Research illustrates how open-source codes improve ship propeller design, indicating enhanced hydrodynamic efficiency and flexibility for optimization.
The design of a ship's propeller is very important as it directly affects the fuel efficiency, speed, and stability of the ship. Commonly, propellers are designed using expensive commercial software. This research aims to design a ship propeller using open-source code based on lifting line theory and using MATLAB application. The ship data used is a container ship with a length of 397 meters and a width of 56 meters. The propeller design results were propeller performance such as design performance, induced velocity, inflow angle, expanded blade, blade thickness, lift coefficient, performance curve, 2-D and 3-D outlines. A qualitative and quantitative comparison was conducted between a real-world manufactured propeller, a redesigned propeller developed using open-source software (OpenProp), and a commercial design tool (PropCAD). The comparison reveals that while the overall geometry and blade shape of all three propellers are similar, consisting of 6 blades with comparable radial profiles, key differences emerge in the expanded area ratio (EAR), skew angle, and surface modeling quality. The OpenProp design features an EAR of 1.0876 and a high skew angle of 39.9°, indicating an emphasis on hydrodynamic efficiency and cavitation mitigation. In contrast, the PropCAD model presents a slightly lower EAR of 1.077 with a more moderate skew angle of 20.5°, offering a balanced compromise between performance and manufacturability. This distinction highlights a potential optimization opportunity and demonstrates the capability of the open-source design approach to approximate real-world propeller characteristics with high fidelity, while also offering flexibility for further refinement. In summary, the findings suggest that the open-source design approach can approximate real-world propeller characteristics with high fidelity and provide flexibility for iterative optimization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sugianto et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: