Subject 1—Reynolds Number for Model Propeller Experiments CHAIRMAN, PROFESSOR L. TROOST, SUPERI REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL Co! INTENDENT, NETHERLANDS MODEL BASIN MMITTEE AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY DR. JAMES F. ALLAN Decisions at the 1948 London Conference 1. The Conference is not in a position to rec- ommend any immediate revision of the Berlin figures of minimum Reynolds number, although these are known to be low for many types of pro- pellers when run in open water without turbulence stimulation, 2. It is necessary that the model propellers should be made to a high degree of precision, and in all published work the measured toler ances and the quality of the surface finish should be stated. 3. It is desirable that the experiments on circular-back blade sections as described in Reports and Memoranda 2301 should be ex- tended to cover other shapes. 4. The value of Reynolds number for propel- lers should be calculated using the blade width and the resultant velocity at 0.7 radius, ignoring inflow. PROPELLER COMMITTEE: Dr. J. F. Allan, Chairman Ms. R. B. Couch Dr. H. W. E. Lerbs Prof. E. V. Telfer Terms of Reference: To collect, scrutinize and review existing propeller scale effect data, and to recommend further relevant research. The Committee has held no formal meetings but has carried on its work by correspondence, with occasional personal contacts as the oppor tunity offered, Following up the terms of refer- ence a survey of published data in various lan- guages was made and the following list was prepared: 1, "Neue Propellerversuche,”” by Fr. Gebers, STG, 1910. 20 2. “Propeller Design Based on Model Experi- ments,” by D. W. Taylor, SNAME, Vol. 31, 1923, Pp. 57-106. 3. “The Separation of Dissolved Air Caused by Propeller Action,” by Ing. Col. G. Rebbeno, INA, Vol. 71, 1929, p. 331. 4. “The Effect of Immersion on Propellers,” by Mrs. Smith-Keary, NECIES, 1931. on’ Geometrically-Similar Ship ” by H. E. Saunders, SNAME, Vol. 40, 1932, p. 75. 6.’ “Immersion of Propellers,” by G. Kempf, NECIES, 1933/4, p. 225. 7. "The Influence of Viscosity on Thrust and Torque of a Propeller Working Near the Surface,” by G. Kempf, INA, 1934, p. 321. 8. “Further Model Tests on Immersion of Pro- pellers, Effect of Wake and Viscosity,” by G. Kempf, NECIES, 1937/8, p. 349. 9. 1938 “Rauhigskeits-und Kennzableinfluss bei Schiffsschrauben,”” by G. Kempf, WRH, Vol. 19, pp. 145-148, 1939 “Influence of Blade Roughness and Scale Effect on Propeller Efficiency,” by G. Kempf, SBMEB, Vol. 46, pp. 279-280. 1939’ “Ergebnisse Naturgrosser Schrauben- versuche auf Dampfer Tannenberg, by G. Kempf, WRH, Vol. 20, pp. 167-174. 10. ‘'Versuche Uber die Profileigenschafeen der Bluttschritten von Schiffsschrauben und ihr Ein- fluss auf deren Entwurf und Auswercung,” by F. Gutsche, Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuch- sanstalt fir Wasserbau und Schiffoau, Berlin, Heft 10, 1933. “‘Kennwerteinflisse bei Schiffsschrauben- Modellversuchen’”? by F. Gutsche, SJG, 1936, p. 277, and WRH, 1936, p. 4. “Versuche mit umlaufenden Trigfluegeln,” by F. Gutsche, WRH, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1940, pp. 1415.REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR MODEL PROPELLER EXPERIMENTS a 11, “Results of Experiments on Model Screw Propellers with Wide Blades,” by R. W. L. Gawn, INA, Vol. 79, 1937, p. 183. Discussion. See also note by Dr. G. Kempf, p. 178, on calculation of scale effect by differences of curves for Cy and Cor 12. “Scale Effect in Screw Propellers,” by J. F, Allan, INA, 1934, p. 111, 13, ‘The Effect of Inclination, Immersion, and Seale, on Propellers in Open Water,” by R. de Santis, INA, 1934, p. 380. “Sull’ effetco scala nelle eliche geometrica mente simili,” by R. de Santis, Annali Vasca Naz. Esper. Arch. Nav., Roma, 10, 1941, pp. 51-71. “La cortezione d’attrito sulla pala dell’ ellica ed il principie di similitudine meccanica,”* by A. di Bella, 1942. Annali Vasca Naz. Esper. Arch. Nav., Roma, 11, pp. 151-163. 14. “Dimensional Analysis of Model Propel- ler Tests,” by E. Buckingham, ASNE, Vol. 48, 1936, pp. 147-198. 15. "Propulsion Seale Effect, Lammeren, NECIES, 1939/40. 16. ‘The Efficiency of Marine Sctew Propel- ers and the Drag Coefficient,” by G. S. Baker, NECIES, Vol. 61, 1944/5, p. 279. 17. “Experiments in the Lithgow Propeller Tunnel,” by A. Emerson and L. W. Berry, NECIES, Vol. 63, 1946/7, p. 333. 18. “‘Seale Effect on Model Propellers,’ by J. G. Hill, TMB Report 660, 1948. 19. “Cavitation of Screw Propellers,” by R. W. L. Gawn, NECIES, Vol. 65, April, 1949, p.- 339; see also p. 349. 20. “Tests on Four CircularBack Aerofoils in the Compressed Air Tunnel,” by D. H. Williams, A. F. Brown and C. J. W. Miles, ARC R and M 2301, p. 3. 21, "Principles of Naval Architecture,” Ros- sell and Chapman, SNAME, Vol. II, pp. 138-139. 22, “Resistance, Propulsion and Steering of Ships,” by W. P. A. van Lammeren, L. Troost and J. Kéning, 1948, pp. 139-142, 164-167. 23. International Conference Reports; Paris, 1935; Berlin, 1937; London, 1948, 24, “A Note on Propeller Scale Effect,” by E. V. Telfer, 1951. by W. P. A.van These publications were translated into Eng- lish where necessary, and all of them summarized 30 that a survey of che information could be made. The information contained in these references aturally covers a great many points which, al- ready have been discussed at these conferences and it does not appear that any important data have been overlooked in the past. The next part of this statement makes brief references to sali- ent points in the publications. Items 1 and 2, by Gebers and Taylor respec- tively, concern a series of tests on propellers of ogival blade section, and both papers indicate no serious departure from the square law as regards thrust and torque, i.e. no scale effect. Item 3, by Rabbeno, discusses the effect of dissolved air content and also variation of water temperature on propeller action. Four stages are distinguished, depending on the blade pressure conditions. ‘These range from no effect at low pressures to a serious loss in efficiency due to production of bubbles at high pressures. Immersion effect, which influences the non- dissolved air content, is dealt with in item 4 and again in icems 6, 7, 8, and 13. These reports refer to experiments both “tin the open’ and be- hind a model. Ieem 4, by Smith-Keary, states that good agreement was obtained between ship and model as regards rpm and thrust. Item 6, by Kempf, states that in such cases the Froude Law of Similarity can be applied only if the pressures fare similar for model and ship. There is agree- ment as regards the general drop in thrust, torque, and also efficiency due to propeller tips ap- proaching and breaking surface. The importance of the interaction between propeller and hull in such conditions is emphasized in item 6. Ikem 7, by Kempf, makes special reference to high-slip conditions and mentions the partial re- covery that takes place in thrust and perform- ance after air saturation has occurred. A mini- mum Rp of 0.5 x 10 at 0.7 radius is suggested for such tests. Item 8 refers to Kempf's discussion of the ques- tion of frictional drag of propeller blades and proposes the assumption that at zero thrust the torque is caused mainly by frictional drag. Ie is suggested that ideal smoothness is achieved on the model propeller at an Ry of 0.6 x 10", Allow- ance for roughness on the full-scale propeller is proposed and an example is given. Item 9 develops this proposal and gives a specific method for applying the correction for seale effect and roughness. The results of che full-scale trials on the Tannenberg are cited, and one conclusion from these is that'the rough ness allowance on the ship propeller just off- sets the scale effect on the propeller friction coefficient. Trem 10 refers to Gutsche’s work on individual foils in “under” and “over” critical flow condi- tions, to cascade effects, and to the application of this to the complete propeller. Limiting Rp2 REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR MODEL PROPELLER EXPERIMENTS, values for the change of condition are given for two types of section. 5 Item 10 also covers Gutsche’s tests on a spe- cial 3-bladed propeller in which pressure on the blades was measured. These tests show the ¢! fect of centrifugal force on the boundary layer in a rotating propeller. Item 11, dealing with Gawn’s series tests on wide-bladed propellers, gives no specific infor. mation on scale effect, although the effect of blade roughness was referred to in the discussion. Item 12 refers to Allan’s tests on scale effect in blade elements of different types and to the ef fect of this on model propeller performance, The “under” and “over” critical condition of flow is noted. A proposal is made to utilize a spe- cial water tunnel under pressure and at high temperature in order to reach high R,values with models of reasonable size. Some ship-to-model performance comparisons are given. Item 13 refers to de Santis’ tests on inclina~ tion, immersion, and scale in open-water tests. His conclusions are: (2) The smaller the propeller, the smaller the thrust and torque and the greater the efficiency. (2) Increasing immersion gives increasing thrust, torque and efficiency but when the im- mersion/diameter ratio exceeds 0.8 there is no more effect. (3) Inclination up to 6 degrees has no material effect on thrust, torque, or efficiency. This item also refers to some tests made by de Santis on a model propeller with smooth and rough surface. The loss in effective pitch due to rough~ ness is shown, and scale effects in thrust and torque are shown. It is concluded that roughness does not guarantee constancy of type of flow. Di Bella’s theoretical work is covered also by this item. He assesses the change in thrust and torque due to friction changes, using Blasius and von Karman formulas. He considers the theoreti= cal results are in line with experience. Item 14 refers to a paper by Buckingham giving a general review of the position, A propeller diameter of 16 in. is proposed as being large enough to avoid the critical range. Trem 15 refers to van Lammeren’s scale-effect series. Extensive reference is made to Gutsche’s work, It is stated that as laminar, turbulent, or transitional flow may exist on a propeller blade, care should be taken in drawing conclusions from open-water propeller tests with ehe same propel- ler at different rpm, Propeller efficiency may in- crease or decrease depending on the R,, and the type of flow. The efficiency of a smooth propel- ler is likely to increase indefinitely with increase in Rye Item 16 refers to Baker's paper in which he puts forward a simple formula for propeller ef s(-s) Gros) ‘the @ constant depends directly on mean drag co- efficient. Scale effect tests on blade sections in the Compressed Air Tunnel (CAT) are referred to (see also item 20) and a method is developed for correcting the drag coefficient of well-designed propellers. Item 17 gives some scale-effect results by Emerson and Berry for 8-in. and 6,4in, diameter propellers tested in the NPL tunnel. The range of Rq was such as to cover a large amount of “under-critical”” flow and a large scale effect in thrust is noted. Item 18, a paper by Hill, refers to propeller scale-effece cests at the David Taylor Model Basin, Reference is made to the effect of defor- mation on model propellers under load. The use of curbulence stimulation on model propellers is suggested. Item 19 refers to work by Gawn on the cavita- tion of screw propellers; the “scale” effects re~ ferred to are concerned with cavitation. Item 20 refers to experiments inthe CAT at the NPL by Williams and others on four ogival- sectioned acrofoils. A maximum R,, of 6 x 10* is covered and it is suggested that little change in the life curve is to be expected beyond this point, except in the region of the stall. The effect of surface roughness is mentioned. Trem 21 refers to the general review of the subject given in “Principles of Naval Archi- tecture”? by Rossell and Chapman, and item 22 to a similar survey in “Resistance, Propulsion and Steering of Ships” by van Lammeren, Troost, and Kéning. Item 23 covers the reports of the previous con- ferences in 1935, 1937,and 1948. The reader will be familiar with that for 1948 which covers the previous discussion: Item 24 refers to a proposal put forward by Telfer that the extrapolation diagram given in his 1949 INA paper is very conveniently applicable to the propeller problem. The details of this method are being circulated separately. ‘Summing up the position, it may be said that the causes of “scale effect” in the performance of screw propellers are: (The ‘change fon laminar to turbulent boundary layer flow on the blades. (2) The continued decrease in turbulent fric~ tion with increase of Ry. In the above statement ficiency, namely: 7= and shows thatREYNOLDS NUMBER FOR MODEL PROPELLER EXPERIMENTS B scale effect” is defined as ‘variation in the value of Ky and Ko with change in R, of geo- metrically-similar propellers at constant J or slip value.”” The major effect of the change from laminar to turbulent flow on the blades is a movement of the separation point on the suction side from forward towards the trailing edge. This is as- sociated with a large increase in pressure lift and a large reduction in eddy drag. These changes ate most marked in thick, ogival sec~ tions, and scarcely noticeable in thin hydrofoil sections, They take place in the R,, range 0.1 to 0.310%. The continued decrease in turbulent friction with increase in R, causes a continued fall in Ko and a very increase in Ky for ideally smooth propellers, and there is no limit to this effect in terms of increasing Raw In addition to these influences there are im- portant effects arising from immersion, air con- tent of water and blade roughness, but these must be allowed for independently. The methods which have been proposed to cor rect for propeller scale effect apply generally to the blade friction only and assume no change in the lift circulation or pressure distribution round the blades. These methods by Kempf, van Lam- meren, and Baker, are described in items 9, 15, and 16 respectively, and a new proposal by Tel- fer in item 24. In general, they make provision for roughness allowance on the full-size propeller. None of these methods has been widely adopted, probably because of doubts regarding the ac- curacy and extent of our knowledge of the various factors involved, and also because of associated scale effects in the hull factors. It has generally been preferred to adopt an over-all factor between model and ship to cover various unknowns. Some experiments have been made with turbu- lence-stimulating grids ahead of a model propel- ler, item 15, but the results are not sufficiently comprehensive or conclusive. There is also a body of opinion which considers that the stimula~ tion must take place on the blade itself, othe wise laminar flow may be established on the leading part of the blade even in a stream con taining an appreciable amount of turbulence. ‘A further complication arises in the difference in turbulence between the open-water condition and the behind condition, so that whereas the flow may be largely laminar in the former it is probably turbulent in the latter. ‘At this point mention may be made of efforts propeller blades. if this can be achiéved successfully on the model, it is still a major problem to reproduce similar flow conditions on scale. It is, of course, appreciated that jon from laminar to turbulent flow on pro- peller blades may cause either a gain or a loss in performance depending on the shape and thick- ness ratio of the sections, It appears that our present knowledge of flow conditions on propel- lers is insufficient to determine the extent and effect of laminar flow on the model propeller performance. More extensive work on turbulence stimulation on propellers should be done. This should in- clude stimulation on the blade as well as in the stream ahead of the propeller. A method should be developed also for detecting the extent of lam- inar flow on propeller blades ot determining the position of transition from laminar to turbulent flow. When the flow conditions on the model pro- peller are known and controlled it will be possi~ ble co apply a blade-friction correction method with confidence. Ie will be essential to have a more extensive knowledge of propeller-blade roughness so that correct allowance can be made for the effect of this on blade friction. Measurements of blade roughness therefore should be made on repre- sentative groups of full-scale propellers. It would be useful ¢0 carry out similar tests on blade ele- ments of various types and thicknesses, to en- able this approach to be developed. To provide a check on “‘scale-effect”? correc: tions based on the foregoing, it is recommended that several “scale-effect” series of propellers should be tested. High-power dynamometers will be required for this work and it should include the investigation of roughness effects on, say, 2-ft diameter propellers. The several series should cover variation of pitch ratio, area ratio, thickness ratio and number of blades, but should be confined to well-designed propellers which avoid any eddy-making. Work on any one series should be confined to one establishment. There are difficulties in carrying out such a program internationally, but to achieve the results in a reasonable time, it will be necessary to spread the work over several establishments. The members of the Conference should com- ment on, ctiticize and amend the above sugges- tions, so that a useful and practicable program of further research may be determined at the Confer Attention is drawn to the recent publication by the ASNE of a paper by Dr. Lerbs “On the Effects of Scale and Roughness on Free-Running Propellers.”24 REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR MODEL PROPELLER EXPERIMENTS Formal Discussion ComMENTS BY DR. J. F. ALLAN This question forms an important part of the more general question of scale effect on propul- sion factors, discussed as a separate item in this Conference. It was posed originally as ‘The Determination of Minimum Reynolds Number for Propeller Model Experiments”? but is resolving it~ self into a determination of an acceptable method of correcting for propeller scale effect and blade roughness. ‘There is no generally accepted method of mak- ing these corrections, and it is highly desirable that in due course a uniform decision should be reached in this matter. To that end, it appears to me that a critical study should be made, by the Committee, of existing and proposed methods of making such corrections, including: (1) Dr. Telfer’s proposal, which is before the Conference (2) Dr. Lerbs’ proposal as published in a re- cent paper (3) An amplification of the late Dr. Baker's proposal which will be available shortly through the BSRA, There is a lack of large-scale propeller geo- sim data against which to check the method; fa- cilities for obtaining such large geosim data are limited. There shortly will be available a large~ scale propeller dynamometer at the Taylor Mode! Basin. We have made considerable progress to- ward designing and manufacturing a large-scale propeller dynamometer for open testing. I think John Brown and Company have a fairly powerful inserument and it may be that the Rome tank also has such a dynamometer available. I recommend that some attempt be made to coordinate work with such large-scale propeller dynamometers as are available, so that we may avoid overlapping of effort and cover as wide a range of type of propeller and variation of characteristics of pro- peller as may be achieved. ‘We cannot rigidly coordinate such work inter nationally, but a good deal has been achieved in that direction on the cavitation propeller series, and a similar success might be achieved with open propeller geosim testing. Any tank propos ing to test a series of similar propellers is re- quested to advise the Chairman of the Interna tional Committee of the general particulars of the series. ‘As a start, I make the suggestion that the Series I and Series I propellers, varying from 8 in, to 16 in, diameter, which already have been accurately manufactured and tested in the cavita- tion tunnels, could be tested very usefully in the open over as wide a range of conditions as possi- ble to start this accumulation of accurate data on propeller geosims for the purpose of studying scale effects. Ie also would be of great value to carry out roughness tests, especially on the larger-scale propellers of these and other geosims which may be tested by any of the basins concerned with this Conference. The other major problem is the question of the extent of laminar flow on model propellers and the control of laminar and turbulent flow on pro- peller models. We have here a rather difficult problem and one which has not been investigated 80 far to any appreciable extent. Methods of de- tecting changeover from laminar to turbulent flow in the propeller are rather difficult to devise, and suggestions in this direction would be welcome. I feel that the title of this subject could be changed usefully from the determination of mini- mum Reynolds number to the determination of an acceptable method of correcting for propeller scale effects and roughness effects, with appro- priate terms of reference. Consideration should be given also to the possibility of merging this Committee into, say, the Cavitation Committee. One last point concerns the personnel of the Committee, which should be modified to make it more representative. I am not suggesting it should be enlarged, but due to the shifting of per- sonnel since the existing Committee was formed there is a certain unbalance of distribution of membership. COMMENTS BY DR. J. M. ROBERTSON Decision 2 of the London Conference stresses the need for model propellers made to a high de~ gree of precision. At the Ordnance Research Laboratory of the Pennsylvania State College, we have a propeller research program, the experi- mental phases of which require high-precision propellers. Five- to six-in. diameter propellers are needed with desired section tolerances of 0.001 in., but acceptable tolerances of 0.003 in. This contribution reports briefly on the results of the two-year program concerning propeller manufacture. A survey of the known possible methods of manufacture indicated that only a process which terminated with laborious hand-finishing by skilled craftsmen, using precision templates, could be counted on to achieve the minimum tol- erance of 0.001 in. We have been able to obtain