Propeller’s Open-Water Efficiency Prediction

  • Dejan RadojčićEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)


Modeling propeller’s open water hydrodynamic characteristics is in many respects different from modeling resistance, although the same tools and methods are used. Two main differences should be emphasized: 1. Dependent variables that should be modeled simultaneously are thrust coefficient  and torque coefficient. By definition, these coefficients are interrelated (linked) through the expression for the open water efficiency.  2. While the dependent variables are always KT and KQ, the independent ones are some or all of the following: advance coefficient, pitch ratio, area ratio, number of blades  and cavitation number. This pre-determination makes modeling easier, since there is no need to search for optimum independent variables best suited for a particular propeller series.


  1. Allison J (1978) Propellers for high performance craft. Mar Technol 15(4)Google Scholar
  2. Bjarne E (1993) Completely submerged propellers for high speed craft. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’93), YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  3. Blount DL (2014) Performance by design. ISBN 0-978-9890837-1-3Google Scholar
  4. Blount DL, Bjarne E (1989) Design and selection of propulsors for high speed craft. In: 7th lips propeller symposium, Nordwijk-on-SeaGoogle Scholar
  5. Blount DL, Fox DL (1978) Design considerations for propellers in cavitating environment. Mar Technol 15(2)Google Scholar
  6. Blount DL, Hubble EN (1981) Sizing segmental section commercially available propellers for small craft. In: Propellers ’81 symposium, SNAME, Virginia BeachGoogle Scholar
  7. Bukarica M (2014) Mathematical modeling of propeller series. Part B2, Int J Small Craft Technol (RINA Trans) 156, July–DecGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlton JC (2012) Marine propellers and propulsion, 3rd edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 9780080971230Google Scholar
  9. Dang J, van den Boom HJJ, Ligtelijn JT (2013) The Wageningen C- and D-series propellers. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST 2013), AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Denny SB, Puckette LT, Hubble EN, Smith SK, Najarian RF (1988) A new usable propeller series. SNAME, Hampton Road SectionGoogle Scholar
  11. Diadola JC, Johnson MF (1993) Software user’s manual for propeller selection and optimization program (PSOP). SNAME Technical and Research Bulletin No. 7-7Google Scholar
  12. Ferrando M, Crotti S, Viviani M (2007) Performance of a family of surface piercing propellers. In: 2nd International conference on marine research and transportation (ICMRT), IschiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gawn RWL (1953) Effect of pitch and blade width on propeller performance. INA Trans 95Google Scholar
  14. Gawn RWL, Burrill LC (1957) Effect of cavitation on the performance of a series of 16 in model propellers. INA Trans 99Google Scholar
  15. Koushan K (2005) Mathematical expressions of thrust and torque of Newton-Rader propeller series for high speed crafts using artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST 2005), St. PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  16. Koushan K (2007) Mathematical expressions of thrust and torque of Gawn-Burrill propeller series for high speed crafts using artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST 2007), ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  17. Kozhukarov PG (1986) Regression analysis of Gawn-Burrill series for application in computer-aided high-speed propeller design. In: Proceedings. 5th international conference on high-speed surface craft, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  18. Kozhukarov PG, Zlatev ZZ (1983) Cavitating propeller characteristics and their use in propeller design. In: High speed surface craft conference, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Kruppa C (1990) Propulsion systems for high speed marine vehicles. In: Second conference on high speed marine craft, KristiansandGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuiper G (1992) The Wageningen propeller series. MARIN Publication 92-001 (ISBN 90-900 7247-0)Google Scholar
  21. Lindgren H (1961) Model tests With a family of three and five bladed propellers. SSPA Publication no 47Google Scholar
  22. Loukakis TA, Gelegeris GJ (1989) A new form of optimization diagrams for preliminary propeller design. RINA Trans, Part B 131Google Scholar
  23. MacPherson DM (1997) Small propeller cup: a proposed geometry standard and a new performance model. In: SNAME propellers/shafting symposium, Virginia BeachGoogle Scholar
  24. Matulja D, Dejhalla R, Bukovac O (2010) Application of an artificial neural network to the selection of a maximum efficiency ship screw propeller. J Ship Prod Des 26(3)Google Scholar
  25. Mavludov MA, Roussetsky AA, Sadovnikov YM, Fisher EA (1982) Propellers for high speed ships. Sudostroenie, Leningrad (in Russian)Google Scholar
  26. Milićević M (1998) Mathematical modeling of supercavitating SK series. Diploma degree thesis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Naval Architecture, University of Belgrade (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  27. Neocleous CC, Schizas CN (2002) Artificial neural networks in estimating marine propeller cavitation. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on neural networks, vol 2Google Scholar
  28. Newton RN, Rader HP (1961) Performance data of propellers for high-speed craft. RINA Trans 103(2)Google Scholar
  29. O’Brien TP (1969) The design of marine screw propellers. Hutchinson and Co. Publishers Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Oosterveld MWC, van Oossanen P (1975) further computer-analyzed data of the Wageningen B-screw series. Int Shipbuilding Prog 22(251)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radojčić D (1985) Optimal preliminary propeller design using nonlinear constrained mathematical programming technique. University of Southampton, Ship Science Report no 21Google Scholar
  32. Radojčić D (1988) Mathematical model of segmental section propeller series for open-water and cavitating conditions applicable in CAD. In: Propellers ’88 symposium, SNAME, Virginia BeachGoogle Scholar
  33. Radojčić D, Matić D (1997) Regression analysis of surface piercing propeller series. In: High speed marine vehicles conference (HSMV 1997), SorrentoGoogle Scholar
  34. Radojčić D, Simić A, Kalajdžić M (2009) Fifty years of the Gawn-Burrill KCA propeller series. Part B2, Int J Small Craft Technol (RINA Trans) 151, July–DecGoogle Scholar
  35. Roddy RF, Hess DE, Faller W (2006) Neural network predictions of the 4-quadrant Wageningen propeller series. NSWCCD-50-TR-2006/004, DTMB Carderock Division, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose J, Kruppa C (1991) Surface piercing propellers, methodical series model test results. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’91), TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose J, Kruppa C, Koushan K (1993) Surface piercing propellers, propeller/hull interaction. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’93), YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  38. Shen Y, Marchal LJ (1993) Expressions of the BP-δ diagrams in polynomial for marine propeller series. In: RINA W10 (1993) paper issued for written discussionGoogle Scholar
  39. van Hees MT (2017) Statistical and theoretical prediction methods. In: Encyclopedia of maritime and offshore engineering, WileyGoogle Scholar
  40. van Lammeren WPA, van Manen JD, Oosterveld MWC (1969) The Wageningen B-Screw series. SNAME Trans 77Google Scholar
  41. Yosifov K, Zlatev Z, Staneva A (1986) Optimum characteristics equations for the ‘K-J’ propeller design charts, based on the Wageningen B-screw series. In: International shipbuilding progress, vol 33, no 382CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Naval ArchitectureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations