Chamber
Ahead Chamber
Altosole, M., Figari, M., Michetti, S., Millerani Trapani, A. &
70
Viviani, M. 2010. Simulation of the dynamic behaviour of a
CODLAG propulsion plant. Warship 2010 Conference;
Pressure [%]

60
Proc. intern. symp., London, 9-10 June 2010. London: The
50 Royal Institution of Naval Architect.
40
Godjevac, M., Van Beek, T., Grimmelius, H.T., Tinga, T. &
Stapersma, D. 2009. Prediction of fretting motion in a con-
30
trollable pitch propeller during service. Journal of Engi-
20 neering for the Maritime Environment. Volume 223.
10 Martelli, M. 2009. Dynamic simulation of controllable pitch
0
propeller mechanism. MSc Thesis, Department of naval ar-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time [s]
70 80 90 100 110 120
chitecture and marine engineering . Genoa.
Wind, J. 1978. Principles of mechanism used in controllable
Figure 15. Oil pressures vs. time. pitch propellers. 3th Lips Propeller Symposium. Drunen.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, a mathematical model able to represent

the performance of the CPP mechanism has been il-
lustrated. This brief description is mainly focused on
the evaluation of the several loads acting on the pis-
ton and on the blades of the propeller, taking into
account the influence of the ship and CPP blade
motions (in terms of velocities, accelerations and
decelerations). To this end, different reference
frames have been introduced, in order to suitably
consider each contribution of forces and moments.
The main aim of the proposed procedure is the as-
sessment of the velocity of the pitch change and of
the oil pressures produced inside the two hub cham-
bers. This target is mainly important from the point
of view of the propulsion control design of the ship:
in fact, the overall controller has to provide the
proper pitch setpoint in accordance with particular
control parameters, such as possible ramps (fit to
modulate some input signals), regulation gains, etc...
This aspect becomes crucial especially when the
automation designer has to set the proper logic to
manage some critical or emergency manoeuvres, as

View publication stats