Project Report on

EFFICIENCY OPTIMIZATION OF WATERJET

PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Submitted by
RAHUL PILLANIA
(2018AMX5516)

Under the overall supervision of

Lt. Cdr. D Venkata Aditya

A report of AMD 897 submitted

In partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
D.I.I.T (Naval Construction)

Department of Applied Mechanics

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
May 2019

1
 CERTIFICATE

“This is to certify that this report explains the work carried out by me during the course
AMD897 under the overall supervision of Lt. Cdr. D Venkata Aditya. The content of this report
including text, figures, tables etc. have not been reproduced from any other sources like books,
journals, manuals, websites etc. Wherever limited reproduction has been made the source has
been duly acknowledged at that point and also listed in References.”

RAHUL PILLANIA
(2018AMX5516)

1
 CERTIFICATE

I, SLt Rahul Pillania (2018AMX5516) and hereby solemnly affirm that the project report titled
“Efficiency optimization of waterjet propulsion systems”, being submitted by me in partial
fulfilment of the requirement for the award of post graduate diploma in Naval Construction, to
the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, is a record of bonafide work carried out by me under
the guidance of Lt Cdr D Venkata Aditya. The work reported in this report in full or in part has
not been submitted to any University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.

Thesis approved by Thesis accepted by

Lt Cdr D Venkata Aditya Cdr M P Mathew

Project guide Officer-in-charge

Naval Construction Wing Naval Construction Wing

Dept of Applied Mechanics Dept of Applied Mechanics

IIT Delhi IIT Delhi

May 19 May 19

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere thanks & gratitude to my supervisor Lt. Cdr. D Venkata
Aditya for his continuous and unfailing support, guidance and help, which have been
invaluable during the course of this project. His knowledge, insight and constant motivation at
each step of the project has been instrumental in its completion.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr. Sagar Saroha for his continuous help and
support in each step of the project.

RAHUL PILLANIA
2018AMX5516

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter no. Title Page no.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. Introduction and scope of work 8
1.2. Literature review 10
1.3. Objectives of the project 11
Chapter 2 Analysis and Modelling
2.1. Analysis 12
2.2. Modelling 15
Chapter 3 Results and Conclusions
3.1 Results 17
3.2 Conclusion 27
3.3. Future scope of work 28
References 29
Appendix-A 30
Appendix-B 31

4
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure number Description Page number
Figure 1.1 A waterjet propeller with flow entering the inlet 9
towards the impeller
Figure 1.2 The flow of water at the bottom part of the hull 9
entering the waterjet propeller
Figure 2.1 Domain for A3 80 propeller 15
Figure 2.2 A3 80 propeller 15
Figure 2.3 S3 90 propeller 15
Figure 2.4 FF 37 propeller 15
Figure 2.5 Domain for S3 90 propeller 15
Figure 2.6 Domain for FF 37 propeller 15
Figure 2.7 Propulsor meshing (A3 80) 16
Figure 2.8 Inlet meshing (A3 80) 16
Figure 2.9 Propulsor meshing (S3 90) 16
Figure 2.10 Inlet meshing (S3 90) 16
Figure 2.11 Propulsor meshing (FF 37) 16
Figure 2.12 Inlet meshing (FF 37) 16
Figure 3.1 Inlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller 23
Figure 3.2 Inlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller 23
Figure 3.3 Inlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller 24
Figure 3.4 Inlet loss coefficient for all Waterjet propeller 24
Figure 3.5 Outlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller 25
Figure 3.6 Outlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller 25
Figure 3.7 Outlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller 26
Figure 3.8 Outlet loss coefficient for all Waterjet propeller 26
Figure 3.9 Dimensions of Waterjet propeller 30

5
 LIST OF TABLES
Table number Description Page number
Table 3.1 Inlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller 17
Table 3.2 Inlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller 18
Table 3.3 Inlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller 19
Table 3.4 Outlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller 20
Table 3.5 Outlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller 21
Table 3.6 Outlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller 22
Table 3.7 Main dimensions of Waterjet propeller 30

6
NOTATIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

𝑇𝑁 – Net Thrust

𝑚̇ – Mass flow rate

𝑉𝑗 – Jet velocity

𝑉𝑠 – Ship velocity (m/s)

ζ – Inlet loss coefficient

𝑉𝑎 – Advance velocity

𝛹 – Outlet loss coefficient

ℎ𝑗 – Elevation of the waterjet propeller

𝑤 – Wake fraction

𝜇 – Velocity ratio

ƞ𝑜 – Overall efficiency

ƞℎ – Hull efficiency

ƞ𝑝 – Propulsive efficiency

ƞ𝑟 – Relative efficiency

ƞ𝑡 – Transmission efficiency

ƞ𝑗 – Open water efficiency

𝑅𝑇 – Net Thrust

IKE – Inlet Kinetic energy (J/s)

IPE – Inlet potential energy (J/s)

OKE – Outlet kinetic energy (J/s)

OPE – Outlet potential energy (J/s)

OGZ – Outlet gravitational head (J/s)

LOSS – Energy loss (J/s)

COEFF – Inlet/Outlet coefficient

7
 Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK

Waterjet propulsion as we all know is a way of pump jet prolusion used in marine vessels and
vehicles. The main thing that a waterjet propulsor does is that it has a impellor which creates
a suction to draw water flowing at the bottom part of the keel and thus imparts increased
velocity to the flowing water just as what a propeller does in a conventional ship.

Thus, this increase in velocity of the waterjet at the outlet creates thrust for the marine vessel
and it moves forward.

The waterjet propellers are mainly used in high velocity regime thus they are of great use for
those vessels which operate at high Froude’s number. At low Froude’s number the efficiency
of the waterjet propeller is quite low.

Some of the primary advantages of waterjet propeller over conventional propeller are:
excellent manoeuvrability, low drag, high efficiency, low maintenance, quiet and easy
installation.

Thus, the main advantage of waterjet propellers for vessels operating at high Froude’s
number is its high efficiency. Therefore, it becomes our primary purpose to increase this
efficiency further as this is the primary thing for which waterjet propellers are used as
compared to conventional propellers.

Now the efficiency of the propeller is dependent on the many parameters namely inlet
velocity, outlet velocity, inlet losses, outlet losses and the elevation of the waterjet propellers,
and the wake fraction of the vessel.

Now the main parameters considered in this project is that, as the efficiency of the waterjet
propeller has to increase and the efficiency itself depends on many parameters so the
parameter considered here in this study is inlet and outlet losses.

Once these losses are determined, the expression for efficiency can be modelled to a greater
degree of refinement and thus its prediction, design and analysis can be done to a further
accuracy in order to design the vessel speed as well as operation.

8
 Figure1.1. A waterjet propeller with flow entering the inlet towards the impeller

Figure 1.2 The flow of water at the bottom part of the hull entering the waterjet propeller and the outlet velocity
also shown, thus providing the thrust.

9
1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

There has been extensive work being done on waterjet propellers from 1950s to present.
Some of the main recent work being done in this field has been mentioned here.

There has been experimental work done on waterjet propellers like model tests and self-
propulsion tests by Alexander et al.(1994) and Etter et al.(1981).In this they mainly
determined the waterjet and hull interaction and found out that the aft -body pressure due to
jet velocity is the main reason for the interaction.

Then there has been work done on study of boundary layers in the propulsion system by
Roberts and Walker(1995).They developed a theory of two dimensional propeller with and
without boundary layer and showed that due to boundary layer formed at the inlet boundary
layer ingestion is not always good.

Studies have also been done considering potential flow for different parametric analyses by
Terwisga and Alexander(1995).In this they found out that for potential flow inlet drag is not
there and also for viscous flow the viscous drag in the inlet is also negligibly small.

Study between waterjet propulsion system and its interaction with hull was done by
Coop(1995).There were extensive model tests done as well as full scale test. Apart from this
these were compared with empirical as well as the analytical results already available. He
proposed that the interaction effect is due to lift caused by the jet force, the subsequent
moment , wake momentum losses and the loss of planning surfaces at the inlet.

Thrust calculations and deduction has also been studied extensively, major work has been
done by Kruppa et al.(1996), Terwisga(1996).Kruppa stated that there are two ways of
measuring the thrust one was analytically using momentum fluxes and the other was direct
measurement of the thrust. Terwisga on the other hand found that a difference between gross
thrust and net thrust may occur especially around ship speeds where the transom is not fully
cleared. This difference is practically zero for higher speeds and therefore, the difference
between gross thrust and bare hull resistance is a good measure of the resistance increment of
the hull due to the waterjet-induced flow.

Roberts(1998) studied boundary later ingestion in flush type waterjet propulsion systems. An
experimental study was performed inside a wind tunnel using two different boundary layer
thicknesses. The inflow capture streamtube was found to be essentially elliptical in cross-
section.

Hyo et al. (2006) measured the three dimensional velocity field at the intake opening and at
the nozzle exit. The velocity at the intake opening is smaller in the vicinity of the intake ramp
in comparison to the velocity close to the lip due to thicker boundary layer close to the intake
ramp and the geometry of the lip.

10
 Bulten (2006) studied the flow inside waterjet propulsion systems employing CFD tools.
Indicating the non-uniform velocity field at the pump section, different reasons were
introduced as the causes of this non-uniformity. Non-uniform velocity distribution just before
the intake due to the developing boundary layer, passing through the bend inside the ducting
channel and the rotating shaft, were cited as the main cause of the flow non-uniformity at the
pump inlet section.

Hino and Ohashi (2009) applied CFD analysis to free surface flow around a waterjet
propelled ship. An actuator disk with a constant body force distribution was employed to
model the propulsor. The sinkage and trim angle of the hull were fixed during the
computation due to the measured data obtained from experiment.

Ding and Wang (2010) stated that by applying conventional methods, intake loss is
overestimated which results in overestimation of overall power. To overcome this problem,
they introduced a method to determine the waterjet system flow loss by means of CFD.

Kandasamy el al. (2011) employed a RANS method and an actuator disk body-force model
for modeling the pump. Kandasamy derived an integral force/moment waterjet model and
applied it to a CFD code to predict ship local flow and powering. In order to circumvent the
difficulties of obtaining the intake capture area of the waterjet system, a control volume other
than the control volume proposed by ITTC was applied for balancing force and moment.

Peri et al. (2012) presented a simulation based design toolbox based on RANS method for
optimizing a high-speed waterjet propelled catamaran. Using different evolutionary type
optimization algorithms they have solved both single and multi-objective optimization
problems. In order to reduce the intake losses, the ducting channel geometry is optimized.
The hull geometry is optimized for the resistance.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

1. To study losses in a waterjet propulsion system mainly inlet and outlet losses by
appropriately modelling the system in CFD.
2. Subsequently determining the relation between inlet losses and outlet losses with
velocity.

11
 Chapter 2

Analysis and Modelling

2.1 ANALYSIS

The net thrust exerted by the waterjet propeller on the ship is given by:

̇ 𝑉𝑗 − 𝑉𝑠 )
𝑇𝑁 = 𝑚(

The corresponding work done is:

𝑊𝐷 = 𝑇𝑁 𝑉𝑠 = 𝑚(̇𝑉𝑗 − 𝑉𝑠 )𝑉𝑠

We know,
𝑊𝐷 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝
Open water efficiency = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝

The net energy loss due to inlet:

1
𝐸𝑖 = 2 ζ 𝑚̇𝑉𝑎2

Net energy lost due to nozzle:

1
𝐸𝑛 = 2 𝛹 𝑚̇𝑉𝑗2

The nozzle elevation head is taken as below:

𝑊𝑒 = 𝑚̇gℎ𝑗

The work done on the ship is given by:

Work done = Thrust * Vel. Of the ship

Now , WD = T𝑉𝑠

Where, T = 𝑚(̇𝑉𝑗 − 𝑉𝑎 )

So, WD = 𝑚(̇𝑉𝑗 − 𝑉𝑎 )𝑉𝑠

WD = 𝑚(̇𝑉𝑗 − (1 − 𝑤) 𝑉𝑠 )𝑉𝑠

The useful energy supplied by the pump after doing CV analysis we get:

12
 𝑚̇
𝐸 ′′ = [𝑉𝑗2(1 + 𝛹) + 2gℎ𝑗 - ( 1 - ζ ) 𝑉𝑎2 ]
2

If we take pump efficiency also into account we get:

𝑚̇
𝐸 ′′′′ = 2ƞ [𝑉𝑗2 (1 + 𝛹) + 2gℎ𝑗 - ( 1 - ζ ) 𝑉𝑎2 ]
𝑝

The open water efficiency thus comes out to be:

T𝑉𝑠 ̇ 𝑉𝑗 − (1 −𝑤) 𝑉𝑠 )𝑉𝑠

𝑚(
ƞ𝑗 = = 𝑚̇
𝐸 ′′ [𝑉 2 (1 + 𝛹) + 2gℎ𝑗 - ( 1 - ζ ) 𝑉𝑎2 ]
2 𝑗

This on rearranging we get:

2𝜇(1−𝜇) 1
ƞ𝑗 = 2gℎ𝑗
1+𝛹-(1- ζ )𝜇2 + 2 (1−𝑤)
𝑉𝑗

The main terms in the open water efficiency ƞ𝑗 are:

1. 𝛹- Nozzle loss coefficient

2. ζ - Inlet loss coefficient

𝑉𝑠
3. 𝜇 = (1 − 𝑤) 𝑉𝑗

Taking into account the motor losses, the rotation losses, pump losses and the hull
efficiency we get.

ƞ𝑜 = ƞℎ ƞ𝑝 ƞ 𝑟 ƞ𝑡 ƞ𝑗

Now here ƞℎ , ƞ𝑝 , ƞ𝑟 , ƞ𝑡 are all some parameters dependent upon the inherent nature of
ship and propulsion system chosen.

We know T = 𝑚(̇𝑉𝑗 − 𝑉𝑠 )

Thus T = 𝑓(𝑉𝑗 , 𝑉𝑠 )

Now when the ship is in motion

T = 𝑅𝑇

We know 𝑅𝑇 = 𝑓(𝑉𝑠 )

Using the above equations we can get:

𝑉𝑗 = 𝑓(𝑉𝑠 )

Now we also know that:

13
 ƞ𝑗 = 𝑓(𝛹, ζ , 𝜇)

Also 𝜇 = 𝑓(𝑉𝑗 , 𝑉𝑠 ) , from previous known result of 𝑉𝑗 = 𝑓(𝑉𝑠 )

We get

𝜇 = 𝑓(𝑉𝑠 )

Now for a given 𝑉𝑠 we need to find the optimum ƞ𝑗 .However we have unknowns 𝛹, ζ .

If the inlet losses can be modelled as ζ = 𝑓(𝜇) and similarly 𝛹 = 𝑓(𝜇).

We get,

ƞ𝑗 = 𝑓(𝜇) or ƞ𝑗 = 𝑓(𝑉𝑠 )

𝜕ƞ
By maximizing it , 𝜕𝑉𝑗 = 0 we can obtain the optimum value if 𝑉𝑠 to operate on for
𝑠
maximum efficiency. This 𝑉𝑠 can be set as cruise speed, if desired.

14
 2.2 MODELLING

1. Suitable 2-D domain was taken while doing the modelling for the waterjet propeller.
2. The length of the domain is 55m (typical length of a vessel with waterjet propeller) and
depth 5m (more than boundary layer thickness).
3. Geometry of propulsor is taken as given in the specification manual.
4. The type of meshing used was Automatic meshing with body sizing of element size
30mm.
5. The model used in the analysis was k-ϵ model, steady state.
6. The boundary conditions used were, inlet at the fore part, outlet at the aft part and the
nozzle of the waterjet, fixed wall at the top surface (keel of the ship) and free shear at the
bottom surface.
7. Apart from this effect due to impeller was ignored and averaging of velocities at the
inlet and outlet was done in order to calculate the losses. Fixed wall

Outlet
Inlet

Free
Figure2.1. Domain for A3 80 propeller shear

Figure2.2. A3 80 propeller Figure2.3. S3 90 propeller Figure2.4. FF 37 propeller

Figure2.5. Domain for S3 90 propeller

Figure2.6. Domain for FF 37 propeller

15
 Figure2.7. Propulsor meshing (A3 80) Figure2.8. Inlet meshing (A3 80)

Figure2.9. Propulsor meshing (S3 90) Figure2.10. Inlet meshing (S3 90)

Figure2.11. Propulsor meshing (FF 37) Figure2.12. Inlet meshing (FF 37)

16
 Chapter 3

Results and Conclusions

3.1 RESULTS

1. INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

Table 3.1. Inlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller

VS IKE IPE OKE OPE OGZ LOSS COEFF.

15 154242 12081.3 86727.12 2206.408 9758.05 67631.71 0.438

16 187795.4 14768.57 105585.4 2608.301 10424.26 83945.98 0.447

17 226953.9 17837.11 127720.2 3034.602 11110.52 102925.7 0.454

18 270538.3 21413.41 152286.6 3489.243 11785.84 124390 0.46

19 318936.7 25173.12 179499.4 4017.807 12454.62 148138 0.464

20 372545.4 29556.84 209607.4 4602.24 13120.28 174772.4 0.469

21 432476.9 34378.54 243342.2 5221.276 13793.96 204498 0.473

22 498156.8 39673.57 280209.9 5890.229 14463.01 237267.3 0.476

23 571249.7 45572.24 321195.5 6484.796 15141.4 274000.3 0.48

24 647843.4 51790.04 363614.6 6724.861 15786.97 313507 0.484

25 726158.4 58220.26 406484.9 7310.582 16391.47 354191.8 0.488

17
 Table 3.2. Inlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller

VS IKE IPE OKE OPE OGZ LOSS COEFF.

15 144026 7775.315 58468.17 41600.7 27536.67 24195.81 0.168

16 177035.3 9563.277 72061.77 51263.79 29528.1 33744.89 0.191

17 215417.2 11617.2 87951.72 62501.15 31547 45034.55 0.209

18 258534.6 13970.67 105719.6 75107.39 33538.43 58139.81 0.225

19 306488 16636.56 125458.2 89147.92 35502.39 73016.05 0.238

20 359473.3 19629.33 147164.4 104693.1 37466.35 89778.76 0.25

21 419904.3 23010 172044.9 122431.8 39471.52 108966.2 0.26

22 485434 26747.71 198987.7 141651.2 41435.48 130107.4 0.268

23 558676.9 30942.34 229214.4 163212.5 43440.64 153751.7 0.275

24 640310.2 35647.71 262933 187283.2 45473.27 180268.4 0.282

25 723997.4 40546.54 297276.5 211856.2 47381.75 208029.5 0.287

18
 Table 3.3. Inlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller

VS IKE IPE OKE OPE OGZ LOSS COEFF.

15 125570.6 9994.321 49143.76 16260.91 10842.19 59318.11 0.472

16 152305.5 12204.45 59568.01 19618.98 11568.73 73754.19 0.484

17 183104.4 14278.91 71661.41 23584.08 12301.48 89836.31 0.491

18 216757.3 17472.12 84946.5 28124.48 13021.8 108136.7 0.499

19 255520.5 20658.85 100187.1 33198.71 13760.76 129032.8 0.505

20 299313.5 24316.6 117350.5 38772.48 14512.14 152995 0.511

21 347059.2 28270.77 136094.2 45045.83 15244.89 178945 0.516

22 400533 32777.83 156834.3 51788.24 15990.05 208698.3 0.521

23 458270.7 37617.51 179289.9 59372.2 16722.8 240503.3 0.525

24 522797.7 43150.66 204099 67379.51 17467.97 277001.9 0.53

25 591867.2 48924.3 230957.4 76507.7 18200.72 315125.7 0.532

19
2. OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

Table 3.4. Outlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller

VS IKE IPE OKE OPE OGZ LOSS COEFF.

15 105579.3 30730.55 63087.09 2022.876 0 71199.89

0.674

16 128610.1 37420.14 76897.07 2544.378 0 86588.81

0.673

17 155721.2 45259.05 93203.01 2988.764 0 104788.5

0.673

18 185797.8 53952.93 111266.7 3542.166 0 124941.9

0.672

19 219089.4 63591.84 131279.5 3658.876 0 147742.9

0.674

20 255922.7 74268.75 153409.7 3698.979 0 173082.8

0.676

21 297241.8 86249.91 178251.7 3877.542 0 201362.5

0.677

22 342375.5 99311.7 205387.6 3990.856 0 232308.8

0.679

23 392665.7 113766.7 235786.2 4123.995 0 266522.2

0.679

24 444968.1 128703.4 267864.1 4256.79 0 301550.6

0.678

25 497912.2 144235.1 300038.8 4332.178 0 337776.3

0.678

20
 Table 3.5. Outlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller

VS IKE IPE OKE OPE OGZ LOSS COEFF.

15 123767.6 18259.78 95327.04 715.759 0 45984.6

0.372

16 152544.6 22487.38 117589.4 879.511 0 56563.05

0.371

17 186127.4 27455.25 143310.3 1071.172 0 69201.19

0.372

18 223627.6 32983.46 172245.5 1283.958 0 83081.61

0.372

19 265196.2 39044.04 204436.6 1515.327 0 98288.24

0.371

20 311123.1 45735.15 240043.7 1766.84 0 115047.7

0.37

21 363536.1 53337.1 280771.7 2063.528 0 134038

0.369

22 420370.1 61608.72 324773.8 2369.119 0 154835.8

0.368

23 483979.1 70763.4 374335.1 2717.585 0 177689.8

0.367

24 554866.8 81026.71 430066.5 3129.008 0 202698

0.365

25 627138.8 91436.43 485816.2 3485.62 0 229273.4

0.366

21
 Table 3.6. Outlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller

VS IKE IPE OKE OPE OGZ LOSS COEFF.

15 70519.6 6590.74 56536.01 222.313 0 20352.02

0.289

16 85426.56 8060.99 68248.81 264.564 0 24974.18

0.292

17 102753.9 9743.435 82037.81 316.756 0 30142.77

0.293

18 122036 11521.78 97620.48 389.649 0 35547.63

0.291

19 144042.5 13630.26 115162.7 459.411 0 42050.59

0.292

20 168578.1 16082.22 134517.4 524.66 0 49618.22

0.294

21 195687.4 18697.33 156132.9 612.217 0 57639.58

0.295

22 225392.7 21716.29 179496 690.259 0 66922.78

0.297

23 257942.3 24903.18 205506.7 794.192 0 76544.63

0.297

24 293444.2 28562.72 233367.3 877.623 0 87761.98

0.299

25 332399.3 32399.67 264913.6 1011.375 0 98874.01

0.297

22
3. PLOTS

1. Inlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller

INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY(A3 80)

0.600

0.500
INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.400

0.300
A3 80
0.200
REAL A3 80
0.100

0.000
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.1. Inlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller

2. Inlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller

INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY(S3 90)

0.350

0.300
INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.250

0.200

0.150 S3 90
0.100 REAL S3 90

0.050

0.000
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.2. Inlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller

23
3. Inlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller

INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY(FF 37)

0.600

0.500
INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.400

0.300
FF 37
0.200
REAL FF 37
0.100

0.000
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.3. Inlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller

4. Inlet loss coefficient for all Waterjet propeller

INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY

0.600

0.500
INLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.400

0.300
A3 80

0.200 S3 90
FF 37
0.100

0.000
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.4. Inlet loss coefficient for all Waterjet propeller

24
1. Outlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller

OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY(A3 80)

0.690
OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.680
0.670
0.660
0.650 A3 80
0.640 REAL A3 80
0.630
0.620
0.610
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.5. Outlet loss coefficient for A3 80 Waterjet propeller

2. Outlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller

OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY(S3 90)

0.375
OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.370
0.365
0.360
0.355
0.350
S3 90
0.345
0.340 REAL S3 90
0.335
0.330
0.325
0.320
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.6. Outlet loss coefficient for S3 90 Waterjet propeller

25
3. Outlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller

OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY(FF 37)

0.3050
OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.3000
0.2950
0.2900
0.2850
FF 37
0.2800
0.2750 REAL FF 37
0.2700
0.2650
0.2600
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.7. Outlet loss coefficient for FF 37 Waterjet propeller

4. Outlet loss coefficient for all Waterjet propeller

OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT VS SHIP VELOCITY

0.800
OUTLET LOSS COEFFICIENT

0.700
0.600
0.500
A3 80
0.400
S3 90
0.300
FF 37
0.200
0.100
0.000
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SHIP VELOCITY(m/s)

Figure 3.8. Outlet loss coefficient for all Waterjet propeller

26
3.2 CONCLUSIONS

1. The regime in which we are interested is around Reynold’s number 25,000. It is seen
that for a highly turbulent and non-developed flow the inlet loss coefficient shows
increasing trend with velocity.
2. However, in case of outlet loss coefficient the trend is constant with velocity and for a
given waterjet propeller in the given velocity regimes around Reynold’s number
25,000. This can be attributed due to non-developed and very high turbulent flow in
which this flow occurs.
3. Apart from this the actual values and those computationally determined are not very
far but still there is some error due to the initial assumptions taken while doing the
study namely not taking the impeller effect and averaging of the velocities at the
faces.
4. In case of inlet loss coefficient for A3 80 the real and computational values vary by
around 9%, while the S3 90 and FF 37 show a variation of 10%,11% approximate
error respectively.
5. In case of outlet loss coefficient for A3 80 the real and computational values vary by
around 10%, while the S3 90 and FF 37 show a variation of 8%,9% approximate error
respectively.
6. Also, the values of the loss coefficients vary with the change in waterjet propeller due
to change in shape of the propeller and the main dimensions of the inlet and nozzle
outlet.
7. Amongst various propellers A3 80 has the highest outlet loss coefficient then, S3 90
and then FF 37 this can be attributed due to their geometry.
8. However, for inlet loss coefficient FF 37 has the highest value followed by A3 80 and
then S3 90, this is also due to their inherent shape.
9. Moreover, the effect due impeller will not affect the analysis as already we are in very
high Reynold’s number regime hence the impeller would only make the flow more
turbulent and form previous study we know that after a certain value of Reynold’s
number variation of loss coefficients are not that much hence our study in reasonably
good even if impeller action is not considered.
10. Therefore, one can use these values given as a preliminary estimate for losses as these
values of coefficients are overestimated than the real and so the closed form
efficiency expression can be formed and worked on for optimum design speed for a
vessel working at maximum efficiency.

27
3.3 FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

1. The work can be improved by taking a model with more detailed analytical closed
form solution and then trying to model the losses as a function of velocity.
2. Apart form this the assumptions like averaging of the velocity and the effect of
impeller not taken could be removed and a more exact analysis can be done so that the
results thus obtained are more reliable.
3. Moreover, the analysis considered here was a simple 2D model and simple boundary
layer flow, more detailed analysis can be done in which a 3D model can be used in
order to get the data much more accurate.
4. Also, the fluid parameters studied here were velocity head, pressure head, and
gravitational head for some more analysis some other parameters which characterize
the losses in the flow or that determine the regime of flow in the duct can be used
namely turbulent kinetic energy.
5. Once the loss coefficients have been determined there can be work done on how to
reduce them, for this geometry of the waterjet propeller would be of prime importance
and its variation and hence causing change in losses can be a topic of consideration
for future study.

28
REFERENCES

[1] Allison, J., 1993. Marine waterjet propulsion. In Transactions - Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers. pp. 275–335.

[2] Allison, J.L. et al., 2001. Research in Waterjet Inlet, Hull and Jet Interactions. In
Waterjet Propulsion III. Gothenburg: The Royal Institute of Naval Architects.

[3] Bulten, N.W.H., 2006. Numerical Analysis of a Waterjet Propulsion System. PhD
Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.

[4] Eslamdoost, A., Larsson, L. & Bensow, R., 2014b. Waterjet Propulsion and Thrust
Deduction. Journal of Ship Research, 58(4), pp.1–15.

[5] Hadler, J.B., 1966. The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft. In
Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. New York, pp.
563–610.

[6] Harries, S. & Schulze, D., 1997. Numerical investigation of a systematic model series
for the design of fast monohulls. In International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation,
FAST ’97. Sidney, Australia.

[7] ITTC, 2005a. Recommended Procedures and Guidelines ITTC – Recommended

Procedures and Guidelines Waterjet Propulsive Performance Prediction – Propulsion
Test and Extrapolation.

[8] ITTC, 2005b. Recommended Procedures and Guidelines ITTC – Recommended

Procedures and Guidelines Waterjet Propulsive Performance Prediction Waterjet Inlet
Duct , Pump Loop and Waterjet System Tests and Extrapolation,

[9] Kandasamy, M. et al., 2011. Numerical and Experimental Evaluation of Waterjet

Propelled Delft Catamarans. In 11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 2011). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

29
APPENDIX- A

D E H
C

B F G

Figure 3.9. Dimensions of Waterjet propeller

Table 3.7. Main Dimensions of Waterjet propeller

WATERJET A B C D E F G H
PROPELLER

A3 80 0.485 0.578 0.084 0.554 0.416 0.994 1.408 0.390

S3 90 1.400 0.802 0.242 1.6 1.201 1.380 1.955 1.126

FF 37 0.633 0.418 0.109 0.724 0.543 0.720 1.020 0.509

All dimensions A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H all are in metres.

30
APPENDIX-B

METHODOLOGY FOR REAL COEFFICIENT CALCULATION

In order to calculate the real values of inlet and outlet loss coefficients for different waterjet
propellers, specification graphs were used as given by the manufacturer of Thrust and
Efficiency.

For a given waterjet propeller say A3 80, at a given velocity of advance or ship velocity ( 𝑉𝑠 )
the Thrust (T) and Efficiency ( ƞ𝑗 ) values are known.

Also, a preliminary assumption can be made that for A3 80, say 𝛹 = 1.5 ζ, this assumption
will vary as the waterjet propeller changes.

Now 𝑉𝑗 , 𝑉𝑎 can be determined by mass conservation and 𝑚̇ is flow rate with ℎ𝑗 is already
known.
T𝑉𝑠
ƞ𝑗 = 𝑚̇
[𝑉 2 (1 + 𝛹) + 2gℎ𝑗 - ( 1 - ζ ) 𝑉𝑎2 ]
2 𝑗

Thus, then using the above equation 𝛹, ζ can be determined as all other terms are known.

In this way for all waterjet propellers and for all velocities of interest the inlet and outlet loss
coefficients can be determined.

31