Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Experimental Investigation of Propeller Wake
Velocity Field to Determine the Major Factors
Affecting Propeller Wake Wash
Md. Asif Amin *, Bruce Colbourne and Brian Veitch
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 40 Arctic Ave,
St. John’s, NL A1B 3X7, Canada; [email protected] (B.C.); [email protected] (B.V.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-709-763-4567




Received: 30 March 2018; Accepted: 1 May 2018; Published: 7 May 2018


Abstract: The propeller jet from a ship has a significant component directed upwards towards
the free surface of the water, which can be used for ice management. This paper describes a
comprehensive laboratory experiment where the operational factors affecting a propeller wake
velocity field were investigated. The experiment was conducted using a steady wake field to
investigate the characteristics of the axial velocity of the fluid in the wake and the corresponding
variability downstream of the propeller. The axial velocities and the variability recorded were
time-averaged. Propeller rotational speed was found to be the most significant factor, followed
by propeller inclination. The experimental results also provide some idea about the change of the
patterns of the mean axial velocity distribution against the factors considered for the test throughout
the effective wake field, as well as the relationships to predict the axial velocity for known factors.

Keywords: ship’s propeller jet; mean axial velocity of flow; prediction equations

1. Introduction
Propeller wake wash can be used as a means of clearing pack ice and small ice masses from
the vicinity of offshore installations and shipping channels. In a full-scale study of various pack ice
management techniques performed offshore Newfoundland, propeller wake wash was found to have
an appreciable degree of success [1]. In more recent studies of ice management techniques, the wake
of an azimuth thruster was shown to be useful for ice breaking [2,3], in addition to clearing ice from
designated areas. Propeller wake wash was found to be an effective means of breaking ice ridges, and
pushing away medium sized ice floes and even glacial ice. This technique enables ice management
without having any physical interaction with the ice.
The interaction between an ice mass and a propeller jet depends on the jet velocity at a particular
location downstream of the propeller, which depends on the propeller shaft rotational speed (n),
propeller inclination (θ), and propeller submergence from the fluid surface (H). The application of
propeller wake wash as an ice management tool has been investigated at a model tank scale by
Ferrieri [4], where change in ice concentration was investigated as a function of the factors affecting
propeller wake wash. Bastin [5] developed a simple mathematical model of propeller wake wash
based on Ferrieri’s experimental results.
A detailed model-scale experimental study on a propeller wake velocity field in the vicinity of the
propeller was performed in the large circulating water channel of CNR-INSEAN using LDV (Laser
Doppler Velocimetry) measurement techniques [6]. Islam [7] investigated the kinematics of propeller
wake wash for ice management by using podded propulsors (both puller and pusher arrangements) at
different shaft speeds, pod configurations, and propeller inclinations.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50; doi:10.3390/jmse6020050 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 2 of 15

Brewster [8] reported that a propeller jet velocity decays exponentially as it moves downstream
from the propeller plane or efflux plane. Lam et al. [9,10] reported that the tangential velocity is already
significantly diminished a distance x/Dp = 3.68 downstream from the propeller. McGarvey [11] and
Brewster [8] reported that the radial velocity decays by about 80% within x/Dp = 0.30 from the efflux
plane. In the present study, only the axial component of fluid velocity is considered, which is expected
to be significant throughout the wake field and important for ice management.

2. Methodology
The experiment was designed using the center composite design (CCD) technique of response
surface methodology for three factors (propeller- rotational speed, inclination and submergence) tested
at five levels. A total of 18 combinations of the three factors was considered, and measurements
were taken at 168 locations in the wake field, thereby requiring 3024 measurements for each response
variable. The length of the wake field covered in the experiment was x/Dp = 30.5, which was
divided into three zones: near field (x/Dp ≤ 3.5), intermediate field (3.5 ≤ x/Dp ≤ 15.5) and far field
(15.5 ≤ x/Dp ≤ 30.5). The response variable of interest was the mean axial flow velocity.

2.1. Design of Experiment

The required minimum number of factorial combinations for the experimental design was
calculated as = {23 + (2 × 3) + 1} = 15. There are eight factorial runs, six axial point runs and one center
point runs. Three extra center point runs (combinations of factors) were added to the experiment to
ensure an accurate estimation of experimental error [12]. Design Expert 10.0 software [13] was used to
obtain the combinations of factors and to analyze the results. The values of factors used at five levels
during the experiment are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Factors used at different levels of the experiment.

Factors Low Axial (−1.5) Low (−1) Center (0) High (+1) High Axial (+1.5)
Shaft rotational speed (rps) 6.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 12.0
Propeller inclination (deg.) 0.0 1.5 4.5 7.5 9.0
Submergence of propeller (mm) 200 250 350 450 500

The lowest propeller rotational speed was 6.0 rps, which was determined on the basis of the
formula for Reynolds numbers (Propeller Reynolds number ‘Reprop ’, and Flow Reynolds number
‘Reflow ’) to meet the requirement for minimum Reynolds number, such that the viscous scaling effect
on the experimental results can be neglected [14].

2.2. Experimental Set-Up

The experiment was done in a tow tank (Length × Breadth × Depth = 58.27 × 4.57 × 3.04 m).
The arrangement of equipment used in the experiment is shown in Figure 1. The major components
were the open boat propulsion unit, the EMCM (Electro-magnetic Current Meter) sensors, and the
data acquisition system.
A B-series propeller of diameter 250 mm was located at the center of the tank. The wake survey
was carried out in the bollard pull condition. A stock open boat propulsion unit was used to drive the
propeller. The measurements were taken in terms of the center line of the tank at half the width of the
wake field, where the propeller was always positioned along the center line of tank.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 3 of 15
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 3 of 14

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic of experimental
Schematic of experimental set-up.
set-up.

2.3. Scaling
2.3. Scaling Effect
Effect
The variables
The variablesofof thethe prediction
prediction modelmodel
were were non-dimensionalized
non-dimensionalized using ‘Buckingham-π
using ‘Buckingham-π theory’.
theory’. The viscous scaling effects of the experimental results were checked
The viscous scaling effects of the experimental results were checked using the empirical formula using the empirical
formula developed
developed by Verheyby Verhey
[14], [14], whothat
who suggested suggested that
the scaling the due
effect scaling effect due
to viscosity to viscosity
is negligible, is
if the
negligible, if the Reynolds number of the propeller (Re prop) and the Reynolds number of the flow
Reynolds number of the propeller (Reprop ) and the Reynolds number of the flow (Reflow ) are greater
(Reflow) are greater than 7 × 104 and 3 × 103, respectively, for a propeller wake. Verhey used the
than 7 × 104 and 3 × 103 , respectively, for a propeller wake. Verhey used the formulae: Reflow = V0νDP
formulae: √ and V =
and RepropRe nLm=DP
= flow and Reprop = , where V0 = efflux velocity of the propeller jet,
ν , νwhere V0 = efflux velocity of the propeller jet, and V0 = 1.59nDP Ct [15], Ct
1.59nD
is √C [15],
the thrust Ct is the
coefficient ofthrust
modelcoefficient
propeller,of Dmodel propeller,
P = Propeller DP = Propeller
diameter, diameter,
n = propeller n = propeller
rotational speed
rotational
(rps), speed (rps),
ν = kinematic ν = kinematic
viscosity of fluidviscosity
(water) = of1.0023 × 10−6 =m1.0023
fluid (water) 10◦−6C;mL2/s
2 /s at ×20
m at
= 20 °C;
length Lm =
term
length termon
dependent dependent
blade areaonratio
blade(β),area ratio of
number (β),blades
number of blades (N),
of propeller of propeller
diameter(N), diameter
of hub of hub
(Dh ) and DP .
n  o−1
Dh
L
(Dmh)isand
defined
DP. L[16]
m isas: Lm = [16]
defined .π. L 2N= β.
β.Dpas: 1 −D D.pπ. 2N . According
1− .toAccording
Verhey’s formulas,
to Verhey’s the formulas,
Reynolds
numbers
the Reynoldsfor the lowest shaft
numbers rotational
for the lowest speed (6 rps) of the
shaft rotational model
speed propeller
(6 rps) of thewere
model Reflow = 2.87 ×were
propeller 105
and 4.
× 10Re
ReflowRe=prop
2.87=×8.54
105 and prop = 8.54 × 104.

2.4. Open Boat

2.4. Open Boat Propulsion
Propulsion System
System
The
The open
open boat
boat propulsion
propulsion system
system integrates all the
integrates all the equipment
equipment thatthat was
was used
used to
to generate
generate the
the
propeller
propeller wake under a particular propulsion condition. A total of 18 experimental conditions were
wake under a particular propulsion condition. A total of 18 experimental conditions were
used
used totodevelop
develop thethe
prediction models.
prediction The unit
models. The consisted of the propeller,
unit consisted the open boat
of the propeller, the propulsion
open boat
unit, and theunit,
propulsion frameandto the
locate the open
frame boatthe
to locate unitopen
on the carriage
boat unit onof the
the tow tank.ofThe
carriage thepropeller
tow tank.was a
The
B4-55 series of diameter Ø = 250 mm. The frame had a mechanism of adjusting the
propeller was a B4-55 series of diameter Ø = 250 mm. The frame had a mechanism of adjusting theinclination of the
propeller.
inclinationThe power
of the delivered
propeller. Thewas adjustable
power which
delivered waswasadjustable
synchronized
whichto was
the shaft rotational to
synchronized speed
the
of propeller. Table 2 illustrates the properties of the prototype propeller.
shaft rotational speed of propeller. Table 2 illustrates the properties of the prototype propeller.

Table 2. Properties of the model propeller.

Table 2. Properties of the model propeller.

Diameter,
Diameter, Dp Dp 250
250 mmmm Bollard thrust
Bollard thrustcoeff.,
coeff., Ctt 0.306
0.306
Hub diameter, D
Hub diameter,
h Dh 42 mm
42 mm Bollard torque coeff., C
Bollard torque coeff., Cqq 0.041
0.041
Blade Area Ratio, β 55 Number of blades, N 4
Blade Area Ratio, β 55 Number of blades, N 4

2.5. EMCM Equipment

2.5. EMCM Equipment
An
An EMCM
EMCM(Electro-magnetic Current
(Electro-magnetic Meter)
Current system
Meter) was was
system used used
to measure the wake
to measure theflow
wakevelocity
flow
during
velocity during the experiment. This system included an EMCM package (EMCM sensorsbuilt-in
the experiment. This system included an EMCM package (EMCM sensors and a and a
built-in mounting to maintain the orientation of sensors) to measure the axial flow velocity, a frame
to mount and operate the sensors, a linear displacement transducer to measure the transverse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 4 of 15

mounting to maintain the orientation of sensors) to measure the axial flow velocity, a frame to mount
and operate the sensors, a linear displacement transducer to measure the transverse displacement of
the sensors, a platform to support the system equipment, and connecting wires. The tank platform
was installed across the breadth of the tank (4.57 m), on the top of which the EMCM equipment with
the supporting frame, and the data acquisition system were installed. The EMCM sensors could slide
on the frame with respect to a datum. The datum was marked at the center of the wake field (y = 0).
The readings along the transverse direction of the propeller wake (along y/Dp ) were collected by
sliding the sensors following a pre-marked scale on the frame. The EMCM system was connected with
the data acquisition system, where all the data were recorded and stored immediately after the capture
of the reading. In the experiment, each measurement was taken for a period of at least 30 s at 4 Hz.

3. Results and Discussion

The objective of this study was to determine the influence of the three input factors (Table 1)
affecting the propeller wake wash. A total of 18 propeller conditions (experimental runs) comprising
different combinations of the three factors were used to create an experimental plan with the Design
Expert 10.0 software for a Center Composite Design (CCD) of the Response Surface Methodology. The
resulting data were used to develop prediction equations for the mean axial velocity of flow in the
wake. Flow velocity measurements were taken longitudinally and transversely covering half-width
of the wake field for three water depths (d = 0.25Dp , 0.55Dp and 1.05Dp ). A decision was made to
assume longitudinal symmetry about the mid plane and thus only to survey half the width of wake
field based on empirical analyses performed by earlier researchers [8,9,11,14,16–20], who reported the
axisymmetric nature of the wake velocity distribution for the far zone downstream of propeller wake.
This allowed a more detailed survey of the flow within the limitations of time and resources.

3.1. Individual Effect of Factors

Initially the influences of individual factors on the mean axial velocity of flow were assessed by
applying an analysis approach known as ‘One Factor at a Time (OFAT)’. In OFAT, the configurations
of factors were selected such that only one factor was varied at a time, keeping the other two
factors unchanged. Three cases were considered illustrating the individual effect of each factor.
The combinations of factors in each case are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Combinations of factors under each case to assess the individual effect of factors.

Case #1: Influence of Propeller Rotational Speed ‘n’ on the Mean Axial Velocity of Flow
Selected Runs ‘n’ in rps ‘θ’ in degree ‘H’ in mm
Run #1 6 4.5 350
* Center Point Run 9 4.5 350
Run #16 12 4.5 350
Case #2: Influence of Propeller Inclination Angle ‘θ’ on the Mean Axial Velocity of Flow
Selected Runs ‘n’ in rps ‘θ’ in degree ‘H’ in mm
Run #5 9 0.0 350
* Center Point Run 9 4.5 350
Run #2 9 9.0 350
Case #3: Influence of Propeller Depth of Submergence ‘H’ on the Mean Axial Velocity of Flow
Selected Runs ‘n’ in rps ‘θ’ in degree ‘H’ in mm
Run #14 9 4.5 200
* Center Point Run 9 4.5 350
Run #13 9 4.5 500
* Values for the Center Point Run are the average of the four center point runs (combinations of factors) considered
in the experiment (n = 9 rps, θ = 4.5◦ , H = 350 mm).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 5 of 15

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 5 of 14

The above cases illustrate the effect of each factor on the mean axial flow velocity along the
The above cases illustrate the effect of each factor on the mean axial flow velocity along the
normalized dimension x/Dp (longitudinally downstream of propeller). The transverse location for
normalized dimension x/Dp (longitudinally downstream of propeller). The transverse location for
these data
these was
data along
was the
along center
the centerofofthe
thewake
wakefield
field(y/D
(y/Dpp ==0),
0),where
wherethe
thetank
tankwall
wallboundary
boundary effect
effect was
was
thethe
minimum.
minimum.

3.1.1. Individual Effect of Factors on Mean Axial Flow Velocity

3.1.1. Individual Effect of Factors on Mean Axial Flow Velocity
Case #1:#1:
Case The
Theindividual
individualeffect
effectof
ofpropeller
propeller shaft
shaft rotational speed(n)
rotational speed (n)on
onthe
themean
meanaxial
axial velocity
velocity
of flow (V ) along x/D
of flow a(Va) along x/D p p at the center of the wake field (y/Dpp= 0) is illustrated in Figure 2a–c forfor
at the center of the wake field (y/D = 0) is illustrated in Figure 2a–c thethe
three different
three depths
different ofof
depths measurements:
measurements:0.25D
0.25Dpp,, 0.55D and 1.05D
0.55Dpp and 1.05Dpp, ,respectively.
respectively.These
These illustrate
illustrate that
that
thethe
mean
meanaxial velocity
axial along
velocity alongthe
thecenterline
centerlinegenerally
generally increases with ‘n’.
increases with ‘n’.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 2. (a) Mean axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.25Dp for different ‘n’; (b) Mean
Figure 2. (a) Mean axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.25Dp for different ‘n’; (b) Mean
axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.55Dp for different ‘n’; (c) Mean axial flow velocity
axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.55Dp for different ‘n’; (c) Mean axial flow velocity
along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 1.05Dp for different ‘n’.
along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 1.05Dp for different ‘n’.

Case #2: The individual effect of propeller inclination (θ) on the mean axial velocity of flow (Va)
Case
along x/D#2:p at
Thetheindividual
center of theeffect
wake offield
propeller
(y/Dp =inclination (θ) on
0) is illustrated inthe mean
Figure axial
3a–c for velocity
the three of flow of
depths (Va )
along x/D at
measurements:
p the center of the wake field (y/D
0.25Dp, 0.55Dp and 1.05Dp, respectively.
p = 0) is illustrated in Figure 3a–c for the three
These illustrate that the characteristics of thedepths
of measurements:
mean axial velocity 0.25D p , 0.55D
along and‘θ’
x/Dp pwith 1.05D p , respectively.
depend on the depth. These illustrate
In general, that thedepth,
at shallow characteristics
the mean of
theaxial
mean axial velocity
velocity increasesalong
with x/D with
‘θ’, pand the‘θ’ depend
effect of ‘θ’onreduces
the depth.
withIn general, at
increasing shallow
depth. The depth,
effect ofthe
mean axial velocity
propeller inclination increases
on the with
mean‘θ’, andvelocity
axial the effect of ‘θ’pronounced
is most reduces with increasing
near the surfacedepth.
and The effect of
negligible
at the lowest
propeller depth.
inclination onMoreover, the effect
the mean axial of ‘θ’
velocity is is
mostnot pronounced
as strong as near
‘n’. This phenomenon
the surface becomes at
and negligible
theclearer
lowestindepth.
3D surface plots in
Moreover, the
the following
effect of ‘θ’ section.
is not as strong as ‘n’. This phenomenon becomes clearer
in 3D surface plots in the following section.
Case #3: The individual effect of propeller submergence (H) on the mean axial flow velocity
(Va ) along x/Dp at the center of the wake field (y/Dp = 0) is illustrated in Figure 4a–c for the three
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 6 of 14
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 6 of 15

different depths of measurements: 0.25Dp , 0.55Dp and 1.05Dp , respectively. These plots illustrate that
the characteristics of the mean axial velocity along x/Dp with ‘H’ also largely depend on the depth.
In general, at shallow depth, the axial velocity increases with decreasing ‘H’, and at deeper depth the
mean axial velocity is not significantly affected in the downstream and shows mixed effects in the
region near
J. Mar. Sci. Eng.the propeller.
2018, 6, x 6 of 14

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 3. (a) Mean axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.25Dp for different ‘θ’; (b) mean
axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.55Dp for different ‘θ’; (c) mean axial flow velocity
along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 1.05Dp for different ‘θ’.

Case #3: The individual effect of propeller submergence (H) on the mean axial flow velocity (Va)
along x/Dp at the center of the wake field (y/Dp = 0) is illustrated in Figure 4a–c for the three different
depths of measurements: 0.25Dp, 0.55Dp and 1.05D (c) p, respectively. These plots illustrate that the
characteristics of the mean axial velocity along x/Dp with ‘H’ also largely depend on the depth. In
Figure 3.3. (a)
(a) Mean
Mean axial
axial flowvelocity
velocityalong
alongx/D
x/Dp at
at y/D
y/Dp ==00and dd ==0.25D for different
0.25Dp‘H’, ‘θ’; (b) mean
mean
Figure
general, at shallow depth,flow
the axial velocity increases
p with
p and
decreasing p for and
different ‘θ’; (b)
at deeper depth the
axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and d = 0.55Dp for different ‘θ’; (c) mean axial flow velocity
meanaxial flow
axial velocityisalong
velocity x/Dp at y/Dp =
not significantly 0 and d =
affected in0.55D p for different ‘θ’;
the downstream and(c)shows
mean axial
mixedfloweffects
velocity
in the
along
along x/D p at y/Dp = 0 and d = 1.05Dp for different ‘θ’.
region nearx/D at y/Dp = 0 and d = 1.05Dp for different ‘θ’.
thep propeller.
Case #3: The individual effect of propeller submergence (H) on the mean axial flow velocity (Va)
along x/Dp at the center of the wake field (y/Dp = 0) is illustrated in Figure 4a–c for the three different
depths of measurements: 0.25Dp, 0.55Dp and 1.05Dp, respectively. These plots illustrate that the
characteristics of the mean axial velocity along x/Dp with ‘H’ also largely depend on the depth. In
general, at shallow depth, the axial velocity increases with decreasing ‘H’, and at deeper depth the
mean axial velocity is not significantly affected in the downstream and shows mixed effects in the
region near the propeller.

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Cont.

(a) (b)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 7 of 15
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 7 of 14

(c)
Figure 4. (a) Mean axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and at d = 0.25Dp for different ‘H’; (b)
Figure 4. (a) Mean axial flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and at d = 0.25Dp for different ‘H’;
mean axial
(b) mean flow
axial velocity
flow along
velocity x/Dx/D
along p at y/Dp = 0 and at d = 0.55Dp for different ‘H’; (c) mean axial flow
p at y/Dp = 0 and at d = 0.55Dp for different ‘H’; (c) mean axial
velocity along x/D p at y/Dp = 0 and at d = 1.05Dp for different ‘H’.
flow velocity along x/Dp at y/Dp = 0 and at d = 1.05Dp for different ‘H’.

3.1.2. Individual Effect of Factors on the Mean Axial Velocity of Flow along y/Dp at 0.25Dp
3.1.2. Individual Effect of Factors on the Mean Axial Velocity of Flow along y/Dp at 0.25Dp
Given that the focus of this study is on the use of wake flow in ice management, the wake flow
Given that the focus of this study is on the use of wake flow in ice management, the wake flow at
at the surface is more significant in terms of the effect on floating ice. Thus, the surface flow
the surface is more significant in terms of the effect on floating ice. Thus, the surface flow characteristics
characteristics were analyzed in more detail.
were analyzed in more detail.
Case #1: The individual effect of propeller shaft rotational speed (n) on the mean axial velocity
Case #1: The individual effect of propeller shaft rotational speed (n) on the mean axial velocity
of flow Va DP along y/Dp at various longitudinal locations (x/Dp) is illustrated in Figure 5, for the
of flow ν along y/Dp at various longitudinal locations (x/Dp ) is illustrated in Figure 5, for the
depth of measurement
depth of measurement closest closest toto the
the water
water surface,
surface, which
which was wasdd==0.25D0.25Dp.. TheThe two
two longitudinal
longitudinal
p
locations closest to the propeller (at x/D p = 0.50 and 1.50) are ignored due to the confused flow in
locations closest to the propeller (at x/Dp = 0.50 and 1.50) are ignored due to the confused flow in
those regions.
those regions.The Thereadings
readings taken
taken at locations
at the the locations close close
to the to
tankthewall
tank
werewall were by
affected affected by the
the boundary
boundary and
condition condition
so are and so are
ignored forignored
developing for developing
the curves the curves
within the within the plots
plots (Figures (Figures
5–7). 5–7).
Therefore,
Therefore, the curves illustrating the distribution of the mean axial velocities
the curves illustrating the distribution of the mean axial velocities along y/Dp are the approximate along y/D p are the

approximate
pattern of the pattern
velocityofdistribution
the velocityalong
distribution
y/DP . along y/DP.
Figure 5 (below) illustrates that the mean
Figure 5 (below) illustrates that the meanaxial axialvelocity
velocityalong
alongy/Dy/Dp also increases with ‘n’. In
p also increases with ‘n’.
addition, the mean axial velocity along transverse locations
In addition, the mean axial velocity along transverse locations is the highest at is the highest at x/D
x/DP ==7.50 for all three
P 7.50 for all three
‘n’ considered
‘n’ consideredin inthe
thestudy,
study,where
whereθθ==4.5 4.5° andHH==350
◦ and 350mm.
mm.
Case #2: The individual effect of propeller
Case #2: The individual effect of propeller inclination (θ) inclination (θ) on
on the
the mean
mean axial
axial velocity
velocity ofof flow
flow (V (Va))
a
along y/D p at various longitudinal locations (x/Dp) is illustrated in Figure 6, for the depth closest to
along y/Dp at various longitudinal locations (x/Dp ) is illustrated in Figure 6, for the depth closest to
the water
the watersurface.
surface.Figure
Figure6 6shows
showsthat,that,thethe mean
mean axial
axial velocity
velocity alongalong
y/Dy/D p generally increases with
p generally increases with ‘θ’,
but the changes are different at different locations. Also, the changes are not asare
‘θ’, but the changes are different at different locations. Also, the changes not as significant
significant as those due as
those
to due locations
‘n’. The to ‘n’. The locations
of the highestofvelocities
the highest velocities
also depend onalso depend
‘θ’. At θ = 0◦ ,on
the‘θ’.
mostAteffective
θ = 0°, zone
the most(the
effective zone (the overall mean axial velocities in the zone are higher
overall mean axial velocities in the zone are higher than other zones) is approximately at x/Dp = 11.50. than other zones) is
approximately at x/D = 11.50. At θ = 4.5°, the most effective zone is approximately
At θ = 4.5◦ , the most effective zone is approximately at x/Dp = 7.50. At θ = 9◦ , the most effective zone
p at x/D p = 7.50. At
θ =approximately
is 9°, the most effective
from x/D zone is approximately from x/Dp = 11.5 to 15.5.
p = 11.5 to 15.5.
Case #3: The individual effect of of
Case #3: The individual effect propeller
propeller submergence
submergence (H) on(H)theonmean
the mean axial velocity
axial velocity (Va)
(Va ) along
along y/D p at various longitudinal locations (x/Dp) is illustrated in Figure 7 for the depth of
y/Dp at various longitudinal locations (x/Dp ) is illustrated in Figure 7 for the depth of measurement
measurement
closest closest
to the water to the(at
surface water
0.25D surface (at 0.25Dp). The effect of ‘H’ on the mean axial velocity is
p ). The effect of ‘H’ on the mean axial velocity is opposite to the
opposite to the other factors, particularly in the near field (x/Dp ≤ 3.5) and intermediate field (3.5 ≤
other factors, particularly in the near field (x/D p ≤ 3.5) and intermediate field (3.5 ≤ x/Dp ≤ 15.5)
x/Dp ≤ With
zones. 15.5) azones.
decreaseWith a decrease
of ‘H’, the mean ofaxial
‘H’, the mean
velocity axial velocity
increases increasesinatthe
at any location any location
near field and in the
the
near field and the intermediate field zones, whereas the effect
intermediate field zones, whereas the effect of ‘H’ is inconsistent in the far field zone. of ‘H’ is inconsistent in the far field
zone.The effects of each of the three factors on the response variable are illustrated explicitly from the
study, and the interaction effect of the factors can be shown through a 3D plot or a regression equation.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 8 of 15
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 8 of 14
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 8 of 14

Figure 5. The approximate patterns ofdistribution

the distribution
of the of the non-dimensionalized meanvelocities
axial
Figure
 Figure5. The approximate patterns of the non-dimensionalized mean axial
5. The approximate patterns of the distribution of the non-dimensionalized mean axial
Vvelocities
a DP along
along νy/D palong y/D
withy/D p with the change of ‘n’.
thepchange
velocities
ν with theofchange
‘n’. of ‘n’.
ν

Figure 6. The approximate patterns of the distribution of the non-dimensionalized mean axial
Figure 6. The approximate patterns of the distribution of the non-dimensionalized mean axial
Figure
 velocities along y/Dp
6. The approximate patterns
withof the
the distribution
change of ‘θ’. of the non-dimensionalized mean axial velocities
Vvelocities
a DP
along y/Dp with the change of ‘θ’.
ν along y/Dp with the change of ‘θ’.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 9 of 15
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, x 9 of 14

Figure 7. The approximate patterns of the distribution of the non-dimensionalized mean axial
Figure 7. The approximate patterns of the distribution of the non-dimensionalized mean axial velocities
along

velocities
Va DP
along y/Dp withy/Dp with theofchange
the change ‘H’. of ‘H’.
ν

The effectsEffect
3.2. Interaction of each of the three factors on the response variable are illustrated explicitly from the
of Factors
study, and the interaction effect of the factors can be shown through a 3D plot or a regression
The interaction effect of multiple factors can be represented by regression equations or 3D
equation.
contour/surface plots, which show the relationship between factors and the effect on the response
variable for each
3.2. Interaction location.
Effect In this section, 3D surface plots showing the two-factorial-interaction (2FI)
of Factors
effect of the most influential factors (filtered by the Design Expert software) are presented for locations
The interaction effect of multiple factors can be represented by regression equations or 3D
along the center of the wake field at the depth of measurement closest to the fluid surface (d = 0.25Dp ).
contour/surface plots, which show the relationship between factors and the effect on the response
The locations that are selected for the investigation are at x/Dp = 7.5, 11.5 and 15.5 at d = 0.25Dp , where
variable for each location. In this section, 3D surface plots showing the two-factorial-interaction (2FI)
the overall mean axial velocity was higher than other zones. Additional plots are provided in [21],
effect of the most influential factors (filtered by the Design Expert software) are presented for
which is the basis of this paper. Figure 8a–c show the change of the non-dimensionalized mean axial
locations along the center of the wake field at the depth of measurement closest to the fluid surface
velocity with the change of both ‘n’ and ‘θ’ along the center of the wake field at x/Dp = 7.5, 11.5 and
(d = 0.25Dp). The locations that are selected for the investigation are at x/Dp = 7.5, 11.5 and 15.5 at d =
15.5 at d = 0.25Dp respectively.
0.25Dp, where the overall mean axial velocity was higher than other zones. Additional plots are
These plots show that, at x/Dp = 7.5 the velocity increases with ‘n’ and ‘θ’, but the effect of ‘n’ is
provided in [21], which is the basis of this paper. Figure 8a–c show the change of the
larger than ‘θ’. The effect of ‘θ’ gradually diminishes and the effect of ‘n’ decreases with x/Dp . Also it
non-dimensionalized mean axial velocity with the change of both ‘n’ and ‘θ’ along the center of the
is noticeable that the effect of ‘n’ in comparison to the effect of ‘θ’ is greater at all three locations, and it
wake field at x/Dp = 7.5, 11.5 and 15.5 at d = 0.25Dp respectively.
is expected that this trend will be applicable for all locations downstream in the wake field.
These plots show that, at x/Dp = 7.5 the velocity increases with ‘n’ and ‘θ’, but the effect of ‘n’ is
In Figure 8a–c, all the parameters are non-dimensionalized.
larger than ‘θ’. The effect of ‘θ’ gradually diminishes and the effect of ‘n’ decreases with x/Dp. Also it
The typical criteria used by the Design Expert 10.0 software for ANOVA testing are:
is noticeable that the effect of ‘n’ in comparison to the effect of ‘θ’ is greater at all three locations, and
it is expected
(i). thatwhether
Normality: this trendthewill be applicable
distributions forresiduals
of the all locations downstream in the wake field.
are normal.
(ii). In Figure 8a–c,
Constant all the
variance: theparameters
variance ofare non-dimensionalized.
data in groups should be the same.
(iii). Independence: all samples are independent of10.0
The typical criteria used by the Design Expert one software
another. for ANOVA testing are:
(iv).
(i) Randomness:
Normality: all samples
whether are randomof
the distributions samples from their
the residuals respective populations.
are normal.
(ii) Constant variance: the variance of data in groups should be the same.
(iii) Independence: all samples are independent of one another.
(iv) Randomness: all samples are random samples from their respective populations.
J. Mar. Sci.Sci.
J. Mar. Eng. 2018,
Eng. 6, 50
2018, 6, x 10 10
of of
14 15

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 8. (a) 3D surface plot showing the interaction effect of ‘n’ and ‘θ’ on the mean axial flow
Figure 8. (a) 3D surface plot showing the interaction effect of ‘n’ and ‘θ’ on the mean axial flow velocity
velocity at the point location of (x/Dp, y/Dp, d/Dp) = (7.5, 0.0, 0.25); (b) 3D surface plot showing the
at the point location of (x/Dp , y/Dp , d/Dp ) = (7.5, 0.0, 0.25); (b) 3D surface plot showing the interaction
interaction effect of ‘n’ and ‘θ’ on the mean axial flow velocity at the point location of (x/Dp, y/Dp,
effect of ‘n’ and ‘θ’ on the mean axial flow velocity at the point location of (x/Dp , y/Dp , d/Dp ) = (11.5,
d/Dp) = (11.5, 0.0, 0.25); (c) 3D surface plot showing the interaction effect of ‘n’ and ‘θ’ on the mean
0.0, 0.25); (c) 3D surface plot showing the interaction effect of ‘n’ and ‘θ’ on the mean axial flow velocity
axial flow velocity at the point location of (x/Dp, y/Dp, d/Dp) = (15.5, 0.0, 0.25).
at the point location of (x/Dp , y/Dp , d/Dp ) = (15.5, 0.0, 0.25).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 11 of 15

3.3. Axial Velocity Prediction Equations

The functional relationship between the non-dimensionalized response variable (non-dimensionalized
by mean axial velocity) and the non-dimensionalized input factors can be expressed as follows:

nD2p
!
Va Dp H
= f , θ,
ν ν Dp

Buckingham-π theory was used to develop the non-dimensionalized functional relationship

among the factors: propeller rotational speed ‘n’, inclination of propeller ‘θ’, depth of submergence of
propeller ‘H’, and the response variable of the study, which is mean axial velocity of fluid ‘Va ’.
V D nD2
Assuming: aν p = VA , νp = X, θ = Y, and DHp = Z; the common form of the quadratic equation
representing the relationship among the factors and the mean axial velocity can be written as:

VA = K + aX + bY + cZ + a1 XY + b1 XZ + c1 YZ + a2 X2 + b2 Y2 + c2 Z2 (1)

There are 10 unknown coefficients

 in the relationship among the factors and the response, values
y y
which depend on the location Dxp , Dp , Ddp of measurement. Relationships between Dxp , Dp , Ddp
and the corresponding coefficients were also developed for each zone (near field, intermediate field
and far field), which are shown in Tables 4–6. The kinematic viscosity of water (ν) is considered as
1.0023 × 10−6 m2 /s to calculate the coefficients.

Table 4. Regression equations for predicting K, a, b, c, a1 , b1 , c1 , a2 , b2 and c2 for Near Field.

Coeff. of (A) Prediction Equations of the Unknown Coefficients (K~c2 ) for Near Field zone, Obtained
‘K’–‘c2 ’ through Stepwise Regression Analysis Incorporating up to Cubic Terms
K = 479,548 − {258,367 × (y/Dp )} − {1,075,757 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp )} + {1,399,716 ×
K
(d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {561,931 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
a a = 0.369 − {0.052 × (x/Dp )} + {0.0336 × (y/Dp )} – {0.030 × (d/Dp )}
b = 34,935 + {19,327 × (x/Dp )} − {121,413 × (d/Dp )} − {28,062 × (y/Dp )} − {5435 × (x/Dp ) ×
b
(x/Dp )} + {85,102 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
c = −520,828 + {343,649 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} + {1,656,413 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp )} −
c
{1,321,759 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
a1 Ignored, as this coefficient is too small (average = 5.70 × 10−3 ) to affect the field
b1 = −0.069 − {0.344 × (x/Dp )} − {0.470 × (d/Dp )} + {0.574 × (y/Dp )} + {0.0515 × (x/Dp ) ×
b1 (x/Dp )} − {0.245 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} + {0.379 × (x/Dp ) × (d/Dp )} + {0.0367 × (x/Dp ) ×
(y/Dp )} + {0.191 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {0.190 × (x/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
c1 = −10,949 + {3232 × (x/Dp )} + {44,920 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} + {57,454 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) ×
c1
(d/Dp )} − {82,479 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
a2 Ignored, as this coefficient is too small (average = 9.69 × 10−9 ) to affect the field
b2 b2 = 0.369 − {0.052 × (x/Dp )} + {0.0336 × (y/Dp )} − {0.03033 × (d/Dp )}
c2 = 223,033 − {790,287 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {705,383 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp )} +
c2
{1,155,228 × (d/Dp) × (d/Dp) × (y/Dp)}

Design Expert 10.0 software was used to generate the coefficients of Equation (1) for known
propeller shaft rotational speed (n), propeller inclination (θ), propeller submergence (H) and
corresponding mean axial flow velocity for all 168 locations. Then, the relationships among the
y
10 coefficients in terms of Dxp , Dp and Ddp were determined. To increase the accuracy, the regression
equations for predicting the coefficients were developed separately for each zone.
There are 10 unknown coefficients in Equation (1), each of which can be derived by using the
regression equations listed in Tables 4–6 for each of the three zones of interest. Stepwise regression
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 12 of 15

analysis was used to model the prediction equations to determine the coefficients for up to cubic order,
to maintain good prediction capacities of the equations. Hence, for a given location in the 3D wake
field, the coefficients of Equation (1) can be determined, and for a given propeller condition (where n,
θ, and H are known), the mean axial flow velocity can be estimated.

Table 5. Regression equations for predicting K, a, b, c, a1 , b1 , c1 , a2 , b2 and c2 for the Intermediate Field.

Coeff. of (A) Prediction Equations of the Unknown Coefficients (K~c2 ) for the Intermediate Field,
‘K’–‘c2 ’ Obtained through Stepwise Regression Analysis Incorporating up to Cubic Terms
K = 53,956 − {456,792 × (y/Dp )} + {278,313 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {40,801 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )
K
× (y/Dp )}
a a = 0.3135 − {0.0055 × (x/Dp )} − {0.288 × (y/Dp )} − {0.0243 × (d/Dp )}
b b = −7788 + {4985 × (y/Dp )}
c = 143,033 + {229,377 × (y/Dp )} − {194,465 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} + {30,873 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )
c
× (y/Dp )}
a1 a1 = 0.011 − {0.007 × (y/Dp )}
b1 = −0.154 + {0.356 × (d/Dp )} − {0.092 × (y/Dp )} + {0.0335 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {0.084 ×
b1
(d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
c1 c1 = 22,893 − {1396 × (x/Dp )} − {7321 × (y/Dp )} + {481 × (x/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
a2 Ignored, as this coefficient is too small (average = 9.61 × 10−8 ) to affect the field
b2 = −1173 + {719 × (d/Dp )} − {1032−(y/Dp )} + {763 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {116.2 × (y/Dp )
b2
× (y/Dp ) ×(y/Dp )}
c2 c2 = −99,090 + {34,803 × (y/Dp )}

Table 6. Regression equations for predicting K, a, b, c, a1 , b1 , c1 , a2 , b2 and c2 for the Far Field.

Coeff. of (A) Prediction Equations of the Unknown Coefficients (K~c2 ) for the Far Field, Obtained
‘K’–‘c2 ’ through Stepwise Regression Analysis Incorporating up to Cubic Terms
K K = 134,120 − {6844 × (x/Dp )}
a a = −0.267 + {0.349 × (d/Dp )} + {0.1685 × (y/Dp )} − {0.206 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
b b = 5491 − {467 × (x/Dp ) × (d/Dp )} + {10,933 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp )}
c = −852,767 + {54,310 × (x/Dp )} + {488,902 × (d/Dp )} + {132,689 × (y/Dp )} − {902 × (x/Dp )
c × (x/Dp )} − {20,372 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {10,354 × (x/Dp ) × (d/Dp )} − {194,760 × (d/Dp )
× (y/Dp )} + {25,978 × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
a1 Ignored, as this coefficient is too small (average = 1.66 × 10−3 ) to affect the field
b1 b1 = 0.0546 − {0.0334 × (y/Dp )} + {0.0388 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}
c1 c1 = 3713 − {5329 × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp ) × (d/Dp )}
a2 Ignored, as this coefficient is too small (average = −4.76 × 10−9 ) to affect the field
b2 b2 = −647 + {360 × (d/Dp )}
c2 = −657,734 + {94,409 × (x/Dp )} + {78,090 × (y/Dp )} − {4593 × (x/Dp ) × (x/Dp )} − {11,756
c2 × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} − {3454 × (x/Dp ) × (y/Dp )} + {71.8 × (x/Dp ) × (x/Dp ) × (x/Dp )} + {570
× (x/Dp ) × (y/Dp ) × (y/Dp )}

4. Conclusions
The present experimental investigation on a propeller wake velocity (axial) field for the major
factors affecting propeller wake wash performance leads to the following concluding remarks:

- Among the three factors, propeller rotational speed is the most influential, followed by propeller
inclination angle and propeller depth of submergence. The propeller speed ‘n’ and inclination
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 13 of 15

angle ‘θ’ affect the flow positively, whereas submergence depth ‘H’ affects it negatively. The effect
of ‘n’ is always positive throughout the wake field. The effect of ‘θ’ is not as consistent, particularly
at a greater depth of measurement (such as at 1.05Dp). As ‘n’ increases, the effect of ‘θ’ also
increases. As ‘H’ decreases, the time averaged axial velocity increases, but the risk of cavitation
also increases.
- The rate of change (growth or decay) in the mean axial velocity along x/Dp in terms of ‘n’,
‘θ’, and ‘H’ for any depth of measurement is highest in the near field zone. For a particular
configuration of factors, the velocity profile representing the distribution of axial velocities along
x/Dp becomes larger with the increase in depth.
- As ‘n’ and ‘θ’ increase, the velocity distribution profile becomes larger and the effective size of
the wake field increases, particularly at a shallow depth of measurement. The effect of ‘H’ is the
reverse and is more inconsistent.
- The above observations are for the center of the wake field (the location likely to be the most
unaffected by the tank wall boundary condition), and it is expected that they will also be
applicable for the entire wake field.
- The zone where the mean axial flow velocities were higher than other zones in the most of
the cases is the region of x/Dp = 7.5 for all three ‘n’ (at θ = 4.5◦ and H = 350 mm) considered
in the OFAT study. The location of that zone changes with ‘θ’, and the change is inconsistent.
Furthermore, the interaction plots illustrate that the effect of ‘n’ is much stronger than the effect
of ‘θ’ on the response variable in the downstream wake field, and the effect of ‘θ’ increases with
the increase of ‘n’ up to a certain extent.
- A second order regression equation (as mentioned in Section 3.3) can be used to predict the
mean axial velocity of flow downstream of propeller wake field. The quadratic terms are also
included to increase the prediction capacities of the equation. The average prediction capacity of
all the equations for 168 locations is 71%. For the locations along the center of the wake field, the
prediction capacity is about 84%.

The prediction equations can be used to approximate the mean axial velocity at locations within
the wake field, including near the free surface. Applications of the results include predicting wake wash
effects, such as those used to manage pack ice in offshore operations. The results of this investigation
can also be used as a benchmark to compare with results from numerical studies.

Author Contributions: M.A.A. performed the experiment, analyzed the experimental results, and wrote the
paper under the supervision of B.C. and B.V.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada) and ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) for providing the funding to conduct the research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
Ct Thrust coefficient of the propeller
d Vertical distance from the water surface
Dp Propeller diameter
Dh Propeller hub diameter
H The depth of submergence of propeller
n Propeller rotational speed
Rp Propeller radius
Reflow Flow Reynolds number
Reprop Propeller Reynolds number
V0 Efflux velocity
VAxial Axial velocity in the wake
VMaxAxial Maximum axial velocity
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 14 of 15

x Longitudinal distance from efflux plane

y Distance from the center of the wake
Z Number of propeller blades
β Propeller blade area ration
σ Standard deviation (variability of flow)
ν Viscosity of fluid (kg·m2 s−1 )

References
1. Anderson, K.G.; McDonald, D.; Mitten, P.; Nicholls, S.; Tait, D. Management of Small Ice Masses; Environmental
Studies Revolving Funds, Report no. 042; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:
Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
2. Keinonen, A.J.; Lohi, P. Azimuth and Multipurpose Icebreaker Technology for Arctic and Non-Arctic
Offshore. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seattle, WA,
USA, 28 May–2 June 2000.
3. Keinonen, A.J. Ice Management for Floating Ice Offshore Operations. In Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2008.
4. Ferrieri, J.M.; Veitch, B.; Akinturk, A. Experimental Study on Ice Management through the Use of Podded
Propeller Wash. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Tasmania, Australia, 5–8 May
2013.
5. Bastin, T. Mathematical Modeling of Propeller Wake Wash for Pack-ice Management. Master’s Thesis,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 2014.
6. Pecoraro, A.; Felice, F.D.; Felli, M.; Salvatore, F.; Viviani, M. Propeller-Hull Interaction in a Single-Screw
Vessel. In Proceedings of the SMP’13 Third International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Launceston,
TAS, Australia, 5–8 May 2013.
7. Islam, M.; Jahra, F.; Molyneux, D.; Hedd, L. Numerical Research on Usage of Podded Propulsors
in Ice Management. In Proceedings of the Arctic Technology Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark,
23–25 March 2015.
8. Brewster, P.M. Modeling the Wash from a Ship’s Propeller. Ph.D Thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast,
Belfast, UK, 1997.
9. Lam, W.H.; Hamill, G.A.; Song, Y.C. Experimental Investigation of the decay from a Ship’s Propeller.
China Ocean Eng. 2011, 25, 265–284. [CrossRef]
10. Lam, W.; Robinson, D.J.; Hamill, A. Initial wash profiles from a Ship’s Propeller using CFD method.
J. Ocean Eng. 2013, 72, 257–266. [CrossRef]
11. McGarvey, J.A. The Influence of the Rudder on the Hydrodynamics and the Resulting Bed Scour of a Ship’s
Screw Wash. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, 1996.
12. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of the Experiments, 8th ed.; John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: New York, NY,
USA, 2013.
13. Anderson, M.J.; Whitcomb, P.J. RSM Simplified: Optimizing Processes using Response Surface Methods for Design
Experiments, 2nd ed.; Productivity Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
14. Verhey, H.J. The Stability of Bottom Banks Subjected to Velocities in the Propeller Jet behind Ships.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Harbor Congress, Antwerp, Belgium, 13–17 June 1983.
15. Fuehrer, M.; Romisch, K. Effects of Modern Ship Traffic on Islands and Ocean Waterways and their Structures.
In Proceedings of the 24th Congress on PIANC, Leningrad, Russia, 24 September 1977. Sections 1-3.
16. Blaauw, H.G.; Van de Kaa, E.J. Erosion of Bottom and Sloping Banks Caused by the Screw Race of Maneuvering
Ships; Report No. 202; Delft Hydraulics Laboratory: Delft, The Netherlands, 1978.
17. Berger, W.; Felkel, K.; Hager, M.; Oebius, H.; Schale, E. Courant Provoque par les Bateaux Protection des
Berges et Solution pour Eviter L’erosion du lit du Haut Rhin. In Proceedings of the 25th Congress on PIANC,
Edinburgh, UK, 10–16 May 1981. Section I-1.
18. Hamill, G.A. Characteristics of the Screw Wash of a Maneuvering Ship and the Resulting Bed Scour.
Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, 1987.
19. Hashmi, H.N. Erosion of a granular bed at a Quay wall by a Ship’s Screw Wash. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s
University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, 1993.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 50 15 of 15

20. Stewart, D.P.J. Characteristics of a Ship’s Screw Wash and the Influence of Quay Wall Proximity. Ph.D. Thesis,
Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, UK, 1992.
21. Amin, A. Experimental Investigation of Propeller Wake Velocity Field. Master’s Thesis, Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 2017.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).