ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule
Sing-Kwan Lee
Research & Product Development, Technology, American Bureau of Shipping
Houston, Texas, USA
slee@eagle.org
Originally presented at the IceTech Conference held July 20 - 23, 2008, in Banff, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT
While there are power saving and high thrust capability
advantages of CPP (Controllable Pitch Propeller) for ice
propulsion, the introduction of CP mechanism makes the
propulsion system more vulnerable when operating in heavy ice
condition. In CPP designs, the recently released IACS URI3
Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships provides the
design forces on the propeller blade resulting from propeller-ice
interaction. These design forces are also the source of the
spindle torques, which can be used for the determination of
CPP mechanism scantlings. In this paper, ice loads formulae in
URI3 for open and ducted CPP will be adopted for an existing
ice CPP for its mechanism check to evaluate the rationality of
the Rule. To further explore the influence from different design
principles on CPP scantlings, both the maximum life time ice
load and the blade failure load provided in URI3 will be applied
on the existing CPP to check its mechanism strength. The
detailed comparison of the strength check outcomes provides
very useful information for ice CPP design.

KEY WORDS: Controllable Pitch Propeller, IACS, URI3,

Blade Strength, CPP Mechanism Scantlings.
INTRODUCTION
From a propulsion point of view CPP (Controllable Pitch
Propeller) is a better design option compared to FPP (Fixed
Pitch Propeller) for ice going ships. A current comparison
(Lee, 2008) of ice propulsion capability for open CPP, open
FPP and ducted FPP showed that CPP design not only is the
best energy-saving propulsor among the designs but also has
the capability to continuously generate enough thrusts for
severe ice conditions even when the FPP designs are broken
down.
While there are aforementioned energy saving and high thrust
capability advantages of CPP (Controllable Pitch Propeller) for
ice propulsion, the introduction of CP mechanism makes the
propulsion system more vulnerable when operating in heavy ice
condition. The CPP design can only be safely applied if the
propulsor strength, including propeller blade and CP
mechanism, for resisting extreme ice loads can be sufficiently
assessed.
In propeller strength assessment, the currently released IACS

URI3 Machinery Requirements for Polar Class Ships (2008

IACS) provides the design forces on the propeller blade
resulting from propeller-ice interaction. These forces include
the backward and forward ice forces which were found to be
the main attribution to the cause of major blade deformation
and breakage. In CPP design, these forces can be used as the
original source of the spindle torque for determining CPP
mechanism scantlings. Although IACS URI3 Rule defines the
design loads on ice propeller, the rule does not detail the
scantling for CPP mechanism design. The design is relied upon
more in engineering practices in industry.
As IACS Polar Rule becomes effective as of March 2008
accompanied with the expectation of more and more
application of CPP to be applied in ice propulsion,
comprehensive studies based on the URI3 ice load for CPP
mechanism could be illustrative and useful. In this paper, ice
loads formulae in URI3 for open and ducted CPP will be
adopted for an existing ice CPP for its mechanism check to
evaluate the rationality of the Rule. To further explore the
influence from different design principles on CPP scantlings,
both the maximum life time ice load and the blade failure loads
based on the rule formulae will be loaded on the existing CPP
to check its mechanism strength. The detailed comparison of
the strength check outcomes provides very useful information
for ice CPP design.

ICE RULE SUMMARY

The propeller design ice loads given in URI3 are different from
the ice torque traditionally used in the past and are the results of
extensive research activities. Included in the activities were
analyses of service history of propeller damages, propeller and
shaft load measurements on full- scale trials, laboratory
investigations and numerical simulation of propeller-ice
interaction. Through these activities it has been shown that the
traditional ice torque was not adequate to the ice propeller
strength assessment task. Rather than the in-plane ice torque,
the out-of-plane blade bending moments due to the backward
and forward ice forces were found to be the main attribution to
the causes of major blade deformation and breakage.
In the development of the IACS URI3 Rule, finite element
analyses based on the aforementioned out-of-plane ice load
were carried out by classification societies. The results were

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

119

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

compared with the measured stresses from the icebreakers,
Polar Star and Gudingen. Based on these analyses, it was found
that the simplified cantilever beam method cannot predict the
blade stresses with reasonable accuracy, especially for a highly
skewed blade. It was then concluded FEM-based analyses are
necessary to ice propeller strength assessment.
To assess the blade strength based on the FEM results, a less
restricted reference stress criterion is proposed in URI3. This
reference stress was originally developed to reflect the real
capability of the blade to carry loads aimed particularly towards
extreme ice loads that can cause plastic bending of the blade.
Ice Rule for Propeller
In URI3 Rule, the design forces on the propeller blade resulting
from propeller-ice interaction, including hydrodynamic loads
are provided. These forces are the expected ice loads for the
whole services life of the ship under normal operational
conditions, including loads resulting from the changing
rotational direction of fixed pitch propellers. The Rules cover
open- and ducted-type propellers with fixed or controllable
pitch designs for the following Polar ice classes defined in
URI1 (IACS).
Table 1: Ice class defined in URI1
Polar
Class
PC 1
PC 2
PC 3
PC 4
PC 5
PC 6
PC 7

Ice Description (based on WMO Sea Ice

Nomenclature)
Year-round operation in all Polar waters
Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice
conditions
Year-round operation in second-year ice which may
include multi-year ice inclusions.
Year-round operation in thick first-year ice which
may include old ice inclusions
Year-round operation in medium first-year ice which
may include old ice inclusions
Summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice
which may include old ice inclusions
Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which
may include old ice inclusions

Design ice forces

For the sake of briefness, only the ice loads formulae for open
propeller are noted down here. For ducted propeller, the details
can be referred to the original URI3.
Maximum backward blade force Fb in [kN] unit

Maximum forward blade force Ff in [kN] unit

EAR 2
when D Dlimit
F f = 250 S ice
D
Z
1
when D > Dlimit
EAR
F f = 500 S ice
D
H ice

Z 1 d

D
where

Dlimit =

2
d

1
D

H ice

[m]

d = propeller hub diameter [m]

Table 2: Values of Hice and Sice for different PC ice class
Ice class PC1
Hice[m] 4.0
Sice
1.2

PC2
3.5
1.1

PC3
3.0
1.1

PC4
2.5
1.1

PC5
2.0
1.1

PC6
1.75
1.0

PC7
1.5
1.0

Load cases
In ice blade strength assessment, according to URI3 load cases
1 - 4 have to be covered, as given in Table 3 below, for CP and
FP open propellers. In order to obtain blade ice loads for a
reverse rotating propeller, load case 5 also needs to be
considered for FP propellers.
Table 3: Load cases defined in URI3
case
1

Force
Fb

case
2

0.5 Fb

case
3

Ff

case
4

0.5 Ff

case
5

0.6min{Fb
,Ff}

Loaded area (refer to Figure 1)

Uniform pressure applied on the back of the
blade (suction side) to an area from 0.6R to
the tip and from the leading edge to 0.2
times the chord length.
Uniform pressure applied on the back of the
blade (suction side) on the propeller tip area
outside 0.9R radius.
Uniform pressure applied on the blade face
(pressure side) to an area from 0.6R to the
tip and from the leading edge to 0.2 times
the chord length.
Uniform pressure applied on propeller face
(pressure side) on the propeller tip area
outside 0.9R radius.
Uniform pressure applied on propeller face
(pressure side) to an area from 0.6R to the
tip and from the trailing edge to 0.2 times the
chord length

0.3

0.7 EAR
Fb = 27 S ice [nD ]
D2
Z

when D Dlimit

0.3

0.7 EAR
1.4
Fb = 23 S ice [nD ]
DH ice when D > Dlimit

Z
1.4
where
Dlimit = 0.85 H ice [m]

Hice = design ice thickness (see Table 2)

Sice = ice strength index (see Table 2)
D = propeller diameter in m
EAR = expanded blade area ratio
Z = blade numbers
n = propeller rps [1/s]
For CPP, n = nominal rotational speed at MCR in free
running condition
For FPP, n = 85% of the nominal rotational speed at
MCR in free running condition

120

Stress criterion
For propeller strength, URI3 uses the following plastic stress
criterion.

ref
1.5

where = calculated stress for the design loads; if FE analysis

is used in estimating the stresses, von Mises stress
shall be used
ref = reference stress defined as min{0.7u, 0.6
+0.40.2}; u is ultimate tensile strength, 0.2 is
proof strength

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

For the design based on the blade failure force, the spindle
torque is calculated as follows.
Qex = 2/3 Fex max{ll, lt}
where ll and lt are the distances of axis of blade rotation of
leading and trailing edges.

CPP MECHANISM SCANTLING

Although design loads for CP mechanism design are defined in
URI3, there is no scantling formula provided. In industry the
design is relied upon more in engineering practices.
In CPP mechanism design, due to the complexity of the
mechanical system, the direct calculation method is not
practical. In general, the design and analysis of the system are
based on appropriate simplification of the pitch control and
actuation mechanism elements in the system
Scantling
formula for the mechanical elements are then developed based
on common mechanical design principle. In the following
sections, the loads on the critical elements, the stresses due to
the loads, and design failure criteria are addressed briefly. For
greater details of the design method the reader can refer to ABS
(2005).

Fig. 1 Loaded area for different cases

Blade failure load
Instead of the design using the life time expected maximum
forces, blade failure force is another alternative for CPP
mechanism scantling design if the so-called selective strength
design principle is used. Under the principle, the design of
CPP mechanism is based on the blade failure force so that the
blade will be failed first to protect the CP mechanism.
According to URI3, the blade failure force is acting at 0.8R in
the weakest direction of the blade and at a spindle arm of 2/3 of
the distance of axis of blade rotation of leading and trialing
edge which ever is the greatest. The blade failure load is:

Load on Critical Elements

It is obvious that the source of loads on mechanical elements in
CP mechanism is from the propeller blades. The forces on
blades will transfer to the mechanical elements through a load
path. It should be noted that in addition to the external forces
from blades, there are internal forces generated by friction in
the connected elements. The friction will increase hydraulic
force required to change pitch but could reduce hydraulic force
required for holding pitch. In our analysis for CP mechanism,
this aspect is also considered for collar bearing, trunnion
bearing and sliding block bearings.
Loads and coordinate system
Loads on a propeller blade consist of hydrodynamic loads,
centrifugal loads, and ice loads. Figure 2 shows the coordinate
system used in our calculations. In the most general case, three
forces and moments along x, y, and z axis should be
considered.

0.3 c t 2 ref

10 3 kN
0.8 D 2 r
where c, t, and r are the length, thickness and radius of the
cylindrical root section of the blade at the weakest section
outside the root fillet.
Fex =

Spindle torque for CP mechanism

In determining CPP mechanism scantling, spindle torque is an
essential load to be considered. According to URI3, the spindle
torque Qsmax around the spindle axis of the blade fitting shall be
calculated both for the load cases aforementioned for Fb and Ff.
If these spindle torque values are less than the default value
given below, the default minimum value to be used.
Default value:
where
value.

Qsmax = 0.25 F c0.7 kN-m

c0.7 = length of the blade chord at 0.7R radius, in m

F = either Fb or Ff, whichever has the greater absolute

Fig. 2 Loads and coordinate system

Load path
As mentioned earlier, the forces exerted on a blade will transfer
to CP elements through a load path. Basically, the critical

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

121

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

elements include blade, blade flange, blade attachment bolts,
blade attachment dowels, crank disk, sliding shoe, crosshead,
actuator rod and piston.
A schematic sketch for these
elements is plotted in Figure 3. However, it should be noted
that there are many different designs in industry for CP
mechanism. It is impossible to list all of them here. This one
shown in Figure 3 is only for illustration purposes.

Fig. 4 Load path from blade to bolts and dowels

Fig. 3 Critical elements in CP mechanism

A summary of the load path for CP mechanism is listed in
Table 4.
The table provides the information of loads
transmission among the mechanical elements.

Stress on Mechanical Elements

After the loads on each mechanical element have been
determined, the stresses on the mechanical elements can be
evaluated based on elasticity mechanics. For example, if the
bearing force, Fpl, on pilot is known, the stress, pl, on pilot can
be calculated as pl = Fpl/(DPLXLPL) (see Figure 5).
Similarly, for the dowel, if friction in the joint can be ignored
for conservation, due to the small engagement and close fitting
into the hole, bending is neglected. Therefore, only simple
shear is considered. The shear stress, ds, at the dowel can be
calculated as ds = 4Fd/DDL2 under the load Fd. For other
stress formulae, details can be referred to ABS (2005)

Table 4 Load path of mechanical elements in CP mechanism

Figure 5 dimensions of pilot and dowel

To expand upon the information in this table, a load

transmission path from a blade to bolts and dowels is further
explained by Figure 4 along with the third row of Table 4. As
seen, the blade loads, Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz are transferred
from the blade to blade flange. Once the blade flange receives
the loads, it will pass vertical force, Fy, and horizontal
moments, Mx and Mz, to blade attachment blots; while the
horizontal forces, Fx and Fz, and spindle moment, Fy, will be
transferred to the dowel.
Due to the limitations of the length of the paper, the detailed
load formulae for each critical element will not be provided in
this paper. Readers can refer to ABS (2005).

122

Stress criteria
According to ABS Rule, the strength of the pitch changing
mechanism of controllable-pitch propellers should be at least
1.5 times that of the blade. Table 5 summarizes the criteria for
pitch changing mechanism based on ABS Rule requirement. It
should be noted that for some mechanical elements such as
blade pilot and blade bolt seat since they are only subjected to
compression, material ultimate strength is used instead of
yielding strength.
For the mechanical elements under
maximum hydraulic load, the safety factor 1.5 is used instead of
1.5 time blade strength safety factor (Table 6).

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Table 5 stress criteria for elements subjected to ice loads

and forces normal to the spindle axis are taken on the inner
diameter of the bearing ring. There is one crank pin near the
leading edge of the blade. The crosshead is integral with the
piston actuating rod (Figure 8). The piston is fastened to the
actuating rod with bolts (Figure 9).

Table 6 Stress criteria based on maximum hydraulic load.

Fig. 7 Integral Bearing ring

CASE STUDY
In this section, the aforementioned URI3 ice loads will be
applied to a selected propeller to check the safety of the design.
The design cases for open and ducted propeller subjected to
propeller-ice interaction loads and blade failure loads are
considered in this study. For the blade strength assessment,
FEM analyses are preformed while the safety checks for the CP
mechanism components are based on the scantling formulae in
ABS (2005).

Fig. 8 Crosshead integrated with piston actuating rod

CP Propeller Selected for Study

The selected CPP is a typical hub design used in industry. The
propeller has four highly skewed blades (Figure 6) with a
diameter 5.2 m. It is a twin screw design for a fast ferry and
classed as Baltic ice class IAA (equivalent to IACS PC6).

Fig. 9 Piston fastened to the actuating rod with bolts

Fig. 6 Highly skewed blade profile of the CPP

The blades are secured to the hub with 8 blade bolts. There is a
pilot on the blade and one dowel between the blade and the
crank ring. The bearing ring is integral with the hub (Figure 7)

Design based on Life Time Maximum Loads

Ice loads including backward force, Fb, forward force, Ff, and
spindle torque Qsmax, are calculated based on the URI3 formulae
mentioned earlier. In addition to an open propeller case, a
ducted CPP case with the exact same propeller geometry and
operating rpm is considered. This ducted CPP case is used to
calculate how much the duct can protect CP mechanism. The

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

123

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

following sections summarize the calculations of the ice loads,
their induced stresses on blade and the stresses in the CP
critical elements.

paper length requirements.

Ice Loads of Open and Ducted CPP Cases

Ice loads for open and ducted propeller are provided in the
following table.
Table 7 Backward force, forward force and spindle torque

a
b

Forward
force

Backward
force

Max.
Spindle
torque

Open

kN
1081.5999

kN
905.6226

kN-m
1079.552a

Duct

1081.5999

888.5729

-886.890b

Spindle torque is due to case 3 load (Ff)

Spindle torque is due to case 1 load (Fb)

10a. Blade stress due to load case 1 (edge load)

As seen in the table, the forward forces for open and ducted
propeller are the same. This condition is mainly due to the ice
load mechanism being the same in open and ducted propeller
for the scenario of ice hitting the blade from propeller face side.
In fact, the forward ice load formula for open and ducted
propeller is the same as found in the Rules. However, the
calculation result for the backward ice force and spindle torque
for ducted propeller does reduce, compared to the open
propeller, due to the duct protection effect. For the spindle
torques of open and ducted propellers, it has been found that the
default value is smaller than the actual values calculated by Ff
and Fb.
Stress and Safety Factor of Propeller Blades
Using the pervious calculated Ff and Fb forces, FEM analyses
are performed for the load cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the open
propeller and for the load case 1 and 3 for the ducted propeller.
For the ducted propeller, the load case 2 and 4 are excluded as
the blade tip ice impact/milling scenarios (case 2 and 4) seldom
occur in ducted propeller due to the duct protection
FEM stress analysis results are summarized in the following
table. Safety criterion based on the reference stress is used to
evaluate the structural safety of the propeller. It is noted that
according to the Rules criterion (S.F. > 1.5) the propellers
(open and duct) are strengthened sufficiently to sustain the ice
loads.
Table 8 FEM stress and safety factor for open and ducted
propeller
ref = 452.9 N/mm2
Load case

Open

Duct

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 1
Case 3

FEM stress
N/mm2

299.52
265.87
278.96
300.67
294.58
197.91

Safety factor
ref
1.5

1.512
1.703
1.623
1.506
1.537
2.288

To have a general idea of the stress pattern on the blade, stress

contour plots for the open propeller subjected to case 1 and 2
are drawn in the Figure 10. For ducted propeller, since the
loaded areas on blade are the same as the open propeller cases,
the stress contour patterns are similar to the open propeller
cases with the exception that the stress magnitude is smaller
due to the smaller Fb. The plots of them are not drawn due to

124

10b. Blade stress due to case 2 (tip load)

Fig. 10 Stress caused by edge and tip loads for open propeller
Stress and Safety Factor of CPP Mechanisms
Table 9 CPP mechanism check for open CPP

STRESS
N/mm2
40.643
542.292

9.65
1.19

Backward ice load

Fb = 905.62 kN
Qsmax = - 903.91
kN-m
STRESS
S.F.
N/mm2
28.505
13.8
561.083
1.15

145.855
115.243
124.612
6.688
86.432
120.638

5.14
6.51
5.19
29.31
4.34
1.04

102.296
80.827
87.398
4.69
60.62
129.989

7.33
9.28
7.4
41.8
6.19
0.96

185.775
295.086
69.283
25.862
109.161
209.574

3.23
2.03
8.66
7.54
3.21
1.67

210.449
295.086
47.858
17.865
123.66
209.574

2.85
2.03
12.5
10.9
2.83
1.67

174.133
467.858
221.705

2.01
1.60
1.58

174.133
467.858
221.705

2.01
1.6
1.58

Forward ice load

Ff = 1,081.6 kN
Qsmax = 1079.55 kN-m
PART
Blade Flg. Bend
Pilot Brg.
Blade Bolt
Shank tens
Threads tens
Seat compress
Shear under HD
Thread shr
BLD DWL
Crank Ring
Pin bend
Hyd. Load bend
Flange PC+PM bend
Brg Ring/Hub Shear
CrossHD bend
Hyd Load Bend
A Rod Tens
AR at XHD Tens
PST bolt Tens
PST Bend

S.F.

Table 10 CPP mechanism check for ducted propeller

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Forward ice load

Ff = 1,081.6 kN
Qsmax = 750.57 kN-m
PART
Blade Flg. Bend
Pilot Brg.
Blade Bolt
Shank tens
Threads tens
Seat compress
Shear under HD
Thread shr
BLD DWL
Crank Ring
Pin bend
Hyd. Load bend
Flange PC+PM bend
Brg Ring/Hub Shear
CrossHD bend
Hyd Load Bend
A Rod Tens
AR at XHD Tens
PST bolt Tens
PST Bend

S.F.

Backward ice load

Fb = 888.57 kN
Qsmax = - 886.89 kNm
STRESS
S.F.
N/mm2
28.195
13.9
551.622
1.17

STRESS
N/mm2
40.643
385.872

9.65
1.68

145.855
115.243
124.612
6.688
86.432
79.068

5.14
6.51
5.19
29.3
4.34
1.58

101.183
79.947
86.446
4.639
59.96
127.839

7.41
9.38
7.48
42.3
6.25
0.98

115.453
295.086
61.588
22.99
67.84
209.574

5.20
2.03
9.74
8.48
5.16
1.67

206.83
295.086
47.072
17.571
121.533
209.574

2.9
2.03
12.8
11.1
2.88
1.67

174.133
467.858
211.705

2.01
1.60
1.58

174.133
467.858
221.705

2.01
1.60
1.58

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the safety check results for this CP

mechanism design. At least two loading conditions, namely
forward and backward loads, should be considered in each
design case (open and ducted propeller). In the two loading
conditions, the actual spindle torques that are applied on the
CPP mechanism are based on the following values:
Forward ice load case:
Spindle torque = max{torque due to Ff, 0.25 max{Ff, Fb} c0.7}
Backward ice load case:
Spindle torque = max{torque due to Fb, 0.25 max{Ff, Fb} c0.7}
Redesign of the failed components
According to the calculations, it has been shown that the CP
mechanism parts, pilot and dowel (see the red texts in Table 9
and 10), cannot fulfill the safety criteria mentioned in Table 5.
It is worth investigating whether or not the dimensions of the
parts can be slightly changed to sustain these ice loads. As it is
known, the stress is inversely proportional to the areas
subjected to the loads. Mathematically, these can be expressed
(see also Figure 5 for the meanings of the symbols) as follows:
Stress on pilot

Letting that
i) fp and fd are the area increasing factors of the pilot and the
dowel for the compliance of the required safety criteria
ii) sp and sd are material strength increasing factors for the pilot
and the dowel
iii) sfp and sfd are original safety factors for the pilot and the
dowel (S.F. in Table 9 and 10),
and using the pervious equations for stress and safety factor, the
area increasing factors can be calculated as follows:
Pilot:

fp =

2.25
sf p s p

fd =

2.25
sf d s d

Dowel:

To decide how to increase the dimensions for those parts, the

original dimensions for the pilot and the dowel are plotted in
Figure 11 for reference. As the dowel diameters (DDL) need to
increase a lot, it follows that the pilot diameter needs to
appropriately reduce. Eventually, the final design of the pilot
diameter DPL is reduced to 200 mm to provide more spacing
for the dowel diameter increase. However, it has been noted in
our several trials that if the dowel material is not allowed to
enhance then the increase of dowel diameter will be too large to
get an acceptable design for this CP mechanism. In addition to
the increase of the dowel diameter, the strength of the dowel
material also needs to increase so that the dowel diameter can
maintain in a reasonable range. In this design case, the original
dowel material is ABS propeller material type 4 with yielding
strength 245 N/mm2. The final dowel material will be SST
1341 with yielding strength 392 N/mm2. This means sd is 1.6.

Here, we maintain the pilot as the original material, i.e. sp

= 1.0, in our new design.

1
1
=
area DPL XLPL

Stress on dowel

1
4
=
area DDL2

Also, it is noted that the safety criteria (Table 5) for the parts
are as follows:
Safety criterion for pilot:

ultimate stress
1.5 blade safety facor = 2.25
actual compression stress

Fig. 11 Detailed dimensions of pilot, dowel, and crank ring

Based on the formulae developed earlier, the increasing area
factors are calculated and summarized in the following table for
the pilot and the dowel.

Safety criterion for dowel:

yielding stress
1.5 blade safety facor = 2.25
actual stress

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

125

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

Table 11 Increasing area factors for pilot and dowel

Pilot:
Original
S.F.
fp
Dowel
Original
S.F.
sd
fd

Open
propeller
forward
ice load
1.19

Open
propeller
backward
ice load
1.15

Ducted
propeller
forward
ice load
1.68

Ducted
propeller
backward
ice load
1.17

1.89
1.04

1.96
0.96

1.34
1.58

1.92
0.98

1.35

1.46

0.89

1.43

For CP mechanism design, if blade failure force is applied for

this design, no CP mechanical element will pass the failure
criteria. From this exercise, it may conclude that the selective
strength design principle based on Fex force probably is not
practical for CPP design. However, if the life time maximum
load is used for selective strength design, in our study case the
CPP design is still in a reasonable scantling range.

1.6

Table 12 summarizes the final dimensions of the dowels and

pilots which comply with the safety criteria in Table 5. As seen,
the increasing dimensions are in a reasonable range for this CP
mechanism design.
Table 12 Dimensions for safe design for pilot and dowel
Open
propeller
forward
ice load
Pilot:
Original
dimension
XLPL safe
dimension
Dowel
Original
DDL
DDL
safe
dimension
% of DDL
increase

59.53
mm

Open
Ducted
propeller
propeller
backward
forward
ice load
ice load
DPL = 350 mm
XLPL = 18 mm

Ducted
propeller
backward
ice load

61.74 mm

60.48 mm

42.21
mm
DPL = 200 mm
180 mm

Table 13 Blade failure force and spindle torque

D
2r
c
t
ref

5200
1788
1291
290
452.9

Fex = 0.3ct2ref / [0.8D 2r] = 6,219.15

kN
Qsmax = 2/3 6219.15 1.368 = 5671.86
kN-m

CONCLUDING REMARKS

209 mm

217.5 mm

169.8
mm

215 mm

16 %

20 %

-5%

19.5 %

Design based on Blade Failure Load

Instead of using the life time ice loads as the design loads, the
blade failure load may be another option for design based on a
so-called selective strength design principle, which allows the
blade to break first in order to protect other CP mechanism. In
this section, simple calculations will be performed to check the
rationality of this design principle for CP mechanism.
In principle, the blade failure force Fex formula is only valid for
a conventional design propeller. For a highly skewed propeller,
the blade failure force is much smaller than the value calculated
from the Fex formula. In our pervious FEM analysis for the
same open propeller under lifetime maximum load, it was
found that the case 4 load caused the blade near to failure
criterion limit (S.F > 1.5). The safety factor for the case is
1.506. The ice load for the case actually is just 0.5Ff (540.8
kN, see Figure 1 and Table 7) acting on tip area. However, if
the Fex formula is applied for the propeller, it has been found
that the blade failure force is 6,219.15 kN (see Table 13), which
is huge compared to 0.5Ff. Also, it should be noted that the
failure of the blade is not at the root area as assumed behind the
Fex formula, but is located at outer radius, ~ 0.7R (see Figure
12).

126

Fig. 12 Blade stress pattern under case 4 load scenario

This paper applies the load formulae in IACS polar class rule
URI3 as the design load for a CP mechanism design. The Rule
load formulae include the life time maximum ice loads and the
blade failure load. An existing CPP classed as Baltic ice class
IAA was used in this study. Through the case study results, our
concluding remarks are drawn as follows:

URI3 life time maximum ice loads (Ff and Fb) are higher
than the Baltic ice class load (mainly the ice torque
defined in Finnish Sweetish Ice Rule) for the equivalent
ice classes PC6 and IAA. This results in the existing
Baltic IAA ice CPP design failure in its pilot and dowel
parts.

URI3 life time maximum ice loads are in a reasonable

range for CP mechanism in this low ice class PC6. The
redesign study preformed in this paper shows that slightly
changing the dimensions and the strength of the pilot and
the dowel can fulfill the safety criteria required in general
practices.

For higher ice class, as the ice loads will increase a lot, the
CP mechanism design will be quite a challenging task.
The following table summarizes the ice loads for different
PC classes of the studied open propeller.

Ice class
Fb kN
Ff kN
Qsmax kN-

PC6

PC5

PC4

PC3

PC2

PC1

905
1082
1080

1201
1090
1199

1641
1090
1638

2119
1090
2115

2629
1090
2624

3031
1298
3025

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2008

The blade failure load Fex as the design load for CPP
mechanism design is also studied in this paper. It has been
found that the selective strength design principle based
on Fex may be too conservative causing the difficulty of
CP mechanism design. Also, the simple formula for Fex
does not reflect the blade failure mechanism for highly
skewed propeller.

REFERENCES
ABS PropS2 Users Guide & Manual, 2005
IACS URI1 Polar Class Descriptions and Application, 2008
IACS URI3 Machinery Requirements fro Polar Class Ships,
2008
Lee, S.K., Combine Ice Class Rules with Direct Calculations
for Design of Arctic LNG Vessel Propulsion, CasTech08,
Bangkok, Thailand, 10-13 March, 2008.

Ice Controllable Pitch Propeller Strength Check based on IACS Polar Class Rule

127