Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T02:03:28.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of an upstream hull on a propeller in reverse rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2012

A. Verma ,
H. Jang  and
K. Mahesh
A. Verma
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
H. Jang
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
K. Mahesh*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: mahesh@aem.umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Propeller crashback is an off-design operating condition where a propeller rotates in the reverse direction. Experiments (Bridges 2004, Tech Rep. MSSU-ASE-04-1, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University) have shown that the presence of an upstream hull significantly increases the side force on a propeller in crashback below an advance ratio of . Large-eddy simulation (LES) is performed for a propeller with and without a hull at two advance ratios, and . LES reproduces the experimentally observed behaviour and shows good quantitative agreement. Time-averaged flow fields are investigated for a qualitative understanding of the complex flow resulting from the interaction of the upstream hull with the propeller blades. At , two noticeable flow features are found for the case with the hull – a recirculation zone upstream in the vicinity of the propeller and a vortex ring much closer to the propeller. In contrast, at , there is a much smaller recirculation zone which is further upstream due to the increased reverse flow. As a result, the hull does not make much difference in the immediate vicinity of the propeller at . For both advance ratios, side force is mainly generated from the leading-edge separation on the suction side. However, high levels of side force are also generated from trailing-edge separation on the suction side at .

JFM classification

Mathematical Foundations: Computational methods Turbulent Flows: Turbulence simulation Vortex Flows: Vortex interactions
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 704 , 10 August 2012 , pp. 61 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Antonia, R. A. 1981 Conditional sampling in turbulence measurement. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 13, 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bridges, D. H. 2004A detailed study of the flow field of a submarine propeller during a crashback maneuver. Tech Rep. MSSU-ASE-04-1. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
3. Bridges, D. H., Donnelly, M. J. & Park, T. J. 2008 Experimental investigation of the submarine crashback maneuver. Trans. ASME: J. Fluids Engng 130.Google Scholar
4. Chang, P., Ebert, M., Young, Y. L., Liu, Z., Mahesh, K., Jang, H. & Shearer, M. 2008 Propeller forces and structural responses to crashback. In Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, Korea, vol. 2, pp. 1069–1091. Curran Associates.Google Scholar
5. Chen, B. & Stern, F. 1999 Computational fluid dynamics of four quadrant marine propeller flow. J. Ship Res. 43 (4), 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Davoudzadeh, F., Taylor, L. K., Zierke, W. C., Dreyer, J. J., McDonald, H. & Whitfield, D. L. 1997 Coupled Navier–Stokes and equations of motion simulation of submarine maneuvers, including crashback. In Proceedings of the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, New York.Google Scholar
7. Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P. & Cabot, W. H. 1991 A dynamic subgrid–scale eddy viscosity model. Phys. Fluids A 3 (7), 1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Green, R. B., Gillies, E. A. & Brown, R. E. 2005 The flow field around a rotor in axial descent. J. Fluid Mech. 534, 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Jang, H. & Mahesh, K. 2012 Large eddy simulation of flow around a reverse rotating propeller. J. Fluid Mech. (submitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Jessup, S., Chesnakas, C., Fry, D., Donnelly, M., Black, S. & Park, J. 2004 Propeller performance at extreme off design conditions. In Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, St John’s, Canada.Google Scholar
11. Jessup, S., Fry, D. & Donnelly, M. 2006 Unsteady propeller performance in crashback conditions with and without duct. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
12. Jiang, C. W., Dong, R. R., Lui, H. L. & Chang, M. S. 1997 24–inch water tunnel flow field measurements during propeller crashback. In Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
13. Le, H., Moin, P. & Kim, J. 1997 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow over a backward–facing step. J. Fluid Mech. 330, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Lilly, D. K. 1992 A proposed modification of the germano subgrid–scale closure model. Phys. Fluids A 4 (3), 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Mahesh, K., Constantinescu, G. & Moin, P. 2004 A numerical method for large–eddy simulation in complex geometries. J. Comput. Phys. 197 (1), 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Vyšohlid, M. & Mahesh, K. 2006 Large eddy simulation of crashback in marine propellers. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome, Italy, vol. 2, pp. 131–141.Google Scholar