China Ocean Eng., Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.

627 – 636
© 2016 Chinese Ocean Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
DOI 10.1007/s13344-016-0040-8, ISSN 0890-5487

Numerical and Experimental Studies on the Effect of Axial Spacing on

Hydrodynamic Performance of the Hybrid CRP Pod Propulsion System*

XIONG Ying (熊 鹰)a, 1, ZHANG Ke (张 可)b,

WANG Zhan-zhi (王展智)a and QI Wan-jiang (齐万江)c
a
Department of Naval Architecture, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430033, China
b
The 92001th Unit of PLA, Qingdao 266011, China
c
The 71187th Unit of PLA, Yantai 266011, China

(Received 13 October 2014; received revised form 11 February 2015; accepted 18 April 2015)

ABSTRACT
The hydrodynamic performance of a hybrid CRP pod propulsion system was studied by RANS method with SST
k   turbulence model and sliding mesh. The effect of axial spacing on the hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid
CRP pod propulsion system was investigated numerically and experimentally. It shows that RANS with the sliding mesh
method and SST k   turbulence model predicts accurately the hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid CRP pod
propulsion system. The axial spacing has little influence on the hydrodynamic performance of the forward propeller, but
great influence on that of the pod unit. Thrust coefficient of the pod unit declines with the increase of the axial spacing,
but the trend becomes weaker, and the decreasing amplitude at the lower advance coefficient is larger than that at the
higher advance coefficient. The thrust coefficient and open water efficiency of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system
decrease with the increase of the axial spacing, while the torque coefficient keeps almost constant. On this basis, the
design principle of axial spacing of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system was proposed.

Key words: hybrid CRP pod propulsion system; axial spacing; hydrodynamic performance; numerical simulation;
experimental study

1. Introduction

The hybrid CRP pod propulsion system is a new contra-rotating propulsor which consists of a
forward conventional shaft propeller and an aft podded propulsor. Compared with the conventional
propeller, the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system has the following advantages: high propulsion
efficiency; low total power; good maneuverability; two independent propulsion systems, which improve
redundancy; no need of the lateral thruster and rudder; low vibrating force; flexible arrangement; and
low exhaust emission. Under the “Green Ship” background, the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system has a
bright future and may become one of the research focuses in the area of ship propulsion because of its
advantages (Go et al., 2004; Ueda et al., 2004; Inukai and Ochi, 2009; Andrew et al., 2011; Wang and
Xiong, 2013).

* The research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51479207 and 51179198),
and the High Technology Marine Scientific Research Project of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China (Grant
No. [2012]534).
1 Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
628 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636

Kim et al. (2002) conducted comparative tests on single screw, twin screw and the hybrid CRP pod
propulsion system on an ultra large container vessel in Samsung Ship Model Basin of Samsung Heavy
Industries. Experimental results showed that total propulsion efficiency of the Hybrid CRP pod
propulsion system was 9% higher than that of twin screw, 5% higher than that of conventional single
screw. Sasaki et al. (2006) investigated the model test procedures of the Hybrid CRP pod propulsion
system. They proposed that the procedures should include the resistance test without the CRP pod
propulsion system, self-propulsion test with the CRP pod propulsion system and open water test. Sasaki et
al. (2009) discussed the design method and improved the open water test procedure. They pointed out that
the open water tests should include open water test of single forward propeller, of the forward propeller
behind the pod, and of the pod unit, and the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system. Black and Cusanelli
(2009) conducted the open water test of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system in the cavitation tunnel at
Newcastle University. The test did not consider the effect of the gap between forward and aft propeller, but
the effect of hub was considered in numerical simulations. And they carried out a further cavitation test.
Shimamoto et al. (2010) evaluated the general performance of the hybrid CRP propulsion system. It was
found that the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system could not only save power but also improve
maneuverability compared with the traditional single screw container ship. Chang and Go (2011) studied
the self-propulsion performance of a container ship equipped with the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system.
It was found that revolution ratio of forward and aft propellers uniquely corresponded to the power ratio at
a constant ship speed; under the design conditions, the effect of aft propeller on the hydrodynamic
performance of forward propeller could be negligible. Quereda et al. (2012) described the test carried out
at CEHIPAR and the device arrangement necessary to test the unit in a towing tank and in a cavitation
tunnel, and presented an extrapolation method from model scale to full scale. Sheng and Xiong (2012),
Zhang (2013) and Wang and Xiong (2013, 2016) studied the open water performance of the hybrid CRP
pod propulsion system using RANS methods. The 26th ITTC Propulsion Committee (2012) believed that it
was due to the lack of experimental study on the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system that the corresponding
research is still in development. The committee recommended that 27th ITTC Propulsion Committee
should propose a test procedure of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system.
At present, studies on the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system focus on model tests. In this paper,
numerical and experimental studies are carried out to explore the effect of axial spacing on the
hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system. On this basis, design principle of
the axial spacing of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system is proposed.

2. Design Principle of Axial Spacing

Podded propulsor of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system can be used as a rudder with the
rotation of 360º, thus, the axial spacing between the forward and aft propeller must be long enough to
keep the rotation smoothly. Fig. 1 shows the axial spacing between the forward and aft propeller.
Rf , Ra , a1 , a2 , b and d represent the radius of the forward propeller, radius of the aft propeller, length of
the forward propeller hub, length of the aft propeller hub, rotating radius of the pod, axial spacing
between the forward and aft propellers respectively.
 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636 629

The minimum axial spacing is determined by the radius of the aft propeller Ra, rotating radius of the
pod b, and the hub length a1 and a2. The relationship is as follows:
When a2  b 2  Ra 2  b , the rotating radius of the pod b is relatively short:

d min  b 2  Ra 2  b  a1 . (1)
When a2  b  Ra  b , the rotating radius of the pod b is relatively long:
2 2

d min  a1  a2 . (2)
Thus, the axial spacing is:
d min  max  
b 2  Ra 2  b  a1 , a1  a2 . (3)
As Eq. (3) shows, the axial spacing is mainly determined by the forward propeller radius, rotating
radius of the pod and the hub length of the forward and aft propeller. The diameters of the propellers
and hub radius ratio have been determined in the initial design stage, and can hardly be changed, thus,
the rotating radius of the pod b becomes the key parameter affecting the axial spacing. When b is big,
b 2  Ra 2  b is small, and the minimum axial spacing is mainly determined by the hub length of aft

propeller; when b is small, b 2  Ra 2  b is big, and the minimum axial spacing is mainly determined
by the diameter of aft propeller. Theoretically, as to energy recovery, when the distance between the
forward propeller and aft propeller is shorter, the available energy of the propeller wake is larger. Thus,
the axial spacing should be minimized as much as possible. This requires that the minimum spacing
should be calculated by Eq. (1) in the primary design stage, as the hub length should be as short as
possible.

Fig. 1. Definition of the axial spacing between the forward and aft propellers.

3. Numerical Study

In order to verify the minimum spacing design criteria, RANS method combined with SST k  
model and moving mesh model are used to investigate the effect of the axial spacing on the
hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system. This method is precise in
predicting open water performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system, which can be seen in
Sheng and Xiong (2012), Zhang (2013) and Wang and Xiong (2013).
630 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636

3.1 Governing Equations

With the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system operating in the uniform flow, the governing equations
for the turbulent flow field around the propulsion system are the instantaneous conservation of mass
(continuity equation) and momentum (Reynolds averaged NavierStokes equation, RANS). These
equations can be expressed as follows:
 
 (  ui )  0; (4)
t xi
  p    ui u j  2 ul  
(  ui )  (  ui u j )     0     0  ij   (  uiu j )   f i , (5)
t x j x i x j   x j xi  3 xl  x j
where, all the variables are time-averaged; ui ,  , p, 0 , f i and  uiu j are the velocity, fluid density,
static pressure, fluid viscosity, body force per unit volume, and Reynolds stress, respectively.

3.2 Mathematical Model

The hybrid CRP pod propulsion system consists of the conventional shaft propeller and podded
propulsor. The podded propulsor includes housing, strut and tail fin. The pod model is AZP120-housing,
the main parameters of the pod are shown in Table 1, the main parameters of the forward and aft propellers
are shown in Table 2, and the geometry of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Geometry of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system.

Table 1 Main parameters of the pod model

Ratio of pod length to Maximum diameter of Ratio of the maximum diameter of
Pod length L (m)
propeller diameter L/D pod d (m) pod to propeller diameter d/D
0.30349 1.3759 0.09537 0.4335

Table 2 Main parameters of the forward and aft propellers

Title Forward propeller Aft propeller
Diameter (mm) 240 214.5
Propeller blade number 5 5
P0.7R / D 1.1371 1.1619
Section camber and thickness NACA66mod/ a=0.8 NACA66mod/ a=0.8
Rotating direction Left Right

The flow domain is divided to three parts, i.e., inflow domain, rotating domain and pod domain. At
the interfaces between these domains, a local reference frame transformation is performed to enable flow
variables in one zone to be used to calculate fluxes at the boundary of the adjacent zone. The rotating
domain is a cylinder with the radius of 1.2DF, with DF being the diameter of the forward propeller, and is
discretized by the periodic structured mesh. The grids, of H-O topology, are refined near the blade
leading edge, trailing edge, blade tip and the pod. The near-wall spacing is set to ensure the non-
 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636 631

dimensional spacing arriving at the target of y+≈80 at the propeller, thus, the wall function can be
employed. In this numerical simulation, total cell number is approximately 3500000. Grids of propellers
and the pod are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.

Fig. 3. Grid of the propeller. Fig. 4. Grid of the pod.

The inlet boundary is set as a velocity inlet, and the velocity varies according to the advance
velocity coefficient; the outlet boundary is set as an outflow; the far field boundary is set as symmetry.
Propeller blade, propeller hub and the pod are set as no slip wall. The moving mesh method is used to
model the contra-rotating movement of the forward and aft propeller. The governing equations and
turbulence model are discretized by the finite volume method with a second order upwind scheme, and
the pressure-velocity coupling is SIMPLEC method.

3.3 Numerical Results

Different from the conventional contra-rotating propellers, the revolution ratio of the forward and
aft propellers of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system is not fixed. Thus, in this paper, the diameters
and revolutions of the forward and aft propellers are used to nondimensionalize the thrust and torque,
respectively. Definitions of the advance coefficient J, thrust coefficient of the forward propeller K TF ,
torque coefficient of the forward propeller K QF , thrust coefficient of the aft propeller K TA , torque
coefficient of the aft propeller K QA , thrust coefficient of pod unit K TU , thrust coefficient of the hybrid
CRP pod propulsion system K T , torque coefficient of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system K Q , and
open efficiency of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system 0 are as follows:
VA TF QF TA QA
J , K TF  , K QF  , K TA  , K QA  ,
nF DF  nF2 DF4  nF2 DF5  nA2 DA4  nA2 DA5
TA  Rpod TF  TA  Rpod nF QF  nA QA (TF  TU )VA
K TU  , KT  , KQ  , 0  , (6)
n D
2
A
4
A
n D2
F
4
F
 nF DF
3 5
2π(nF QF  nA QA )
where,  , VA , nF , nA , DF , DA , QF , QA , TF , TA and Rpod represent the density of the fluid, the inflow
velocity, revolution of the forward propeller, revolution of the aft propeller, diameter of the forward
propeller, diameter of the aft propeller, torque of the forward propeller, torque of the aft propeller, thrust
of the forward propeller, thrust of the aft propeller and resistance of the pod, respectively.
Comparisons of the hydrodynamics performances of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion with three
different axial spacings are listed in Table 3, and variations of open water performances of the hybrid
CRP pod propulsion system with the axial spacing at J=0.76 are shown in Fig. 5.
632 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636

Table 3 Comparisons of the hydrodynamic performance with different axial spacing

J Spacing KTF 10KQF KTA KTU 10KQA KT 10KQ η0
0.33DF 0.3128 0.5142 0.2570 0.2459 0.4689 0.4954 0.8499 0.5459
0.54 0.40DF 0.3172 0.5208 0.2408 0.2308 0.4505 0.4886 0.8434 0.5430
0.46DF 0.3164 0.5226 0.2339 0.2253 0.4436 0.4838 0.8403 0.5408
0.33DF 0.2658 0.4545 0.2238 0.2128 0.4226 0.4239 0.7571 0.6098
0.65 0.40 DF 0.2702 0.4601 0.2092 0.1996 0.4070 0.4185 0.7516 0.6070
0.46 DF 0.2695 0.4617 0.2034 0.1951 0.4013 0.4144 0.7491 0.6041
0.33 DF 0.2174 0.3907 0.1877 0.1769 0.3720 0.3488 0.6571 0.6592
0.76 0.40 DF 0.2210 0.3946 0.1772 0.1678 0.3626 0.3456 0.6543 0.6566
0.46 DF 0.2200 0.3963 0.1717 0.1636 0.3567 0.3415 0.6517 0.6522
0.33 DF 0.1678 0.3219 0.1486 0.1383 0.3165 0.2705 0.5486 0.6873
0.86 0.40 DF 0.1702 0.3238 0.1421 0.1331 0.3136 0.2691 0.5484 0.6846
0.46 DF 0.1690 0.3256 0.1376 0.1300 0.3086 0.2655 0.5466 0.6784
0.33 DF 0.1162 0.2465 0.1068 0.0973 0.2566 0.1885 0.4303 0.6770
0.97 0.40 DF 0.1177 0.2467 0.1023 0.0940 0.2571 0.1875 0.4308 0.6732
0.46 DF 0.1162 0.2483 0.1001 0.0929 0.2543 0.1853 0.4304 0.6662

Fig. 5. Variations of the open water performances of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system with the axial spacing at J=0.76.
It can be seen from Table 3:
(1) There are relatively little influences of the axial spacing on the thrust and torque coefficient of
the forward propeller. It is mainly because that the forward propeller is located in the upstream of the aft
propeller, and the suction effect of the aft propeller does not exert much influence on the incoming
velocity of the forward propeller in a certain range.
(2) The thrust coefficients of the aft propeller and pod unit decrease with the increase of the axial
spacing. The decrease slows down as the axial spacing increases, and this coefficient with a low advance
coefficient is bigger than that with a high advance coefficient. The torque coefficient does not change
obviously. The main reason is that the propeller wake energy which the aft propeller can absorb
decreases with the increase of the axial spacing.
(3) The thrust coefficient and open water efficiency of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion decrease as
the spacing increases, while the torque coefficient does not change too much, thus, the axial spacing
should be as small as possible regarding energy conservation.
Open water performances of single aft propeller and pod unit are also calculated, and the
relationship between the pod resistance and torque is illustrated in Fig. 6, showing that the pod resistance
is inversely proportional to the torque of the pod, which can be explained by energy conservation law.
Under non contra-rotating condition, rotation kinetic energy is the main energy of the propeller wake,
and causes big torque on the pod. Under contra-rotating condition, the energy of the propeller wake is
absorbed by the aft propeller to become kinetic energy, thus, the pod resistance increases and causes a
 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636 633

“blockage effect”. In the view of contra-rotating propeller design, the closer the torque of the pod
approaches zero, the more energy of the propeller wake the aft propeller absorbs. If the torque of the pod
is zero, the energy of the propeller wake will be completely absorbed by the aft propeller.

Fig. 6. Relationship between the pod resistance

and torque.

The comparison of the streamlines of single aft propeller, the podded propulsor, and the hybrid CRP
pod propulsion system is shown in Fig. 7, indicating that the rotation effect of single aft propeller’s
streamline is quite violent, that of the podded propulsor is less violent because the pod absorbs some
rotation energy of aft propeller, and there is nearly no rotation effect in the wake of the hybrid CRP pod
propulsion.

Fig. 7. Streamlines of different propulsion systems.

4. Experimental Study

4.1 Experimental Facility

Experimental investigation is also carried out to validate the design principle and numerical results.
The pod model, forward propeller and aft propeller are shown in Figs. 8, 9 and 10, respectively. The
experiment is conducted in a cavitation tunnel in Naval University of Engineering. The working section
is closed with a rectangular cross-section of 0.6 m0.6 m2.6 m. The height between the centerlines of
the up and down horizontal segment is about 10 m. The distance between centerlines of two vertical
segments is 18 m. The pod dynamometer system, H101, is a newly-developed advanced test equipment
specifically designed by Cussons Company for the hydrodynamic performance test of the poded
propulsor. It can measure the propeller thrust, torque, the single component force of the pod unit under
steering condition and pod resistance in the flow direction. The long axis propeller dynamometer is a
self-developed test instrument designed by Huazhong University of Science and Technology for open
water test of traditional propeller, which is capable of the propeller thrust and torque measurements.
Forward propeller is installed reversely at the long axis propeller dynamometer, the pod and aft
propeller are installed on the pod dynamometer system. The axial spacing is adjusted to 0.33DF, 0.4DF
634 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636

and 0.46DF. The arrangement of open water test is shown in Figs. 11 and 12. During the test, two
dynamometers are adjusted until the revolution of the forward propeller reaches 1322 rpm, and that of
the aft propeller reaches 1427 rpm, and then the revolution is kept constant, and the inflow velocity is
adjusted in the range from 2.5 m/s to 5 m/s, with corresponding advance coefficient J ranging from 0.5 to
0.9. The test is repeated three times under each axial spacing condition, and the mean values of test
results are used as open water performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion. Reynolds numbers at
r/R=0.7 of two propellers are larger than 3105.

Fig. 8. Pod model. Fig. 9. Forward propeller. Fig. 10. Aft propeller.

Fig. 11. Adjusting axial spacing. Fig. 12. Installation diagram of the hybrid CRP propulsion system.

4.2 Experimental Result

Comparisons of open water performance with different axial spacing between experimental data
and numerical results are shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15, respectively. In the figures, solid points stand for
experimental data, open points represent numerical results.

Fig. 13. Open water characteristics of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system when the spacing is 0.33DF.
It can be seen from Figs. 13−15 that numerical results are consistent with experimental data, the
overall trend is consistent, and the hydrodynamic performance curves are almost parallel. Numerical
results are smaller than experimental data with all advance coefficients. The main reason is that the
numerical simulation considers unlimited flow condition while there is a tunnel effect during the test,
thus, the real inflow velocity in test is smaller than that of numerical simulation. Under design condition,
 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636 635

the maximum error of the thrust and torque coefficients between numerical results and experimental data
is smaller than 7.18%, and most of them is smaller than 6%. Experimental results show that axial spacing
does not exert much influence on the hydrodynamic performance of the forward propeller too much; the
open water efficiency of the forward propeller keeps nearly constant. The open water efficiency of the
aft propeller decreases as the spacing increases. Experimental data confirm the conclusions of numerical
result.

Fig. 14. Open water characteristics of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system when the spacing is 0.4DF.

Fig. 15. Open water characteristics of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system when the axial spacing is 0.46DF.

5. Conclusions

Hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system was studied by the RANS
method with SST k   turbulence model and sliding mesh. Effect of axial spacing on the
hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system was investigated numerically
and experimentally. The above work shows that:
(1) RANS method with SST k   turbulence model and sliding mesh can predict the
hydrodynamic performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system well.
(2) The influence of axial spacing is little on the hydrodynamic performance of forward propeller,
but is great on that of the podded propulsor.
(3) The thrust coefficient of the pod unit declines with the increase of axial spacing, but the trend
becomes weaker, and the decreasing amplitude at lower advance coefficient is larger than that at the
higher advance coefficient. The thrust coefficient and open water efficiency of the hybrid CRP pod
636 XIONG Ying et al. / China Ocean Eng., 30(4), 2016, 627  636

propulsion system decrease with the increase of axial spacing, while the torque coefficient keeps
almost constant.

References
Andrew, T. and William, W., 2011. Integration Impacts of A Hybrid Contra-Rotating Shaft-Pod (HCRSP)
Arrangement on Naval Auxiliaries, David W Taylor Naval Ship R & D center, Bethesda.
Black, S. D. and Cusanelli, D. S., 2009. Design and testing of a hybrid shaft-pod propulsor for a high speed sealift
ship, Proceedings of SNAME Propellers/Shafting 2009 Symposium, Virginia, USA.
Chang, B. J. and Go, S., 2011. Study on a procedure for propulsive performance prediction for CRP-POD systems,
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 16(1): 1−7.
Go, S., Seo, H. and Chang, B. J., 2004. Study on the powering performance evaluation for the CRP-POD propulsion
ships, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Technical Advances in Podded Propulsion (T-POD),
Newcastle, UK, 277–287.
Inukai, Y. and Ochi, F., 2009. A study on the characteristics of self-propulsion factor for a ship equipped with
contra-rotating propeller, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Trondheim,
Norway, 112116.
Kim, S. E., Choi, S. H. and Veikonheimo, T., 2002. Model tests on propulsion systems for ultra large container
vessel, Proceedings of The 12th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan,
520524.
Quereda, R., Veikonheimo, T., Pérez-Sobrino, M., Ponce, J., Sánchez-Caja, A., Masip, J., González-Adalid, J.,
Uriarte, A., Nijland, M. and Kokkila, K., 2012. Model testing and scaling for CRP POD, Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Hydrodynamics, Petersburg, Russia.
Sasaki, N., Kawanami, Y., Ukon, Y., Kano, T. and Tomizawa, S., 2006. Model test procedure and analysis of hybrid
CRP POD system, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Technical Advances in Podded
Propulsion (T-POD), Nantes, France.
Sasaki, N., Kuroda, M., Fujisawa, J., Imoto, T. and Sato, M., 2009. On the model tests and design method of hybrid
CRP podded propulsion system of a feeder container ship, Proceedings of First International Symposium on
Marine Propulsors, Trondheim, Norway.
Sheng, L. and Xiong, Y., 2012. Numerical simulation and experimental investigation on hydrodynamic performance
of hybrid CRP podded propulsion, Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 44(2):
184190. (in Chinese)
Shimamoto, H., Takeda, A. and Miyake, S., 2010. Tandem hybrid CRP system, Proceedings of IPS-10 International
Propulsion Symposium, Okayama, Japan.
The Propulsion Committee, 2011. Final Report and Recommendations to the 26th ITTC, Proceeding of 26th ITTC,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ueda, N., Oshima, A., Unseki, T., Fujita, S., Takeda, S. and Kitamura, T., 2004. The first hybrid CRP-POD driven
fast ROPAX ferry in the world, Technical Review, 41(6): 15.
Wang, X. X., 2013. Research on the Hydrodynamic Performance of Hybrid CRP Podded Propulsion, MSc. Thesis,
Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China. (in Chinese)
Wang, Z. Z. and Xiong, Y., 2013. Effect of time step size and turbulence model on the open water hydrodynamic
performance prediction of contra-rotating propellers, China Ocean Eng., 27(2): 193204.
Wang, Z. Z., Xiong, Y., Wang, R. and Zhong, C. H., 2016. Numerical investigation of the scale effect of hydrodynamic
performance of the hybrid CRP pod propulsion system, Appl. Ocean Res., 54(1): 2638．
Zhang, Z., 2013. Research on Hybrid CRP Propulsor Design and Hydrodynamic Performance, MSc. Thesis, Naval
University of Engineering, Wuhan, China. (in Chinese)