Comparative Study of FPP vs.

CPP for an
All-Electric Naval Combatant
Mr. Devin Witt & Prof. Y.L. (Julie) Young, Dept. of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering, University of Michigan
FPP and CPP Stress Analysis

-Performance and structural analysis was conducted using a 3D coupled

boundary element method-finite element method in uniform wake.
-Analysis provided evidence that the optimal pitch setting for the CPP was
from = 5 to = 0 over the ships operational speed range.

-A stress analysis was conducted on both the FPP and the CPP over the ships
operational range. The stresses are over-estimated at the blade root because the
blades are assumed to be cantilevered and the effect of the fillet has been
neglected.

Pitch Type
Fixed
Controllable

Advantages and Disadvantages of FPPs and CPPs

Fixed Pitch Propeller

Advantages
Disadvantages
-Performance degrades rapidly at offdesign conditions, where the vessel (with
-Simple construction and less
broad operating profile, e.g. naval
maintenance than CPPs.
combatant) may operate majority of the
-No support system needed.
time.
-Smaller propeller hub leading to
-Potential cavitation, strength, & stability
increased open water efficiency.
issues at highly loaded off-design
conditions.
Controllable Pitch Propeller
Advantages
Disadvantages
-Requires a support system to operate
properly which will entail more electrical
power and maintenance.
-More complex and expensive than a FPP.
-Larger propeller hub leading to decreased
open water efficiency.

Provided Thrust and Power vs Ship Speed

3000
2500
2000

1500

40
35

t = 0.095
w = 0.031
Thrust = RT/[2*(1-t)]
Va = Vs*(1-w)

30
25

20
15

1000

10

Ship and Propeller Specifications

500

-The all-electric naval combatant was based on a modified DTMB 5415 hull:
length=162.5m, displ.=15,263 ton, top speed=30 knots, and shaft depth=5m.
-The propeller was based on a five-bladed DTMB 5168, which was modified to
include a NACA 16A thickness distribution with a zero trail edge thickness, and a
NACA a = 0.8 camber distribution.
Value
DTMB 5168
5.5
0.282
nickel-aluminum-bronze
7580
205
79.3

-There are significant differences between mechanical ships and all-electric ships
(AES) that affect the propulsion system and the propeller design.
-On mechanical ships, the propellers minimum revolution rate is typically 30 40% of the prime movers maximum speed, while an AES can operate the
propeller from zero revolutions to the electric motors maximum rate, and
therefore can be more efficient at very low RPMs.

0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Vs (Knots)
Ship Resistance
FPP Power

FPP Thrust
CPP Power

CPP Thrust
Electric Motor Limit

FPP vs. CPP Performance

140

0.74
Open Water Efficiency, 0

Characteristic
Propeller
Diameter (m)
rhub/R
Propeller Material
Density (kg/m3)
0.2% Yield Strength (MPa)
Fatigue Strength at 108 Cycles (MPa)

0,average
0.72
0.73

Ship Architecture and Integration Issues

Force (kN)

-Pitch schedule can be optimized

over operational range.
-Ability to mitigate and reduce
cavitation and blade stress as well as
increase overall efficiency.
-Ability to produce forward or
reverse thrust while continuing to
rotate in the same direction.

Optimal 0.7R
40.1
38.7

120

0.72

100

0.70

80

0.68
0.66

60

0.64

40

0.62

20

0.60

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Vs (kn)
FPP Efficiency
CPP RPM

CPP Efficiency
FPP Cav. Volume

FPP RPM
CPP Cav. Volume

RPM, Cavitation Volume (10000*Vol./R3)

-Identify the advantages and disadvantages of fixed pitch propellers (FPP) vs.
controllable pitch propellers (CPP) for an all-electric naval combatant.
-Compare the performance of a FPP vs. CPP for a notional all-electric naval
combatant.
-Discuss related total ship architecture and integration issues for an allelectric naval combatant.

FPP and CPP Performance

Delivered Power (MW)

Objectives

-Development is still needed to enhance variable speed drives which control the
revolution rate and torque output of the large electric propulsion motors for
pairing with CPPs.
-Other integration issues is the control of the pitch setting on the propeller to
keep the blades at optimal pitch settings while at specific ship speeds.
-Due to losses associated with all-electric systems, further work is needed on
total fuel consumption and maintenance requirements for both propeller
systems.
-An investigation of off-design conditions (crashback, crashforward, etc.) is
needed to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of both systems.
-Maintenance and reliability issues of the two propeller types is a major concern
when determining which propeller to integrate. FPPs are relatively low
maintenance, while its not uncommon to have an expensive systems overhaul
of a hydraulically actuated CPP every couple of years requiring dry docking.