4.7 Article

Regression Modeling of surface piercing propeller performance based on trailing edge geometrical parameters using CFD method

期刊

OCEAN ENGINEERING
卷 259, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111752

关键词

Surfacepiercingpropeller?DOE; ANOVA?cubicB-Spline?URANS?VOF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the relationship between the geometric parameters of a surface piercing propeller and its hydrodynamic characteristics through computational fluid dynamics and design of experiments. The results show that trailing edge variations can significantly affect the propeller's performance.
The geometry of the surface piercing propeller has been designed experimentally, and no comprehensive studies are available to identify the influential parameters to attain systematic formulations. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of presenting systematic relations between the geometric parameters of the blade section and its hydrodynamic characteristics through combined methods of computational fluid dynamics and design of experiments. In this regard, the propeller's parametric geometry is designed based on the cubic B-spline method. Hence, a series of SPPs with different trailing edges is generated according to the coordinates of control points based on the D-optimal response surface methodology. The propeller performance was investigated using URANS numerical simulation method in accordance with the VOF method and sliding mesh technique. ANOVA analyses of the quadratic regression models of hydrodynamic coefficients in terms of edge height (Y) and protrusion length (X), based on a 95% confidence interval, indicate these models have prediction adequacy of more than 90%. The main factor (X) is the only significant factor in both models. Increasing it will reduce the hydrodynamic coefficients. As a result, trailing edge variations can significantly affect torque and thrust coefficients by up to 40%, while efficiency changes are about 7%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据