Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    All-Electric Naval Combatant

    Uploaded by

    Chakma Nhiki
    This study compares fixed pitch propellers (FPP) and controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant. It analyzes the performance and stresses of each system and identifies advantages and disadvantages. The CPP showed lower stresses but requires more complex control systems. Both propellers were modeled and the CPP had higher efficiency, especially at off-design speeds, but the FPP was simpler with less maintenance needs. Integrating either propeller presents challenges around variable speed drives, pitch control systems, total energy usage, and maintenance requirements that require further investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    All-Electric Naval Combatant

    Uploaded by

    Chakma Nhiki
    127 views1 page
    This study compares fixed pitch propellers (FPP) and controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant. It analyzes the performance and stresses of each system and identifies advantages and disadvantages. The CPP showed lower stresses but requires more complex control systems. Both propellers were modeled and the CPP had higher efficiency, especially at off-design speeds, but the FPP was simpler with less maintenance needs. Integrating either propeller presents challenges around variable speed drives, pitch control systems, total energy usage, and maintenance requirements that require further investigation.

    Original Description:

    All-Electric Naval Combatant

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This study compares fixed pitch propellers (FPP) and controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant. It analyzes the performance and stresses of each system and identifies advantages and disadvantages. The CPP showed lower stresses but requires more complex control systems. Both propellers were modeled and the CPP had higher efficiency, especially at off-design speeds, but the FPP was simpler with less maintenance needs. Integrating either propeller presents challenges around variable speed drives, pitch control systems, total energy usage, and maintenance requirements that require further investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    127 views1 page

    All-Electric Naval Combatant

    Uploaded by

    Chakma Nhiki
    This study compares fixed pitch propellers (FPP) and controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant. It analyzes the performance and stresses of each system and identifies advantages and disadvantages. The CPP showed lower stresses but requires more complex control systems. Both propellers were modeled and the CPP had higher efficiency, especially at off-design speeds, but the FPP was simpler with less maintenance needs. Integrating either propeller presents challenges around variable speed drives, pitch control systems, total energy usage, and maintenance requirements that require further investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Comparative Study of FPP vs.

    CPP for an
    All-Electric Naval Combatant
    Mr. Devin Witt & Prof. Y.L. (Julie) Young, Dept. of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, University of Michigan
    FPP and CPP Stress Analysis

    -Performance and structural analysis was conducted using a 3D coupled


    boundary element method-finite element method in uniform wake.
    -Analysis provided evidence that the optimal pitch setting for the CPP was
    from = 5 to = 0 over the ships operational speed range.

    -A stress analysis was conducted on both the FPP and the CPP over the ships
    operational range. The stresses are over-estimated at the blade root because the
    blades are assumed to be cantilevered and the effect of the fillet has been
    neglected.

    Pitch Type
    Fixed
    Controllable

    Advantages and Disadvantages of FPPs and CPPs

    Fixed Pitch Propeller


    Advantages
    Disadvantages
    -Performance degrades rapidly at offdesign conditions, where the vessel (with
    -Simple construction and less
    broad operating profile, e.g. naval
    maintenance than CPPs.
    combatant) may operate majority of the
    -No support system needed.
    time.
    -Smaller propeller hub leading to
    -Potential cavitation, strength, & stability
    increased open water efficiency.
    issues at highly loaded off-design
    conditions.
    Controllable Pitch Propeller
    Advantages
    Disadvantages
    -Requires a support system to operate
    properly which will entail more electrical
    power and maintenance.
    -More complex and expensive than a FPP.
    -Larger propeller hub leading to decreased
    open water efficiency.

    Provided Thrust and Power vs Ship Speed


    3000
    2500
    2000

    1500

    40
    35

    t = 0.095
    w = 0.031
    Thrust = RT/[2*(1-t)]
    Va = Vs*(1-w)

    30
    25

    20
    15

    1000

    10

    Ship and Propeller Specifications

    500

    -The all-electric naval combatant was based on a modified DTMB 5415 hull:
    length=162.5m, displ.=15,263 ton, top speed=30 knots, and shaft depth=5m.
    -The propeller was based on a five-bladed DTMB 5168, which was modified to
    include a NACA 16A thickness distribution with a zero trail edge thickness, and a
    NACA a = 0.8 camber distribution.
    Value
    DTMB 5168
    5.5
    0.282
    nickel-aluminum-bronze
    7580
    205
    79.3

    -There are significant differences between mechanical ships and all-electric ships
    (AES) that affect the propulsion system and the propeller design.
    -On mechanical ships, the propellers minimum revolution rate is typically 30 40% of the prime movers maximum speed, while an AES can operate the
    propeller from zero revolutions to the electric motors maximum rate, and
    therefore can be more efficient at very low RPMs.

    0
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    Vs (Knots)
    Ship Resistance
    FPP Power

    FPP Thrust
    CPP Power

    CPP Thrust
    Electric Motor Limit

    FPP vs. CPP Performance


    140

    0.74
    Open Water Efficiency, 0

    Characteristic
    Propeller
    Diameter (m)
    rhub/R
    Propeller Material
    Density (kg/m3)
    0.2% Yield Strength (MPa)
    Fatigue Strength at 108 Cycles (MPa)

    0,average
    0.72
    0.73

    Ship Architecture and Integration Issues

    Force (kN)

    -Pitch schedule can be optimized


    over operational range.
    -Ability to mitigate and reduce
    cavitation and blade stress as well as
    increase overall efficiency.
    -Ability to produce forward or
    reverse thrust while continuing to
    rotate in the same direction.

    Optimal 0.7R
    40.1
    38.7

    120

    0.72

    100

    0.70

    80

    0.68
    0.66

    60

    0.64

    40

    0.62

    20

    0.60

    15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    Vs (kn)
    FPP Efficiency
    CPP RPM

    CPP Efficiency
    FPP Cav. Volume

    FPP RPM
    CPP Cav. Volume

    RPM, Cavitation Volume (10000*Vol./R3)

    -Identify the advantages and disadvantages of fixed pitch propellers (FPP) vs.
    controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant.
    -Compare the performance of a FPP vs. CPP for a notional all-electric naval
    combatant.
    -Discuss related total ship architecture and integration issues for an allelectric naval combatant.

    FPP and CPP Performance

    Delivered Power (MW)

    Objectives

    -Development is still needed to enhance variable speed drives which control the
    revolution rate and torque output of the large electric propulsion motors for
    pairing with CPPs.
    -Other integration issues is the control of the pitch setting on the propeller to
    keep the blades at optimal pitch settings while at specific ship speeds.
    -Due to losses associated with all-electric systems, further work is needed on
    total fuel consumption and maintenance requirements for both propeller
    systems.
    -An investigation of off-design conditions (crashback, crashforward, etc.) is
    needed to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of both systems.
    -Maintenance and reliability issues of the two propeller types is a major concern
    when determining which propeller to integrate. FPPs are relatively low
    maintenance, while its not uncommon to have an expensive systems overhaul
    of a hydraulically actuated CPP every couple of years requiring dry docking.

    You might also like