Hydroelastic Analysis Of Composite Marine Propeller Basis Fluid .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OFMARITIME TECHNOLOGYIJMT Vol.13/ Winter 2020 (51-59)Available online at: www. ijmt.irHydroelastic Analysis of Composite Marine Propeller Basis Fluid-StructureInteraction (FSI)Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor1, Ahmad Hajivand 2*, Masih Moore31BSc, Khorramshahr University of Marine Science and Technology; arsalan.shayanpoor@gmail.comFaculty of Marine Engineering Department, Khorramshahr University of Marine Science and Technology;hajivand@kmsu.ac.ir3Faculty of Marine Engineering Department, Khorramshahr University of Marine Science and Technology;m.moore@kmsu.ac.ir2*ARTICLE INFOABSTRACTArticle History:Received: 22 Dec. 2019Accepted: 01 Aug. 2020In recent decades, there has been a growing demand for composite materials withhigh strength to weight ratio and high stiffness to weight ratio for use in the marineindustry to improve the hydrodynamic and structural performance of vessels andpropulsion systems. Apart from the advantages of composite propellers over theirmetal counterparts, deformations of these propellers under loading can alter theirhydrodynamic effects. This paper was a hydroelastic analysis of a composite marinepropeller made of carbon fiber laminate. This analysis was performed by the use ofCFD-FEM based on the two-way fluid-structure interaction (FSI) coupling on the3D geometry of the KP458 propeller. The CFD results are compared with theexperimental data reported by Hyundai Maritime Research Institute (HMRI), foradvance ratios of 0.1-0.5, which shows a perfect agreement among them. Anincrease in the efficiency of the flexible propeller is observed in different advanceratios due to an increase in thrust (1-4%) and a decrease in torque (1-6%).[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]Keywords:HydroelasticComposite propellerHydrodynamic performanceFSIcan affect the hydrodynamic performance of thepropeller.Over the years, many researchers have studied the useof composite materials in the marine propellers anddifferent numerical methods such as lifting surfacemethod (LSM), finite element method (FEM),computational fluid dynamics (CFD), vortex-latticemethod (VLM) and boundary element method (BEM)have been developed and used to predict propellerperformance. Rao et al. [7] used the finite elementmethod to analyze the stress in a marine compositepropeller to reduce stresses in stiffer compositepropellers. In a study by Lin [8], the strength ofcomposite propeller blades was examined using LSMFEM with shell elements. This study also examined thestrength of the blades with balanced and unbalancedply- stacking. Ultimately, this study concluded that thepropeller blade with [ /-45o/90o/0o] ply-stackingdoes not exhibit sufficient strength, but those with[ /ΞΈ2 /90o/0o] and [ /-15o/15o/90o/0o] laminationprovide a desirable strength. Pavan Kishore et al. [9]conducted a structural analysis on a compositepropeller to be used as a replacement for an aluminumpropeller. Their results showed that optimizing thestacking of the composite propeller can result in higherstiffness. Ghassemi et al. [10] carried out a1. IntroductionComposite marine propellers have various advantagesover conventional alloy propellers, Such as higherstrength to weight ratio and toughness, lower lifetimemaintenance cost, immunity to corrosion and cavitationdamage, better acoustic damping, lower noise andvibration, no magnetic signature, superior fatigueperformance and shape adaptability [1-3]. Thanks tothese hydrodynamic, structural, and environmentalbenefits, composite materials have extensive use in themarine industry. It is possible to fabricate propellerblades from a composite of resin and fibers to reducethe cavitation effect (up to 70%) [4]. In addition toreducing cavitation damage, composite materials canalso improve corrosion resistance, fatigue and dampingperformance [5]. Also, composite propellers aretypically 1.5 times lighter than nickel-aluminumbronze (NAB) propellers, a difference that can reduceship noise by 10-90%, decrease fuel consumptionduring operation, and increase open water efficiency by3-8%. Therefore, composite materials generallyoutperform propellers made of materials such as NABand manganese-nickel-aluminum-bronze (MAB) [6].However, due to the anisotropic behavior of thecomposite materials, the created hydroelastic effects51
[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / Hydroelastic Analysis of Composite Marine Propeller Basis Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI)hydrostructural analysis on a composite propeller underhydrodynamic pressure. A BEM-FEM method wasused to evaluate the hydrodynamic performance of a BSeries propeller, and then the governing equations weresolved based on RANS equations. Paik et al. [11]conducted a numerically and experimentally study ofdifferent composite propellers. Lee et al. [12]developed a BEM-FEM hydroelastic method to predictperformance of a flexible composite marine propeller.Hong et al. [13] developed a pre-twist strategy basedon a coupled FEM/CFD process, using the generalpurpose software ANSYS/CFX, to improvehydrodynamic performance.Han et al. [14] applied an experimentally validatedCFD-FEM FSI technique to study the advantages ofcomposite marine propellers using Star-CCM andAbaqus Co-simulation. Das and Kapuria [15]considered the utilization of bendβtwist coupling of acompositemarinepropellerforimprovedhydrodynamic properties. Hong et al. [16] applied a 3D FEM/CFD coupling algorithm to examine thehydrodynamic, structural deformation, and cavitationperformance of the 438x series of composite propeller.Kumar et al. [17] design and evaluated a compositemarine propeller for a pod propulsor.Zhang et al. [18] applied the commercial softwareANSYS Workbench to study a large screw sevenbladed composite propeller's hydrodynamic andstructural performance. Their results showed that theeffects of FSI in the analysis of flexible compositepropellers should be considered.Vijayanandh et al. [19] predicted the fatigue life of twonaval propeller using numerical simulation with oneway coupled environments. Also, they applied thecoupled FSI analyses for various existing materialssuch as Aluminum alloy, Stainless Steel.Summarizing the researches show that due to the lowerstrength of the impeller than the metal, these impellerswill undergo significant deformation due to thehydrodynamic pressure of the water and, at the sametime, the deformed impeller will affect the fluidmovement and distribution of hydrodynamic loads.This issue highlights:Based on the mentioned outstanding studies, theimportance of hydroelastic analyses that estimatedeformed propellers' efficiency has been highlighted.Accordingly, this paper will further examine thehydroelastic performance of a composite propeller. Forthis purpose, the advanced fluid flow and structural 3Dsolvers have been used. Besides, FSI analysis has beenperformed by the co-simulation technique that allowsfluid and structure solvers to exchange data more thanonce per time-step. To validate the developednumerical model, the benchmark four-bladed FPPpropeller KP458 has been used. This propeller modelwith small skew, was designed in 1959 and was testedby INSEAN (Instituto Nazionale di Studi edEsperienze di Architettura Navale) in non-cavitatingconditions.In addition, a comparison was made between the twocommon methods for treating the propeller motion:sliding mesh and MRF. Also, two types of volumemesh were compared: polyhedral and hexahedral(trimmer). An implicit coupling scheme has been usedto perform the FSI coupling iteration process. Adiagram of the method used for analysis is illustrated inFig. 1.Figure. 1: Schematic diagram of the FSI couplingiteration process;2. Numerical modelTo accomplish hydroelastic study for the performanceevaluation of a composite propeller a numerical modelis created based on the CFD/FEM process. The twoway fluid-structure coupling calculation of flexiblepropeller is performed in the software STAR-CCM and structural computation module in Abaqus. The FSIcalculation model is constituted of the flexiblepropeller model and the external flow field model. Thetwo-way FSI technique is used to realize the transfer offluid pressure and structural deformation data in thecoupling process.2.1. Propeller model descriptionThe open water test simulation is performed for thepropeller KP458 model, as shown in Fig 2, which isdesigned by the MOERI for the KVLCC2 modeltanker. The design parameters and details of thepropeller model are also given in Table 1 and Table 2,respectively.52
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / IJMT 2020, Vol (13); p.51-59adaptively between π π model inside the boundarylayer and the π π model in the free stream. It alsoprovides a good compromise between precision,computational effort, and robustness.In the open water experiment, the water flow is uniformand symmetrical. Therefore, numerical solution iscarried out using the moving reference frame (MRF)technique with alternating boundary conditions, underthe real operating conditions that inflow is non-uniformand propeller is placed at the stern of the ship.Table 1. design parameters of the propeller KP458 model;TypeScaleNo. of bladesD (m)P/D (0.7R)Ae/A0RotationHub ratioFP11040.08960.7210.431Right hand0.155Table 2. Propeller geometry 0.004710.651016.75000.0032[ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]r/R2.3. Solid analysis methodThe equation of motion is expressed relative to apropeller blade fixed coordinate to consider thestructural deformationππ πΜ πΆπ πΜ πΎπ π πΉπππΉππ πΉβπ πΉππππ πΉππππ‘ πΉππ πΉπ πΉππ Where ππ is the mass coefficient, πΆπ is the dampingcoefficient, and πΎπ is the stiffness coefficient, whichdepend on the mass, damping, and stiffness of thecomposite propeller. The parameters π, πΜ, and πΜ denotethe displacement, velocity, and acceleration of thestructure, respectively, and πΉππ is the resultant of allforces applied to the propeller, including thehydrodynamic pressure πΉβπ , the Coriolis force, πΉππππ ,the centrifugal force πΉππππ‘ , and the structure-fluidinteraction force πΉππ .The structural qualities of composite materials dependon the type and stacking sequence of ply lamination.However, it is difficult to design a propeller by directanalysis because this approach would require long andsophisticated computations resulting from the use ofdetailed meshes and 3D geometric models. In thisresearch, the continuum shell element (S8R) element ofAbaqus software was used to reduce the meshingcomputations. This element is a good choice for theanalysis of composite laminates in the direction of theirthickness. For example, knowing the thickness of theelement and the thickness of the composite plies, theentire composite laminate can be modeled with oneelement. This modeling approach can be widelyapplied to all elements of the propeller.The validity of this modeling approach has beenevaluated by Lee et al. [5] by compared the resultsobtained for a composite cantilever beam modeled withthis approach, and the same beam modeled with reallay-up of composite plies meshing. The results showedthat this simple model is useful for hydroelasticanalysis of composite marine propellers because thedeformation difference is insignificant and is within theerror range of the FSI analysis.Figure. 2 KP458 model geometry;[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ]2.2. Fluid analysis methodThe equations best suited for describing an unsteadyviscous turbulent incompressible flow around a shipare continuity and Navier-Stokes (NS) according to Eq.(1). ππ 0 ππ πππ π‘ πππ ππ ππ π ππ ππ(Β΅ ππ ππ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ πππ ππ )(2)(1)Where ππ (π, π, π) is the vector of velocity in thedirection ππ (x, y, z), π is density, P is pressure, ΞΌ is thedynamic viscosity of the fluid, and Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ πππ ππ is Reynoldsstress. The SST π π turbulence model was used tomodel the formed eddies near the propeller whilerotating. This two-equation turbulence model switches53
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / Hydroelastic Analysis of Composite Marine Propeller Basis Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI)2.4. Fluid structure interaction methodAIn FSI simulation, to solve the flow equation, we needto have surface deformations of the structure, and forstructural analysis, we need to have the shear stress atthe fluid-structure interface. For displacement, theconditions are as follows:ππ πππππ ππππππ ππ ππ ππ πππππ ππ ππ BFigure. 4. bending of flexible plate in cross flow. FSI(A), EFD data (B);Table 3. Comparison between the result and the EFDdata;(3)πΆπ·π·π₯π·π§Where d is the displacement of the structure interface,ππ is the tensile force vector, P is the fluid pressure, nis the normal vector, and Ο is the stress vector.Fluid structure interaction analysis for compositepropeller is performed by the co-simulation techniqueand an implicit coupling scheme that allows fluid andstructure solvers exchange data more than once Error %1.112.190.593.47-2.33-5.35In Fig. 5 the displacement plot of the inner and outerpart of the top of the plate is shown vs. simulation time.[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]3. Application of the simple ply stack FEmodelTo assess the reliability of CFD-FEM analysis, the testresults obtained for a flexible vertical plate elastic flapthat is pinned at the base [21] under a uniform flow withRe 1600 were compared with the results of thenumerical solution obtained from STAR-CCM andAbaqus using the SST k-Ο turbulence model [22]. Thediscretized computational domain in shown in Fig. 3results of this comparison are presented in Fig. 4 andTable 3. Here, πΆπ· is the drag coefficient of thedeformed plate and π·π₯ and π·π§ are plate displacementsalong the x-axis and z-axis [21]. As can be seen, theresults of FSI are very close to the experimental fluiddynamic (EFD) data.Fig. 5 The displacement plot of the inner and outer partof the top of the plate;Therefore, the results of the hydroelastic analysis of thevertical plate can be attributed to a composite propellerthat acts as a cantilever, except that the propeller hasadditional rotational speed. This indicates that theresults of the hydroelastic analysis of compositepropeller are reliable.4. Numerical ies for treating the propeller motion. Outof this, the MRF and sliding strategies are the mosttypically utilized.The MRF is a simple, robust, and efficient steady-stateCFD modeling method to simulate a marine propeller.In this method, the governing equations solved using arotating framework and additional terms considered inthe momentum equation. But the sliding mesh is a fulltransient method that involves mesh motion andsimulates the actual propeller rotation.Using the MRF technique instead of sliding meshreduces the computational effort and can provide morerobust results. To compare the accuracy and theFigure. 3. Computational domain discretization bypolyhedral mesh;54
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / IJMT 2020, Vol (13); p.51-59computational time of these two methods, the openwater test was simulated at different advance speeds.Fig 6. shows hexahedral and polyhedral griddistribution around the KP458 propeller model forsliding and MRF methods, respectively. Hexahedraland In Table 4, the thrust coefficient obtained with twohard and easy methods is presented and has beencompared with experimental data.validation. The verification process for grid study isperformed by means of three different solutions that aresystematically and successively refined throughconstant non-integer refinement ratio r 2 (ITTCprocedures and guidelines [24]). The thrust coefficientis also subjected to verification analysis. To analyzechanges in solutions, convergence ratio is defined asfollows:π π21π32(4)[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]Where (π21 π2 π1 ) is change between mediumfine solutions and (π32 π3 π2) Accordingly, the possible convergence states are:R 1: Monotonic divergenceR 0: Oscillatory convergence0 R 1: Monotonic convergenceTo evaluate grid convergence, the open water test issimulated at J 0.5 with three different meshes (g1, g2,and g3) and different grid base sizes. The solutionsobtained with g1 (fine mesh), g2 (medium mesh), andg3 (sparse mesh) are also designated as S1, S2 and S3,respectively. The base size, grid numbers, andcomputed thrust coefficient are presented in Table 5.Moreover, convergence ratio values for differentparameters are illustrated in the same Table. As well,three grid meshes are compared in Fig. 7.Table 5. Thrust coefficient for fine, medium and coarsemesh;Grid baseNumber of gridThrust . 6. Grid distribution for sliding mesh (up) andMRF method (down);Table 4. Thrust coefficient for CFD and experimentalresults;J0.10.30.50.6Sliding .0611Experimental 4303,0360.1085The obtained R values represent the monotonicconvergence of all parameters. In such conditions,generalized RE can also be used to estimate the orderof uncertainty along with error of the results. The orderof accuracy and GCI are defined as follows:An examination of the results of Table 4 shows thatthere is not much difference between the results of thetwo methods. Besides, since the sliding approach isunsteady, its convergence time averages 70% morethan the MRF method. For this reason, the finalsimulations were performed by the MRF method.However, regarding the mesh type used, although bothhexahedral and polyhedral are computationallyefficient and accurate, polyhedral is much bettercompatible with the structural part.ππ ln (π32 )21ln (π)πΊπΆπΌ πΉπ π21 ππ 1(5)(6)Wherein, FS is a safety factor. FS is also set to 1.25 forconservative grid analysis with a minimum of threegrids. As well, GCI represents how far off thecalculated values are from the exact value. GCI methodhas been recommended by the American society ofmechanical engineers (ASME) and the Americaninstitute of aeronautics and astronautics (AIAA). Thetheoretical value for the order of accuracy is Pth 2. The5. Verification and validationSince a numerical simulation can contain a number oferrors, it is essential to evaluate the precision of theresults by performing suitable verification and55
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / Hydroelastic Analysis of Composite Marine Propeller Basis Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI)difference is due to grid orthogonally, problemnonlinearities, as well as turbulence modeling. Thecomputed order of discretization and GCI values arepresented in Table 6.6. Simulation ResultsThis section describes the numerical resolutionsettings. Between numerical algorithms, finite volumemethod and finite element method are straight andgeneral techniques and have unique advantages forfluid flow and structure problems, respectively. Thehydroelastic analysis was performed on the KP458propeller model. The extents of domain boundaries foropenwater simulation is cylindrical (Fig. 8), and itsdimensions are set according to the ITTCrecommendations [25]. To reduce computing time,only a blade passage with periodic boundary conditionhas been modeled.Table 6. R, P and GCI for different mesh;Grid ratioRP%GCI1.4140.4282.5180.00028It is seen that the average difference between fine andmedium spatial discretization is negligible. However,the fine grid is applied through the simulations to attainresults with maximum accuracy.A[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]Figure. 8. Geometry of computational domain ofKP458;In Abaqus, the material considered for the compositepropeller was carbon fiber with the followingproperties:E1 117Gpa,E2 7.8Gpa,Κ 0.32,G1 4.66Gpa, G2 4.66Gpa. The reference angle (Ξ±) was0 and the fiber orientation was [-30o/30o/0o/0o/30o/30o] [20]. The definitions of the reference angle (Ξ±) andthe fiber orientation angle relative to the reference line(π) are provided in Fig 9.BCFigure. 7. Coarse mesh (A), medium mesh (B) and finemesh (C);Figure. 9. Definition of the orientation angle (Ξ±) and plyangle (Σ©);56
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / IJMT 2020, Vol (13); p.51-59The modeling was performed by the use ofapproximately 1 million polyhedral elements for fluidanalysis and 6400 S8R elements for the propellerstructure. In this simulation, water density wasconsidered to be 997.99 kg/m3 and dynamic viscositywas assumed to be 0.001409pa-s. The KP458 propellerwas modeled on a scale of 1/110 (MOERI) with adiameter of 0.0896, a rotational speed of 5.244 rps, andan advance ratio of 0.1-0.6. The dimensionless numbery at the blade surface was 0.1-5 (Fig. 10). The timeincrement the structural solution was 0.1s, however,Abaqus was set to automatically improve it for betterconvergence. The effect of Coriolis and centrifugeforces was applied to all elements. Other solutionconditions are listed in Table 6. The deformation of thepropeller geometry at an advance ratio of 0.5 after 6seconds is shown in Fig. 11.Figure. 11. Propeller shape deformation at J 0.6It should be noted that the coefficients extracted fromthe simulation are based on Eq. (7) which is related toopen water conditions.π½ π/ ππ·K T T/ Οn2 π·4K Q Q/ Οn2 π· 5Ξ·o J. K T / 2Ο K Q(7)Table 6. Co-Simulation configuration of KP458;[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]conditionsNumericalSpatial 2nd order convectionImplicit dual time stepping with dt 0.1s and 10 inneriterationK-w SST turbulence model with all y wall treatmentMeshPolyhedral meshy of blade surface 0.1 5In Fig. 12 and Table 7, CFD results of thrustcoefficient, torque coefficient and open waterefο¬ciency for rigid propeller are compared with theexperimental results reported by Hyundai maritimeresearch institute (HMRI) [23]. As can be seen, theCFD results are basically consistent with the EFDresults especially for advance ratios of 0.1-0.5, whereerrors are controlled within 2%.MRF meshing techniqueSTAR-CCM co-simulation mappingFSIMesh morphing methodTime increment 0.1Figure. 12. Comparison of the hydrodynamicperformances of KP458 POW rigid propeller (CFD) andEFD (HMRI [23]).Table 7. Difference between experimental and CFDvalues of KP458 (POW) test; Figure. 10. Wall y distribution on the propeller blade atJ 0.5;J0.10.30.50.6ExpCFDError ofKT (Exp) 10KQ (Exp) Eff (Exp) KT (CFD) 10KQ (CFD) Eff (CFD) Eff 0.6465-4.12%Fig. 13 presents the results of CFD-FEM alongside theexperimental data. The relative error variation in57
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / Hydroelastic Analysis of Composite Marine Propeller Basis Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI)different advanced ratio (J) are showed in Table 8which, with increases J the difference betweenexperimental and CFD-FEM values increases up to8.88%. Fig. 11 shows an increase in the efficiency ofthe flexible propeller, which is due to increased thrustand reduced torque. There is about 1-4% change inthrust and 1-6% change in torque in different advanceratios according to Table 9. This means that theflexibility of the propeller has improved itshydrodynamic performance. Displacement along theflow direction and pressure around the propeller atJ 0.5 are illustrated in Fig. 14 and 15, respectively. Asis clear form figure in suction side pressure is negativeand in pressure side pressure is positive and that thedeformation of the blade affects the pressuredistribution. These are occurred by the inconsistency ofdeformed blade shape (Fig. 14) due to the difference inpressure distribution on the blade surface, especiallynear the blade tip zone, because the tip of propellerblade deformed mostly due to hydrodynamic force(Fig. 15).Figure. 14. Deformation distribution at J 0.5;Figure. 15. Pressure distribution on flexible KP458propeller surface at J 0.5 FSI simulation;[ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]7. ConclusionFigure. 13. Comparison of the hydrodynamicperformances of KP458 POW composite propeller(CFD-FED) and rigid propeller (HMRI [23]).Table 8. Difference between experimental and CFDFEM values of KP458 (POW) test;J[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ]Composite propellers have many hydrodynamic,structural, and environmental advantages overconventional propellers. But for flexible propellers,hydrodynamic forces can cause deformations in thepropeller geometry, which is essential for propellerefficiency. Therefore, this paper examines thehydroelastic performance of a composite propeller byusing a 3D CFD-FEM numerical technique. Also, FSIanalysis has been performed by the co-simulationtechnique with an implicit coupling scheme that allowsfluid and structure solvers to exchange data more thanonce per time-step. The developed method has beenvalidated by comparing the results with the EFD resultsof the benchmark four-bladed FPP propeller KP458.A comparison was made between the two commonmethods for treating the propeller motion: sliding meshand MRF. Also, two types of volume mesh werecompared: polyhedral and hexahedral (trimmer). Theresults show more compatibility of MRF andpolyhedral mesh with structural solver.The results of the FSI analysis conducted in this studyshow an increase in the efficiency (increased thrust anddecreased torque) of the composite propeller, whichmeans reduced torque demand from the engine and thuslower fuel consumption. Therefore, compositepropellers can be used for the development of a moreefficient class of propulsion systems for commercialvessels, in the sense that they can improve fuelconservation.0.10.30.50.6ExpCFD-FEMKT (Exp) 10KQ (Exp) Eff (Exp) KT (CFD-FEM) 10KQ (CFD-FEM) Eff 24180.19930.13060.0890.1580.4440.6520.709Error ofEff %1.28%1.83%1.73%8.88%Table 9. Thrust and torque estimation results forCFD and CFD-FEM values;J0.10.30.50.6conditionCFDCFD-FEMRPS V (m/s) Thrust (N) Torque (N.m) Thrust (N) Torque (N.m)0.046987 8290.0007890.50.234933 echange-6.1764-2.1086-1.8939-6.346658
Amir Arsalan Shayanpoor et al. / IJMT 2020, Vol (13); p.51-5913- Hong, Y. & Hao, L.F. & Wang, P.C. & Liu, W.B.& Zhang, H.M. & Wang, R.G. (2014). StructuralDesign and Multi-Objective Evaluation of CompositeBladed Propeller. Polymers and Polymer Composites.22. 275-282. 10.1177.14- Han, S. Lee, H. Song, M. Chang, B. (2015).Investigation of Hydro-Elastic Performance of MarinePropellers Using Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis.V07AT09A038. 10.1115/IMECE2015-51089.15- Das, H. Nirjhar & Kapuria, Santosh. (2016). on theuse of bendβtwist coupling in full-scale compositemarine propellers for improving hydrodynamicperformance. Journal of Fluids and Structures. 61. 132153. 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2015.11.008.16- Hong, Y. & Wilson, Philip & He, X.D. & Wang,R.G. (2017). Numerical analysis and performancecomparison of the same series of composite propellers.Ocean Engineering. 144. 211-223. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.08.036.17- Kumar, A. Krishna, L. Subramanian, V. (2019).Design and Analysis of a Carbon Composite Propellerfor Podded Propulsion. 10.1007/978-981-13-31190 13.18- Zhang, F., & Ma, J. (2018). FSI Analysis theDynamic Performance of Composite Propeller.V002T08A006. 10.1115/OMAE2018 77108.19- Raja, V. & Venkatesan, K. & Kumar. M., Senthil& Kumar G, R. & Jagadeeshwaran, P. & Kumar, R.,(2020), Comparative fatigue life estimations of MarinePropeller by using FSI. Journal of Physics: ConferenceSeries. 1473. 012018.20- Young YL. (2008), Fluid-structure interactionanalysis of flexible composite marine propellers. JFluids Struct 24:799β818.21- Luhar, Mitul & Nepf, Heidi. (2011), Flow-inducedreconfiguration of buoyant and flexible aquaticvegetation. Limnology and Oceanography. 56. 20032017. 10.4319/lo.2011.56.6.2003.[ DOR: 20.1001.1.23456000.2020.13.0.6.8 ][ Downloaded from ijmt.ir on 2022-09-13 ]8. ReferencesPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)1- Young, Y.L., (2007), Time-dependent Hydro-elasticAnalysis of Cavitating Propulsors, Journal of Fluidsand Structures, 23:269-295.2- Mulcahy, N. L., Prusty, B. G. Gardiner, C. P., (2011)Flexible composite hydrofoils and propeller blades.Transactions of the Royal Institution of NavalArchitects Part B: International Journal of Small CraftTechnology, 153:39-46.3- Mulcahy, N. L., Prusty, B. G. & Gardiner, C. (2010)Hydroelastic tailoring of flexible composite propellers.International Journal of Ship and Offshore Structures,5:359-370.4- Han, S., Lee, H., Song, M.C., Chang, B. J.Investigation of hydro-elastic performance of marinepropellers using fluid-structure interaction analysis,ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo. Proc. 7Aβ2015.5- Lee, H., Song, M.C., Han, S., Chang, B.-J., Suh, J.C., (2017), Hydro-elastic aspects of a compositemarine propeller in accordance with ply laminationmethods, J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 22:479β493.6- Lin, H.J., Lin, J.J. (1996), Nonlinear hydroelasticbehavior of propellers using a finite-element methodand lifting surface theory, J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 1:114β124.7- Rao, Y.S., Rao, K.M., Reddy, B.S. (2012), StressAnalysis of Composite Propeller By Using FiniteElement Analysis, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 4:3866β3875.8-
and structural computation module in Abaqus. The FSI calculation model is constituted of the flexible propeller model and the external flow field model. The two-way FSI technique is used to realize the transfer of fluid pressure and structural deformation data in the coupling process. 2.1. Propeller model description
Types of composite: A) Based on curing mechanism: 1- Chemically activated composite 2- Light activated composite B) Based on size of filler particles: 1 - Conventional composite 2- Small particles composite 3-Micro filled composite 4- Hybrid composite 1- Chemically activated, composite resins: This is two - paste system:
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS WEST-MARINE CORPS BASE BOX 555010 CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA 92055-5010 5090 G-3/5 AVN 9 May 2019 From: Director, G-3/5 Aviation, Marine Corps Installations West, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton To: Operations Support Group Manager, Federal Aviation Administration Western Service Center,
Marine Order 502 (Unique identifiers - national . law) 2017 (Marine Order 502) Marine Order 503 (Certificates of survey - national . law) 2018 (Marine Order 503) Marine Order 507 (Load line certificates - national . law) 2018 (Marine Order 507) Marine safety (Certificates of survey) Exemption . 2018 (Exemption 02) AMSA website at https .
Federal Aviation Administration CE F, General Composite Structure Guidance Background βWith the evolving/advancing composite technology and expanding composite applications, AC 20-107 βComposite Aircraft Structureβ will require revision Deliverables βRevision to AC 20-107, βComposite Aircraft Structure,β to
Daily Math Practice D Math Buzz 093 Circle prime or composite. 13 prime composite 15 prime composite 22 prime composite 17 prime composite 23 prime composite Multiply. 6 x 728 _ 4 times as many as 397. _ 559 x 9 ββββ
Connecting the HDMI to Composite / S-Video Scaler 1. Connect the included HDMI cable from the Hi-Def source to the HDMI connector of the HDMI to Composite / S-Video Scaler. 2. Connect a Composite cable (RCA-type) between the HDMI to Composite / S-Video Scaler and the Composite input on the display or A/V receiver. Optionally connect an
78 composite materials Composite materials resources. Composite Materials Resources scouting literature Chemistry, Engineering, Inventing, Model Design and Building, Robotics, and Space Exploration merit badge pamphlets Books Marshall, Andrew C. Composite Basics, 7th ed. Marshall Consulting Publishing, 2005. Rutan, Burt. Moldless Composite
A health care service providerβs account receives health care benefit program or health insurance payments beyond the expected type or volume of service, based on staffing and other characteristics of the business (e.g., processing COVID-19 tests when the medical facility does not typically offer diagnostic services, or the facility is processing a high volume of tests despite only employing .
