Document Type : Original Article


School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran


The Surface-Piercing propeller blades move in and out of the water with each rotation to reduce the immersion depth from the free surface to the shaft axis . The main challenge facing surface piercing propellers, however, is their lower efficiency at lower advance velocity, compared to other propulsion systems. To improve the performance of the propeller, an aeration mechanism was used at low advance velocities so that air was blown to the surface behind the propeller. Experimental studies were carried out on a propeller model in the Hydrotech laboratory of the Iran University of Science and Technology, and the effect of the injected air velocity ratio was evaluated at different immersion ratios. Based on the results obtained, it was concluded that an increase in the injected air velocity ratio could only promote thrust enhancement under specific conditions. For immersion ratios of 0.85 and more, as well as advance coefficients of 0.6 and more, a change in the velocity ratio of the injected air could not lead to an improvement in thrust. The best performance was identified with an immersion ratio of 0.4 and an advance coefficient of 0.4, while thrust performance at below or above of this condition declined .


Main Subjects

  1. Shiba, H., 1953. Air-drawing of marine propellers. Report of transportation technical research institute: Unyu-Gijutsu Kenkyujo Mejiro.
  2. Hadler, J., 1968. Performance of partially submerged propellers, 7th ONR Symposhium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome, August 1968.
  3. Hecker, R., 1973. Experimental performance of a partially submerged propeller in inclined flow. Available at:
  4. Rains, D., Year.Semi-submerged propellers for monohull displacement ships, Propeller’81 Symposium, pp. 15-40.
  5. Rose, J. C. and Kruppa, C., 1991. Methodical series model test results, 1st International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Publishers.
  6. Rose, J., Kruppa, C. and Koushan, K., 1993. Surface piercing propellers-propeller/hull interaction.
  7. Olofsson, N., 1996. Force and flow characteristics of a partially submerged propeller. Doctoral Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology. Available at:
  8. Dyson, P., Chudley, J. and Grieve, D., 2000. An experimental programme to determine the mean and time varying loads imposed by surface piercing propellers, Sea Australia. Available at:
  9. Peterson, D., 2005. Surface piercing propeller performance: Naval Postgraduate School Monterey Ca. Dept. of Mechanical and Astronautical Engineering. Available at:
  10. Pustoshny, A. V., Boiutsov, V., Lebedev, E. P. and Stroganov, A. A., 2007. Development of 5-blade SPP series for fast speed boat, 9th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST 2007, pp. 348-354, Doi:
  11. Amini, A., Nouri, N. M., Abedi, A. and Kamran, M., 2021. Performance improvement of surface piercing propeller at low advance coefficients by aeration, Ocean Engineering, 238, pp. 109551. Doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109551
  12. Yang, D., Ren, Z., Guo, Z. and Gao, Z., 2018. Numerical analysis on the hydrodynamic performance of an artificially ventilated surface-piercing propeller, Water, 10(11), pp. 1499. Doi:10.3390/w10111499
  13. Gao, Z., Yang, D., Li, P. and Dong, Y., 2019. Numerical analysis on the effect of artificial ventilated pipe diameter on hydrodynamic performance of a surface-piercing propeller, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 7(8), pp. 240. Doi:10.3390/jmse7080240
  14. Ferrando, M. and Scamardella, A., 1999. Surface piercing propellers: model tests procedures and comments on related adimensional parameters, Proceedings 5th Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles, Capri, pp. 24-26.
  15. Young, Y. L. J., 2002. Numerical modeling of supercavitating and surface-piercing propellers. The University of Texas at Austin.