1

PROPULSION IN ICE
keywords: power, propulsion, ice, propeller, design, loads, efficiency
ABSTRACT
Operational requirements of ships that navigate in ice-covered waters are
important drivers for the design of the ships propulsion systems and powering. Using
typical operational requirements to illustrate, connections are made to the design of the
propeller, propulsion system machinery and powering. Propeller-ice interaction is a
unique feature of ships that operate in ice. It affects elements of propulsion efficiency as
well as the strength of the propulsion system components, particularly the propellers. The
physical processes involved in propeller-ice interaction are described, including how ice
contact forces are imposed on propellers and how the propellers are consequently loaded.
Design implications of propeller-ice interaction and ice loads are discussed. A method for
estimating propulsion power at the early stages of design is presented and some
machinery types are identified. The chapter begins with a review of the elements of
propulsion efficiency and power to put the discussion of propulsion in ice into context.
1

INTRODUCTION

Operational requirements of ships that navigate in ice-covered waters are

important drivers for the design of the ships propulsion systems and powering. Using
typical operational requirements to illustrate demands on powering, maneuvering,
propulsion system performance and strength, connections are made to the design of the
propeller and its arrangement, propulsion system machinery and powering. Propeller-ice
interaction is a unique feature of ships that operate in ice. The interaction affects elements
of propulsion efficiency as well as the strength of the propulsion system components,
particularly the propellers. The physical processes involved in propeller-ice interaction
are described, including a focus on ice contact forces and how they give rise to ice loads
on the propeller. Design implications of propeller-ice interaction and ice loads are
discussed in terms propeller geometry, propeller type (fixed and controllable pitch),
nozzles, and propeller arrangement. A method for estimating propulsion power at the
early stages of design is presented and some machinery types are identified. The chapter
begins with a review of the elements of propulsion efficiency and power to put the
discussion of propulsion in ice into context.
2

ELEMENTS OF PROPULSION EFFICIENY AND POWER

Before launching into the particulars of propulsion in ice, the elements of

propulsion efficiency and corresponding elements of power are presented, drawing on the
more detailed treatments found in textbooks by Harvald (1983), Watson (1998), Carlton

(2007) and Bose (2008). Overall efficiency can be considered as being comprised as
follows:

1
(1)
= H BSM
dr
1+ x

where H is the hull efficiency, B is the propeller efficiency in the behind ship condition,
S is the shafting efficiency, M is the machinery efficiency, x is a service allowance, and
dr is a de-rating factor. Hull efficiency can be written as

H =

PE RV
1 t
=
=
PT TVA 1 w

(2)

where PE is the effective power and PT is the thrust power, given by

PE = RV

(3)

PT = TVA

(4)

and where R is the resistance (of a towed or unpropelled vessel), T is the propeller
thrust, V is the ship speed, VA is the advance speed, which is the mean axial speed of the
fluid relative to the propeller disc behind the ship (but without the influence of the
propeller on the flow), t is the thrust deduction fraction, and w is the wake fraction.
The decomposition of efficiency into these elements reflects the model testing
methods used to evaluate resistance and propulsion. The propeller efficiency in the
behind ship condition B can be written as

B =

PT
TVA
=
= OR
PD 2nQ

where PT is the thrust power, as before, and PD is the delivered power at the propeller,
given by
PD = 2nQ

(6)

where n is the propeller shaft speed, Q is the propeller torque, O is the propeller
efficiency in open water (that is, in steady, uniform flow), and R is the relative rotative
efficiency, which links O and B.
Continuing, the shaft efficiency S, which represents power transmission losses in
the shafting, can be written as

S =

(5)

PD
PS

(7)

where PD is the delivered power, as before, and PS is the shaft power before shafting
transmission losses. Similarly, the machinery efficiency M can be written as

M =

PS
PB

where PS is the shaft power, as before, and PB is the brake power, or the power measured
at the machinery, given by
PB = 2nM

(10)

where PB is the brake power, as before, PBS is the service power, and x is a factor to
account for service conditions, such as weather and hull fouling. This service factor is
applied by the owner based on the operating route and service type. Finally, the de-rating
factor dr in equation (1), which recognizes that diesel engines are generally run at less
than their maximum continuous power capacity, can be written as

dr =

(9)

where M is the torque at the machinery. Continuing further with the decomposition of
equation (1),

1
P
= B
1 x PBS

(8)

PBS
PBC

(11)

where PBC is the maximum continuous rated power for the engine. Linking the elements
of power and efficiency, the overall efficiency expressed by equation (1) can be recast:
1
dr
1+ x
PE
P P P P P P
= E T D S B BS
PBC PT PD PS PB PBS PBC

= H B S M

These elements of can be grouped as describing hydrodynamic efficiency, shafting and

machinery efficiency, and operational factors that combine to give an overall propulsion
efficiency. The operational factors

1
P P
dr = B BS
1+ x
PBS PBC

(12)

(13)

reflect the engine de-rating and the demands of the service and the corresponding power
margin installed to ensure that the operational demands can be met. A service margin of
0.2 might be judged suitable in some cases. Likewise, de-rating by 0.85 to 0.90 might be

applied to a diesel engine to decrease maintenance requirements and extend service life.
The shafting and machinery efficiencies

SM =

(14)

might combine to yield 95% efficiency for a geared diesel system under steady operating
conditions. The efficiency of other machinery types, such as diesel-electric machinery,
will be a little different, so this can be adjusted to accommodate the machinery type.
The combination of the hull and behind ship efficiencies, which constitute the
hydrodynamic efficiency elements in equations (1) and (12), is known as the quasipropulsive coefficient D. In steady operating conditions, this might have a value of about
0.65, which represents the hydrodynamic efficiency as the ratio of the effective and
delivered powers.

H B =

PD PS
PS PB

PE PT
= D
PT PD

(15)

These elements of efficiency have particular significance to propulsion in ice and will be
discussed in more detail below.
3

DESIGN DRIVERS

The extent to which ice influences the design of a given ship will depend on its
intended function as detailed in the owners statement of requirements. A cargo ship that
may have to transit thin, broken ice from time to time, but is otherwise destined for clear
water (no ice) service may incorporate few, if any, design features that relate to
propulsion in ice, other than the minimum requirements specified by the ships intended
class notation. Towards the other end of the spectrum, the performance requirements
associated with operations in ice will have a radical impact on the propulsion system
design of icebreakers. A few examples will serve to illustrate.
One of the main owners requirements of an icebreaking ship is that it be capable
of transiting through an intact level ice field of some specific thickness at a specified
speed. Indeed, there may be more than one combination of ice thickness and speed in the
specification of continuous icebreaking requirements. Similarly, there may be
requirements that the vessel be capable of breaking through ice ridges of a specified size,
and through navigation channels that are subjected to repeated freezing and breaking and
consequently become swamped in brash ice. Such requirements translate into the ships
installed power needs, PBC, resulting in the relatively high power to displacement ratios
associated with icebreaking ships. The thrust requirements for icebreaking may exceed
the capacity of a single propeller to deliver as the high loading on a single propeller
would cause excessive cavitation. This may drive the designer to use two or even three
propellers to meet the various powering demands of the ships operational profile.
Although more than one propeller may be necessary given the powering needs of the

ship, two or three propellers clearly increase the complexity of the propulsion system, as
well as its capital and operating costs.
More power is not the only propulsion system design characteristic arising from
operations in ice. Icebreaking ships are often required to be highly maneuverable and
controllable. Escort icebreakers, for example, will have to execute exacting maneuvers in
close proximity to the vessels they escort, including maneuvers to break the ice around
vessels that become stuck. These types of operations give rise to requirements such as
turning circle diameters for specified ice conditions, and icebreaking in astern mode,
again with specified combinations of ship speed and ice thickness. The same holds for ice
management vessels deployed to protect offshore installations from the worst effects of
prevailing ice conditions. Ice management icebreakers will have to respond rapidly to
changing ice conditions, including aggressive ramming of multi-year ice floes or
consolidated ice ridges that approach the installation.
To meet these requirements, the propulsion system has to be robust, responsive
and flexible, which has a profound effect on the design of the propulsion machinery
system, including the choice of main machinery type. In addition, the combined effects of
high power and high maneuverability drive the design and arrangement of the propulsors
and steering equipment. Designers have responded over the years with a startling array of
solutions that have seen different combinations of main machinery (diesel-electric,
geared diesel, gas turbine, nuclear and steam turbine) and propellers (fixed pitch,
controllable pitch, open propeller, ducted propeller, single, twin and triple propellers with
various numbers of rudders, single and twin bow propellers, and azimuthing steering
propellers).
So far, the discussion of performance requirements has pointed to the importance
of overall power, the propulsion machinery system design, and propulsor design and
arrangement. In addition, the strength of the propulsion system components needs special
attention to accommodate the high loads arising from interactions between ice and
propulsors.
4

PROPELLER-ICE INTERACTION

As described above, the demands of breaking through ice and the corresponding
increase in resistance to the ships progress can be addressed by a sufficiently large
installed power. Whatever the icebreaking needs, the effectiveness of the power will
depend largely on the interaction of the propulsors with ice (Juurma & Segercrantz,
1981). This can be considered through the lens of the elements represented by the quasipropulsive coefficient introduced above. A description of propeller-ice interaction will
give some insight into the influence that ice can have on propulsion and how design
choices might be used to best effect. The descriptions below draw from Veitch (1992 and
1995).
Ice broken at the ships bow during transit is submerged as the vessel advances
over it. Some of the broken ice clears to the sides of the vessel, but some pieces slide
along the ships bottom and re-emerge along the run of the hulls afterbody where they
can interact with the propellers. The interaction depends on many factors so can take
innumerable forms, but a description of a few cases will help the reader formulate a

mental model of the process that contains some key features that bear on the effectiveness
of propulsion in ice.
Consider the case of a propeller approaching a large piece of submerged ice that is
sliding along the hull forward of the propeller. As the distance between the propeller and
ice closes, the disturbance of the fluid downstream the ice will increase. This same
disturbance is in the upstream propeller race, in effect changing the wake field. The
disturbance in the wake field will increase as the propeller approaches the ice, reaching a
maximum when they come into contact. Focusing for the moment on the hydrodynamics,
the disturbance to the flow to the propeller can be characterized as transient, lasting only
as long as the ice is upstream of the propeller. Further, it is local, restricted approximately
to the flow between the ice and the propeller. The propeller will experience this as a
transient, local disturbance in the wake field that will manifest as transient hydrodynamic
loading and possibly vibration. The same basic phenomena occur when breaking ice in
astern mode, although the ice in this type of operation does not have as far to travel to
reach the propeller.
Using this description of the effects of a single piece of ice as a basis, it is not
difficult to imagine what will happen as many ice pieces approach and pass through the
propeller disc area in an unsteady, discontinuous stream that might involve several
obstructing pieces of ice at one moment, followed by none seconds later and so on.
Spatial and temporal variations in the wake field will cause unsteady, transient propeller
(hydrodynamic) loading conditions.
An extreme but important example of this can occur when large ice pieces
become stuck on the upstream side of a ducted propeller, blocking flow to a substantial
portion of the propeller disc area and causing huge local wake field disruptions that will
persist for as long as the ice blockage remains. Under these highly turbulent conditions,
the unsteady, cyclic propeller blade loading can cause very large vibrations. With
reference to equation (2), one might be tempted to conclude that blockage of flow that
results in an increase in the mean wake fraction must improve the hull efficiency and
therefore the quasi-propulsive coefficient (equation (15)). This is spurious: the same
conditions promote flow separation around the ice, thrust breakdown, and cavitation. The
wake fraction concept for steady behind-ship conditions in clear water (that is, in the
absence of ice) does not have the same utility under the unsteady conditions due to the
presence of ice. From an operations perspective, an ice-clogged ducted propeller is
detrimental to performance and must be addressed. For a fixed pitch ducted propeller,
this will mean reversing the direction of the shaft to flush the ice blockage. For a
controllable pitch ducted propeller, the pitch will have to be reversed. In both cases, the
blockage and the actions taken to flush it will interrupt operations.
Consider next what happens when the propeller comes into contact with ice. The
interaction becomes more complicated, involving both turbulent hydrodynamic loads as
well as contact loads. The description that follows reverts to the case of an open, rather
than ducted propeller. A large ice piece, say with dimensions comparable to or greater
than the propeller blade span, will have its movement slowed as it reaches the propeller
and is struck by a blade. The ice piece will then be progressively chopped by consecutive
blade passes as it is fed through the propeller disc. As each consecutive blade cuts into
the ice body, a portion of the ice is removed in a burst of small broken particles, rather
than chunks, reflecting the nature of the local propeller-ice contact and ice failure. This

cutting process can continue for some time, say for five to thirty blade passes, depending
largely on the size of the ice relative to the propeller. Each blade contact will result in an
impact-like contact load, in addition to a transient hydrodynamic load as described above.
The magnitude of these cyclic loads can be high and result in significant vibrations,
particularly near the stern, as well as a reduction in the propulsion systems effectiveness.
When the ice piece has been reduced to a small remnant, it can pass through the propeller
disc, ending the event.
Figure 1 illustrates this process during forward ship operations. The view
represented in the figure is from upstream of the propeller looking aft. The propeller is
four bladed and only one blade contacts the ice piece at a time. Despite the repeated blade
cuts, the ice piece is shown as remaining in the same place, although in reality, it would
experience momentary accelerations associated with each blade impact, as well as axial
movement (away from the viewer) as it proceeds through the propeller disc.

Figure 1. Propeller-ice interaction event.

Large ice pieces can also be constrained by the adjacent hull during interaction
with a propeller. In this scenario, layers of ice from the ice piece are chopped away by
consecutive blades as the ice moves through the propeller disc. As before, each blade
contact causes sudden impact-like loads on the contacting blade. As a large part of the ice
body in such cases extends beyond the disc area, only the ice in way of the blades is
destroyed, leaving a cylindrical groove as evidence of the propeller-ice milling process in
the remaining part of the ice piece. Figure 2 illustrates a milling event during astern
operations. The view is again from forward of the propeller looking aft. The large ice
piece is constrained by the adjacent hull as it is milled by a series of blade passes. Contact
on the blades in this case can be seen to extend over about 25% of the span from the tip.

Figure 2. Propeller-ice milling.

Not all submerged ice pieces are large. Relatively small pieces, say those smaller
than about a quarter of the propeller blade span, approach and either pass through the
propeller disc area without much interaction, or are struck by only a single blade,
resulting in the ice being deflected tangentially and broken up. From a propulsion
perspective, the larger pieces are of interest, rather than the smaller pieces. In this
context, larger can be taken as equal to or greater than about half the blade span.
Contact between a large ice piece and the propeller is concentrated at the leading
edge of the blades and is most likely to extend from the tip along some length of the
blade, depending on the size of the ice and its position relative to the propeller. Contact
extending from the tip to say 25% to 50% of the blade span is probably typical of a
significant interaction event.
As might be expected, most interaction between propellers and ice occurs near the
top of the propeller disc area, closest to the water surface and hull. Whether the vessel is
operating in ahead or astern modes, the extent and severity of interaction between the
propeller and broken ice pieces is influenced by the propeller arrangement and hull form.
With this in mind, a single deeply submerged centerline propeller may be less prone to
interaction than twin wing propellers. In both cases, the clearance between the hull and
the propeller can be an especially important consideration, with greater clearances
reducing interaction. For a given hull form, increasing the clearance is likely to mean
decreasing the propeller diameter, so there a trade-off with the efficiency advantage of a
larger propeller diameter.
5

ICE LOADS ON PROPELLERS

Contact loads on the propeller are important in terms of propulsion and propeller
strength and design, so they bear some attention here. As noted earlier, contact during
propeller-ice interaction tends to be concentrated along the leading edge of the propeller.
The typical contact kinematics will mean that the extent of contact on the face, or
pressure side, of the blade will be severely limited due to the formation of cracks from

the leading edge contact zone to a nearby unconfined ice surface. This cracking process
will produce many small ice chips. On the back, or suction side of the blade, the contact
results in more localized ice crushing than chipping, and the contact can extend farther
along the back of the blade from the leading edge. The contact is highly localized and as
the ice failure involves intermittent, repetitive cracking, the process is unsteady and so
are the contact loads on the propeller.
Figure 3 illustrates the contact between a blade and ice at one instant. The figure
shows a single expanded two-dimensional propeller blade section and a corresponding
section through the ice that the blade is cutting. There is little direct contact with ice on
the face of the blade because the ice has already cracked into many small fragments as
the blade section cut a slice of the ice piece away. Contact extends a short distance from
the leading edge along the sections back, where the ice is crushed. This shows why ice
contact loading is very highly concentrated at the leading edge.
(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Ice contact and blade loading.

As a consequence, ice loads tend to cause sharp increases in torque as each blade
cuts into ice. The individual load spike will drop as the blade passes out of the ice, but
will repeat as soon as the next blade contacts the ice. The time history of propeller torque
for an interaction event will show cyclic load spikes corresponding the number of blade
passes involved. The ice-induced torque load spikes can be several times the magnitude
of the average steady propeller torque load. The average torque will also be elevated as a

10

result. A quick look at equations (5) and (15) shows that the contact loads will reduce the
propulsive efficiency as a result of the elevated torque.
The same contact force that causes the torque load described above also has a
thrust load component that is similarly cyclic. The thrust component can be in either
direction, depending on the contact geometry, so it can cause rapid thrust reversals or
similar load spikes in the same direction as the average thrust. Thrust reversals are clearly
not helpful for propulsive efficiency (see equations (5) and (15)). Even positive thrust
spikes are not helpful from a propulsion point of view, as these are impact loads and not a
steady thrust useful for propelling the ship, regardless of their nominal effect of
increasing average thrust.
Propeller strength and related design issues can be considered in light of this
discussion and with reference to Figure 3(b). The out-of-plane bending moment arising
from ice contact loads can exceed by several times the highest hydrodynamic loads. To
prevent blade bending failure, propellers that are likely to encounter significant contact
loads will need thicker blade sections and longer chord lengths than a corresponding
propeller designed for clear water conditions. As discussed previously, there are
advantages to large clearances between the hull and propeller, which may mean choosing
a propeller diameter slightly smaller than might otherwise be necessary. A smaller
diameter can also have a positive effect on limiting the magnitude of the ice-induced
torque and blade bending moments. Further, icebreaker propellers are typically heavily
loaded, so will tend to need relatively high blade area ratios (long chords) compared to
conventional propellers, which is in concert with the strength needs. On the other hand,
thicker sections and larger blade areas result in a small propeller efficiency penalty on O.
A worst-case blade loading scenario occurs when a stationary propeller impacts a
large ice piece while the ship is still advancing. The resulting blade bending moment can
be very large indeed and rather impractical to design against. This is an off-design
condition and should be avoided in operations, leading to the conventional operating
wisdom that there be sufficient power to ensure that the propeller shaft can always be
kept turning.
The concentration of contact force along the leading edge also causes high spindle
torque loads. This is important for blade strength considerations, including with the
combined effects of out-of-plane bending. For fixed pitch ice-going propellers, it may be
prudent to increase the hub diameter beyond the size typical of a conventional propeller,
with the associated marginal decrease in propulsive efficiency. High spindle torque loads
take on added importance for controllable pitch (CP) propellers, leading to the need to
increase the strength of the pitch control mechanism in the propeller hub. For CP
propellers that are to be exposed to large ice loads, this strength consideration can result
in very large hub diameter to propeller diameter ratios to accommodate the pitch
mechanism. Again, propulsive efficiency will be diminished slightly as a consequence of
ensuring adequate strength, more so for the CP than the FP type propeller.
Some of the finer points of propeller design tend to be sacrificed in ice-class
propellers. For example, highly skewed blades that may be attractive in a passenger ferry
are especially susceptible to damage in the event of ice interaction. Skew should be
avoided in the design of propellers that are expected to operate effectively and routinely
in any significant ice conditions. Rake can help increase clearance between propeller tips
and the hull and may even have some benefit in terms of propeller-ice interaction in

11

ahead conditions, but is correspondingly unhelpful in ice when running astern with the
shaft direction reversed. As icebreaking vessels typically have to operate effectively in
astern mode as well as ahead, the propeller sections cannot be optimized strictly for
ahead operations as they have to perform at least reasonably well in the other direction.
Again, there is a small propulsive efficiency penalty.
Icebreaking requirements make high thrust at low speeds especially attractive,
which is a feature of ducted propellers that has led to their use in several ice-going
vessels, including ships with heavy ice duties. One of the drawbacks of ducted propellers
is their tendency to become blocked by large pieces of ice, a problem that was described
above. On the other hand, by limiting the size of ice pieces that can reach the propeller
blades, ducts can have the effect of limiting the magnitude of ice contact forces and the
corresponding propeller loads.
While on the topic of ice blockages, it is worth noting that shaft brackets used to
support wing propellers can also be a place for ice pieces to get stuck and obstruct the
flow to the propeller downstream. Shaft bossing avoid this, although twin propeller
bossings can funnel broken ice into the propellers in ahead mode, and promote a build up
of broken ice pieces in astern mode.
6

PROPULSION POWER

Estimating the powering needs of an ice-going ship is complicated by the

influences of ice, as described above. At the very earliest stage of a design project, a
parametric study might yield some useful guidance, but as the number of comparable
ships (those with at least fairly high ice class) is relatively low and their operational
profiles are diverse, parametric study results are likely to yield only upper and lower
bounds of power, and even these will be rather uncertain. At later stages, model tests in
an ice tank can be used to quantify ice resistance and propulsion performance, as well as
examine the effects of hull form and propeller arrangement on the extent of propeller-ice
interaction.
In between a parametric study and a model test campaign, a power estimate can
be made using early estimates of ice resistance along with a few idealizations and
assumptions. The method outlined here follows the procedure presented in detail by Juva
and Riska (2002) and Riska et al. (1998). The original procedure was developed in
connection with the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules, so deals specifically with Baltic
Sea ice conditions and operating scenarios. Nevertheless, the basic premise of the method
should be applicable to a wider range of ice conditions and operation types.
The first step is to estimate ice resistance in the conditions of interest. There are
many formulations for ice resistance (add a cross-reference here), so a formulation suited
to the circumstances can be used. Ice resistance, RICE, calculated for specific ice
thickness, hICE, as a function of speed, V, is illustrated in Figure 4(a). The design speed
and corresponding ice resistance are labeled. The ice resistance is equated to the thrust
available to overcome it at the given speed, and does not include the hydrodynamic
resistance associated with operations in ice-free conditions, ROW. This net thrust is

12

TNET = RTOTAL ROW

= RICE

Riska et al. (1998) show how TNET can be calculated as a function of ship speed using an
estimate of bollard thrust as a basis.
T (1 t ) = K E ( PD D)

2/3

(17)

In equation (17), T is the thrust at bollard conditions, adjusted nominally for thrust
deduction fraction t, D is the propeller diameter, PD is the delivered power, and KE is a
factor representing the quality of the propeller in terms of bollard pull in the behind
condition. Values for KE given by Juva & Riska (2002) were 0.78 for single CP propeller
ships, 0.98 for twin CP propellers, and 1.12 for triple CP propellers. For FP propellers,
these values are to be multiplied by 0.9. For ducted propellers, the KE value is multiplied
by 1.3. Net thrust for typical propellers is estimated to diminish with speed according to
TNET

(16)

V 2
V
2
= T (1 t )1


3VOW 3 VOW
2

2/3
V
2 V
= K E ( PD D) 1


3VOW 3 VOW

(18)

where VOW is the maximum ship speed in ice free conditions. By substituting RICE for
TNET in equation (18) and rearranging, an estimate of the power required at the design
point can be made. The same equation can then be used to estimate TNET over the full
speed range for that calculated power. This is illustrated in Figure 4(b). Predictions of
ship speed in other ice conditions can likewise be made using the TNET curve in
conjunction with calculations of RICE for those ice condition. This is also illustrated in
Figure 4(b). TNET and the power estimate associated with equation (18) are for ice
resistance only. The open water (hydrodynamic) resistance has to be estimated and
included in the final power estimate as well. As illustrated in Figure 4(c), the clear water
resistance at the low speeds normally associated with ice operations is usually small
relative to the ice resistance at the same speeds.
This formulation for estimating power avoids the uncertainties associated with
determining thrust deduction fraction and wake fraction in ice conditions and at relatively
low speeds and high power. It also ignores the effects of propeller-ice interaction on
propulsive efficiency. The latter effects are probably better left to the model testing stage
when observations of propeller-ice interaction can stimulate meaningful insight into the
likely consequences on propulsion effectiveness. In the meantime, the method outlined
here for predicting the power required to meet performance requirements in ice is a useful
interim step.


(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 4. Power prediction.
Several types of machinery and machinery arrangements have been used in
icebreaking ships over the years. Jones (2008) gives an historical perspective on the
development of icebreaking technology and cites specific examples of different
machinery arrangements used in a variety of ships, including applications of nuclear

13

14

reactors and gas turbines. The most commonly used machinery types for icebreaking
ships are diesel-electric and geared diesel.
In broad terms, diesel-electric machinery configured as a power plant based on
several diesel engines offers a high degree of flexibility and reliability, as well as good
shaft speed and torque characteristics. While diesel-electric machinery installations are
relatively complex, heavy and expensive, they are very well suited to icebreakers. Geared
diesel machinery is simpler, smaller and lighter, and less expensive than diesel-electric
installations and has been used in many icebreaking cargo ships and ice management
vessels. CP propellers and a shaft flywheel can be used with geared diesel machinery to
help mitigate ice-induced engine load and shaft speed variations, which adversely effect
engine performance.
One of the more recent innovations in ship technology in recent years is the
azimuthing propulsion system in which the propulsion motor is housed in a steerable pod
outside the hull and connected to a fixed pitch propeller on a very short shaft. This
arrangement eliminates the need for separate steering gear, provides excellent
maneuvering characteristics, especially at low speeds, and incorporates the propulsion
performance advantages of diesel-electric machinery. It has also been applied in the socalled double-acting mode for cargo ships, wherein the vessel runs astern in ice and
forward in clear water, allowing the hull form to be optimized for the distinct operating
modes. This concept echoes the earlier uses of bow propellers on icebreaking ships in the
Great Lakes and Baltic Sea.
REFERENCES
Bose, N. (2008) Marine Powering Prediction and Propulsors. Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, New Jersey.
Carlton, J. (2007) Marine Propellers and Propulsion, 2nd edition. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford.
Harvald, S.A. (1983) Resistance and Propulsion of Ships. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Jones, S. (2008) A history of icebreaking ships. Journal of Ocean Technology, 3(1):5374.
Juurma, K. and Segercrantz, H. (1981) On propulsion and its efficiency in ice. Star
Symposium, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, pp.229-237.
Veitch, B. (1992) Propeller-ice interaction. Licentiate of Technology Thesis, Helsinki
University of Technology, 102 pp.
Veitch, B. (1995) Predictions of ice contact forces on a marine screw propeller during the
propeller-ice cutting process. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Me 118, 140 pp.
Watson, D.G.M. (1998) Practical Ship Design. Elsevier, Amsterdam.