0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Ice Loads Acting on a Model Podded Propeller Blade (OMAE2005-67416)

[+] Author and Article Information
Jungyong Wang

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, CanadaJungyong.Wang@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

Ayhan Akinturk, Stephen J. Jones

Institute for Ocean Technology, National Research Council Canada, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3T5, Canada

Neil Bose

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada

Moon-Chan Kim, Ho-Hwan Chun

Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 30 Changjeon-dong, Kumjeng-ku, Busan, Korea, 609-735

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 129(3), 236-244 (Sep 25, 2006) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2426993 History: Received January 03, 2006; Revised September 25, 2006

With the increase in popularity of podded propulsors and arctic navigation, understanding the interaction between a podded propulsor and ice has become more important. Propeller-ice interaction itself is a complicated process with a high level of uncertainty resulting from the uncertainties associated with the properties of the ice and with the propeller-ice interaction conditions. Model tests provide relatively well-controlled ice properties and interaction conditions to reduce the uncertainties. In order to improve the understanding of this interaction and to develop numerical models of it, a model podded propulsor was used in “Puller” mode, and ice loads were measured on its instrumented blade and propeller shaft. The results of the experiments conducted to simulate the interactions (milling) of the instrumented blade with ice in different operating conditions are reported in this paper. Loads measured during the milling consist of ice milling loads, “inseparable” hydrodynamic loads, and “separable” hydrodynamic loads. The sample results presented here include ice milling and inseparable hydrodynamic loads for various advance coefficients and depths of cut (amount of blade penetration into ice). Some results are compared with existing ice load models.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Dimensions of the AMTI dynamometers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Axes for blade dynamometer

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Depth of cut and milling angle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Apparatus of the “puller mode” podded propulsor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Schematic diagram of the ice tank at the NRC-IOT

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Time series data from the experimental tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Blade thrust during ice milling based on the milling angle (αm: from 36deg to −69deg, 35mm depth of cut at 5rps)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Maximum blade thrust coefficients (KT(Blade), one blade only) for the 15mm depth of cut in the repeat tests (“ice-related” loads during milling period)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Maximum, minimum, and average values for shaft thrust for 35mm depth of cut (“ice-related” loads+“separable” hydrodynamic loads during milling period) and open water tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Maximum, minimum, and average shaft torque for the 35mm depth of cut (“ice-related” loads+“separable” hydrodynamic loads during milling period) and open water tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Conceptual sketch for the propeller ice interaction with top view, where β is the angle of advance, r is the radius at the blade section considered, Z is number of blades (4), V is carriage speed, and n1, n2 and n3 are 10, 7, and 5rps, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Thrust coefficient comparison among open water, ice blockage, and ice milling conditions (for 15 and 35mm depth of cut (DOC): “ice-related” loads+“separable” hydrodynamic loads during milling period)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

KT comparisons with ice load models (present test results: 35mm depth of cut case, “ice-related” loads+“separable” hydrodynamic loads during milling period)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

KQ comparison with ice load models (present test results: 35mm depth of cut case, “ice-related” loads+“separable” hydrodynamic loads during milling period)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of average blade thrust coefficient (KT(Blade), one blade only) with previous test results (“ice-related” loads+“separable” hydrodynamic loads during milling period). The lines are the second order polynomial lines of best fit (15).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Model ice properties versus time for 15mm depth of cut case (tests were carried out at around five hours mark of the time-axis; mean value of the compressive strength for the present runs was approximately 120kPa)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Model ice properties versus time for 35mm depth of cut case (tests were carried out between two and three hours marks of the time axis; mean value of the compressive strength for the present runs was approximately 210kPa)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In