In this article, noise spectrum of marine propellers is investigated in uniform flow under non-cavitating and cavitating conditions. New results are presented for this research field. Hydrodynamic performance of both non-cavitating and cavitating marine propellers is first analyzed by viscous and potential based flow solvers. In viscous solver, sheet cavitation on propeller blades is simulated with Schnerr–Sauer cavitation model based on Rayleigh Plesset equation using volume of fluid approach. Numerical hydrodynamic results based on viscous solver is compared with potential solver and then validated with experimental data of benchmark David Taylor Model Basin 4119 model propeller. Later, noise spectrum of model propellers is predicted by a hybrid method which combines Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes and Ffowcs Williams Hawkings equations. Computed noise spectrum is compared with other numerical studies in the literature for the selected model propeller. In addition, hydrodynamic and hydroacoustic pressures are compared in near field to show reliability of numerical solution. Effects of blade number on hydrodynamic performance and noise spectrum are also investigated. Numerical results indicated that as blade number increases, propeller noise level decreases for different loading conditions due to decreased blade loading (circulation) per blade. However, propeller efficiency increases as blade number decreases.
CarltonJS. Marine propellers and propulsion. 3rd ed.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012.
2.
AktasB. A systematic experimental approach to cavitation noise prediction of marine propellers. PhD Thesis, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2016.
3.
SeolHSuhJ-CLeeS. Development of hybrid method for the prediction of underwater propeller noise. J Sound Vib2005; 288: 345–360.
Yong-KunZYingX. Numerical method for predicting ship propeller cavitation noise. In: 30th Chinese control conference, Yantai, China, 22–24 July 2011. New York: IEEE.
6.
Jin-mingYYingXFangL, et al. Numerical prediction of blade frequency noise of cavitating propeller. J Hydrodyn2012; 24: 371–377.
7.
HallanderJAllenstromBValdenazziF, et al. Predicting underwater radiated noise due to a cavitating propeller in a ship wake. In: 8th international symposium on cavitation (CAV2012), Singapore, August 2012, pp.1–7.
8.
BagheriMRMehdigholiHSeifMS, et al. An experimental and numerical prediction of marine propeller noise under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions. Brodogradnja2015; 66: 29–45.
9.
FirenzeEValdenazziF. A method to predict underwater noise from cavitating propellers. In: OCEANS 2015, Genova, Genoa, 18–21 May 2015. New York: IEEE.
10.
AktasBAtlarMTurkmenS, et al. Systematic cavitation tunnel tests of a Propeller in uniform and inclined flow conditions as part of a round robin test campaign. Ocean Eng2016; 120: 136–151.
NoughabiAKBayatiMTadjfarM. Investigation of cavitation phenomena on noise of underwater Propeller. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2017, Waikoloa, Hi, 30 July–3 August 2017. New York: ASME.
13.
ViitanenVHynninenALũbkeL, et al. CFD and CHA simulation of underwater noise induced by a marine propeller in two-phase flows. In: Fifth international symposium on marine propulsors (smp’17), Espoo, Finland, 12–15 June 2017, pp.158–172. Norway: SINTEF Ocean.
14.
TakahashiKSahooPEvansJ. Numerical estimation of hydrodynamic performance of marine propellers using CFD. In: International conference on ships and offshore structures, Gothenburg, 17–19 September 2018, pp.1–15. Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
15.
GorjiMGhassemiHMohamadiJ. Effect of rake and skew on the hydrodynamic characteristics and noise level of the marine propeller. Iran J Sci Techn Trans Mech Eng2019; 43: 75–85.
16.
RaoZ-QYangC-J. Numerical prediction of tonal noise for non-cavitating propellers in effective wake. Ships Offshore Struct2018; 13: 551–560.
17.
BrizzolaraSVillaDGaggeroS. A systematic comparison between RANS and panel methods for propeller analysis. In: 8th international conference on hydrodynamics, Nantes, France, 30 September–3 October 2008, pp.18–32. China: ICHD.
18.
KerwinJE. Hydrofoils and propellers. Lecture Notes, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
19.
BalSGunerM. Performance analysis of podded propulsors. Ocean Eng2009; 36: 556–563.
20.
BalS. A practical technique for improvement of open water propeller performance. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2011; 225: 375–386.
21.
BalS. A method for optimum cavitating ship propellers. Turkish J Eng Environ Sci2011; 35: 319–338.
KellettPTuranOIncecikA. A study of numerical ship underwater noise prediction. Ocean Eng2013; 66: 113–120.
30.
RichardsonLF. IX. The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems involving differential equations, with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A1911; 210: 307–357.
31.
RoachePJ. Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J1998; 36: 696–702.
32.
ITTC. ITTC—recommended procedures and guidelines (7.5-03-01-04). CFD, General CFD Verification, 2011.
33.
CelikIGhiaURoachePJ, et al. Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. J Fluids Eng2008; 130: 078001.
34.
TezdoganTDemirelYKKellettP, et al. Full-scale unsteady RANS CFD simulations of ship behaviour and performance in head seas due to slow steaming. Ocean Eng2015; 97: 186–206.
35.
SezenSDogrulADelenC, et al. Investigation of self-propulsion of DARPA Suboff by RANS method. Ocean Eng2018; 150: 258–271.
36.
CakiciFKahramanogluEDumanS, et al. A new URANS based approach on the prediction of vertical motions of a surface combatant in head waves. Ocean Eng2018; 162: 21–33.
37.
SternFWilsonRShaoJ. Quantitative V&V of CFD simulations and certification of CFD codes. Int J Numer Methods Fluids2006; 50: 1335–1355.
38.
SternFWilsonRVColemanHW, et al. Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations —part 2: application for Rans simulation of a cargo/container ship. J Fluids Eng2001; 123: 803–810.
39.
De LucaFManciniSMirandaS, et al. An extended verification and validation study of CFD simulations for planning hulls. J Ship Res2016; 60: 101–118.
40.
JessupS. An experimental investigation of viscous aspects of propeller blade flow. PhD Thesis, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 1989.
41.
SchnerrGSauerJ. Physical and numerical modelling of unsteady cavitation dynamics. In: International conference multiphase flow, vol. 11, New Orleans, LA, 27 May–1 June 2001, pp.391–400. Amsterdam, Netherland: Elsevier.
BagheriMRSeifMSMehdigholiH, et al. Analysis of noise behaviour for marine propellers under cavitating and non-cavitating conditions. Ships Offshore Struct2017; 12: 1–8.
44.
IannielloSMuscariRDi MascioA. Ship underwater noise assessment by the acoustic analogy. Part I: nonlinear analysis of a marine propeller in a uniform flow. J Mar Sci Techl2013; 18: 547–570.
45.
LloydTPRijpkemaDWijngaardenE, et al. Marine propeller acoustic modelling: comparing CFD results with an acoustic analogy method. In: Fourth international symposium on marine propulsors, SPM’15, Austin, TX, 31 May–4 June 2015, pp.678–690. Norway: SINTEF Ocean.
