Procedia Computer Science

Volume 51, 2015, Pages 2247–2256

ICCS 2015 International Conference On Computational Science

Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers

Seyedali Mirjalili1 , Andrew Lewis1 , and Seyed Ali Mohammad Mirjalili2
1
Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
seyedali.mirjalili@griffithuni.edu.au
a.lewis@griffith.edu.au
2
Independent researcher

Abstract
Real world problems have usually multiple objectives. These objective functions are of-
ten in conflict, making them highly challenging in terms of determining optimal solutions
and analysing solutions obtained. In this work Multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimisation
(MOPSO) is employed to optimise the shape of marine propellers for the first time. The two
objectives identified are maximising efficiency and minimising cavitation. Several experiments
are undertaken to observe and analyse the impacts of structural parameters (shape and number
of blades) and operating conditions (RPM) on both objective. The paper also investigates the
negative effects of uncertainties in parameters and operating conditions on efficiency and cavi-
tation. Firstly, the results showed that MOPSO is able to find a very accurate and uniformly
distributed approximation of the true Pareto optimal front. The analysis of the results also
shows that a propeller with 5 or 6 blades operating between 180 and 190 RPM results in the
best trade-offs for efficiency and cavitation. Secondly, the simulation results show the significant
negative impacts of uncertainties on both objectives.
Keywords: Multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimisation, MOPSO, Marine Propeller Design, Cavita-
tion, Efficiency

1 Introduction
Optimisation of real engineering problems is usually very challenging. There are many issues to
address, such as multi-objectivity, feasibility, multi-modality, and uncertainty. Multi-objectivity
refers to having multiple objectives for a problem. There is generally not a single, optimal
solution: a solution might be better than others in one of the objectives but worse in others..
In this case a set of solutions, called the Pareto optimal set, is the answer to a problem with
multiple objectives. The Pareto optimal set contains Pareto optimal solutions that represent
the best possible trade-offs between the objectives of a particular problem.
Generally speaking, there are two methods for solving multi-objective problems: a priori
versus a posteriori [1]. In the former method all objectives are aggregated into a single objective,
and the importance of each of the objectives is defined by a set of weights (coefficients) according

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Programme Committee of ICCS 2015 2247

c The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.504
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

to the decision maker’s needs. In the latter approach the multi-objective formulation of the
problem is maintained and the aim is to find all or some of the Pareto optimal solutions. The
main drawbacks of the a priori methods is the difficulty of finding proper weights to satisfy
the decision makers’ preferences, and their inability to solve certain classes of problems. In
contrast, maintaining the multi-objective formulation of the problem allows the exploration
of its behaviour across a range of design parameters and operating conditions. Despite this
substantial advantage, a posteriori methods require specific operators and algorithms to handle
conflicting objectives, which are generally computationally expensive.
Some a posteriori techniques for handling multi-objective are Multi-Objective Evolutionary
Algorithms (MOEA) [3]. MOEAs are considered as stochastic methods which start the opti-
misation process with a random population. The random population is then evolved over a
pre-defined number of steps called generations. The individuals are compared with respect to
their objective values during optimisation. Finally, the optimisation process is terminated by
satisfaction of an end criterion. MOEAs have been applied to many real problems. This is due
to such features as their derivative-free mechanism, local Pareto optimal solutions avoidance,
and obtaining the Pareto optimal set in one run.
Some of the well-regarded MOEAs are Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm sec-
ond version (NSGA-II) [5], Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimisation (MOPSO) [4], and
MOEA/D. These techniques have been widely applied in science and industry [3]. This work
concentrates on multi-objective optimisation of marine propellers using MOPSO. Propeller de-
signers consider two key objectives: efficiency and cavitation. The ultimate goal is to design a
propeller with maximum efficiency and minimum cavitation. However, the process of optimising
the shape of a propeller is very challenging due to the nature of Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) problems. In general, CFD problems have many constraints. Such constraints provide
very narrow feasible regions for the search space, making CFD problems very complex. The
rest of the paper is organised as follows:
For reasons of space, details of the MOPSO algorithm have been omitted. The form of the
algorithm used was that of Coello Coello and Lechuga [4]. The search process was terminated
by satisfaction of an end condition as outlined in Mirjalili et al. [6]. Section 2 discusses the
problem of propeller design, relevant preliminaries, and problem formulation. The results and
discussion are then provided in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 concludes the work and suggests
some directions for future research.

2 Marine Propeller design and related work

2.1 Propeller design
Due to the relatively high density of water, the efficiency of propellers for marine vehicles is very
important in comparison with aircraft. The efficiency of propellers refers to the amount of the
power of the motor(s) that is converted to thrust. In addition to the efficiency, this conversion
should be done with a minimum level of vibration and noise. The third characteristic of a good
propeller is low surface erosion which is caused by cavitation. Finding a balance between these
three features is a challenging task which should be considered during the design process of
a propeller. The main part of a propeller is its blades. The geometric shape of these blades
should satisfy all the above-mentioned requirements.
The propeller adds velocity (Δv) to an incoming velocity (v) of the surrounding fluid. This
acceleration is created in two places: the first half in front of the propeller and the second half
behind the propeller. A propeller is rotated, which swirls the outflow. The amount of this swirl

2248
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

is based on the rotation speed of the motor and energy loss. Efficient propellers lose 1% to 5%
of their power because of swirl. The thrust of propellers is calculated as follows [2]:

π 2 Δv
T = D (v + )pΔv (1)
4 2
where T is thrust, D is the propeller diameter, v is the velocity of the incoming flow, Δv is
the additional velocity which is created by the propeller, and p is the density of the fluid.
It may be seen in equation 1 that the final thrust depends on the the volume of the incoming
stream which has been accelerated per unit of time, the amount of this acceleration, and the
density of the medium.
Power is defined as force times distance per time.The required power to drive a vehicle with
a velocity of v using the available thrust is calculated as follows:

Pa = T v (2)

One of the objectives of optimisation in propellers is to create as much thrust as possible with
the smallest amount of power. This is the efficiency of propellers which can be expressed as
follows:
Pa Tv
η= = (3)
Pengine Pengine
The efficiency of a propeller can be calculated as follows:

JKT (x)
η(x) = (4)
2πKQ (x)

where J is the advance number, KT is the propeller thrust coefficient, and KQ is the propeller
torque coefficient. J is defined as follows:
Va
J= (5)
nD
where Va is the axial velocity, n is rotational velocity, and D is the diameter of the propeller.
By substitution of terms the efficiency can also be presented as follows:

Va KT (x)
η(x) = (6)
2πnD KQ (x)

The thrust coefficient (KT ) and torque coefficient (KQ ) are calculated as follows:
39
 P t n A e un
KT = CTn (J)sn ( ) ( ) (Z)vn (7)
n=1
D Ao
47
 P tn A e un
KQ = CQn (J)sn ( ) ( ) (Z)vn (8)
n=1
D Ao

where P/D is the pitch ratio, Ae /Ao is the disk ratio of the propeller, Z is the number of blades,
and CTn , CQn , sn , tn , un , vn are corresponding regression coefficients.
There is another issue in propellers called cavitation. When the blades of a propeller move
through water at high speed, low pressure regions form as the water accelerates and moves
past the blades. This can cause bubbles to form, which collapse and can cause strong local

2249
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

shockwaves which result in erosion of propellers. The sensitivity of the propeller to cavitation
is calculated as follows:
(pa + pgh0.8 − pv )
σn,0.8 = (9)
0.5ρ(πnD)2
where pa is the atmospheric pressure, pv indicates the vapour pressure of water, g is the accel-
eration due to gravity, and h0.8 shows immersion of 0.8 blade radius when the blade is at the
position of 12:00.
The ultimate goal here is to design a propeller with the highest efficiency and the lowest
cavitation sensitivity.
In order to find the final geometrical shape of the blade,standard NACA airfoils were selected
as shown in Fig. 1. It may be seen in this figure that two parameters define the shape of the
airfoil: maximum thickness and chord length. In this paper ten airfoils were considered along
the blade, so the total number of parameters is 20.

Maximum thickness

Chord length

Figure 1: Airfoils along the blade define the shape of the propeller (NACA a=0.8 meanline and
NACA 65A010 thickness)

The final parameter vector is as follows:

 i = (T1 , C1 , T2 , C2 , ..., T1 0, C1 0)
X (10)
where Ti and Ci indicates the thickness and chord length of the i-th airfoil along the blade.
Finally, the problem can be formulated as follows:
 i = (Ti , Ci ), i = 1, 2, ..., 10
Suppose : X (11)
M aximise : η(X) (12)
M inimise : Vc (X) (13)
Subject to : T hrust ≥ 40000 (14)

2.2 Related work

Work using an heuristic algorithm to optimise the shape of a B-series propeller has been reported
in the literature [8]. The NSGA-II algorithm was employed to optimise the shape of a propeller
with specific performance in given conditions. Designing a propeller for ships was considered as
a multi-objective problem with two objectives: minimising propeller efficiency and maximising
the thrust coefficient. The author considered two main constraints for this problem. These
constraints were wake friction and thrust deduction. The author did not specify the exact
number of variables. NGSA II provided 15 Pareto optimal solutions. Finally, a decision making
technique was used to select one of the Pareto optimal solutions as the best solution. One other
study has investigated the application of the NSGA-II multi-objective optimisation algorithm
to the design of marine propellors [7]. Difficulties were reported with the nature of the design
space: constraints applied isolated feasible results into “small islands” and the optimisation
algorithm failed to converge.

2250
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

3 Results and discussion

A MOPSO algorithm was employed to find the Pareto optimal front. A population of 100
search agents and maximum number of 200 iterations were chosen for MOPSO. The main case
study is a ship propeller with 2 metre diameter as shown in Fig. 2.

2 meters
Figure 2: Propeller used as the case study

The experiments undertaken using MOPSO were as follow:

1. Observing the behaviour of MOPSO in finding an accurate approximation and well-spread

Pareto optimal solutions
2. Observing the effect of the number of blades on the efficiency and cavitation of the pro-
peller
3. Finding the optimal number of blades
4. Observing the effects of Revolutions Per Minute (RPM) on the efficiency and cavitation
of the propeller
5. Finding the optimal values (range) for RPM
6. Observing the effects of uncertainties in operating conditions (RPM) on the the Pareto
optimal fronts obtained by MOPSO
7. Observing the effects of uncertainties in structural parameters on the Pareto optimal
fronts obtained by MOPSO
8. Post analysis of the result to extract the possible physical behaviour and impacts of the
parameters on the efficiency and cavitation of the propeller

The following subsections present and discuss the results for each of these experiments.

3.1 Approximating the Pareto Front using the algorithm

The MOPSO algorithm was run 4 time on the problem and the best Pareto Front obtained is
illustrated in Fig. 3. The blue points in the figure, at left, show that the MOPSO algorithm was
able to find a set of uniformly distributed Pareto optimal solutions across both objectives. The
search history of points sampled by particles during optimisation is illustrated by black points.
The search history also shows that the MOPSO algorithm explored and exploited the search
space efficiently, which results in obtaining this uniformly distributed and accurately converged
Pareto optimal front. The accurate convergence of the solutions obtained is due to the intrinsic
high exploitation of the MOPSO algorithm around the selected leaders, gbest and pbests, in
each iteration. The uniform distribution originates from the selection mechanism of leaders in
MOPSO. Since particle guides were selected from the less populated parts of the archive, there

2251
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

20000 function evaluations 20000 function evaluations

7 blades

6 blades

5 blades

4 blades

3 blades

Figure 3: (left) Pareto optimal front obtained by the MOPSO algorithm, (right) Pareto optimal
fronts for different numbers of blades

was always a high tendency toward finding Pareto optimal solutions along the regions of the
Pareto Front with lower distribution.

3.2 Number of blades

The effects of the number of blades on efficiency and cavitation were investigated. Five problems
were first formulated by altering the number of blades from 3 to 7. The MOPSO algorithm
was then employed to approximate the Pareto optimal fronts. The MOPSO algorithm was run
4 times on each of the problems and the best Pareto optimal fronts obtained are illustrated in
Fig. 3, at right.
This figure shows that the efficiency increases proportional to the number of blades, up
to a limit of 5 blades. Beyond this number, efficiency decreases. The figure also shows that
cavitation decreases in proportion to the number of blades. The reason why the majority of
ship propellers are made of 5 or 6 blades is due to the shape of the fronts in Fig. 3. The highest
efficiency, which is the main objective in ship propellers, is achieved by 5 or 6 blades. Therefore,
5 blades are chosen by default unless cavitation is a major issue.

3.3 Revolutions Per Minute (RPM)

RPM is one of the most important operating conditions for propellers. In order to observe
the effects of this parameter on the efficiency and cavitation of the propeller, a 5-blade version
of the propeller investigated in the previous section was selected. The RPM considered was
limited to the range of 150 to 250. Since changing the RPM changes the operating conditions
of the propeller significantly, two types of experiments were done, as follows:

1. Finding the Pareto optimal front for the propeller at RPM increments of 10.
2. Parametrising the RPM and finding the optimal front for it using MOPSO.

The MOPSO algorithm was employed to find the Pareto optimal front for the propeller at
each of the 11 RPM varying from 150 to 250. The algorithm was run 4 times on each case and the

2252
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

best Pareto optimal fronts obtained are illustrated in Fig. 4, at left. This figure first shows that
there is no feasible Pareto optimal solution when RPM = 150, 160, or 250. For the remaining
RPMs, it may be observed that increasing RPM generally results in decreasing efficiency and
increasing cavitation. Although increasing the RPM seems to increase the thrust, these results
show that high RPM is not very effective and risks increased damage to the propeller in long
term use due to the high cavitation. The peak of the high efficiency and low cavitation occurred
between RP M = 170 and RP M = 180. Therefore, such RPM rates can be recommended when
using a 5-blade version of the ship propeller investigated.

RPM=150,160 all infeasible

RPM=170

RPM=180

RPM=190

RPM=200

RPM=210

RPM=220

RPM=230

RPM=240

RPM=250 all infeasible

Figure 4: (left) Best Pareto Fronts obtained for different RPM (right) Optimal RPM

To find the optimal values for the RPM, this operating condition was parametrised and
optimised by MOPSO as well. The number of parameters increases to 21 when considering RPM
as a parameter, but the same number of particles and iteration were chosen to approximate the
Pareto optimal front. The best Pareto optimal front is illustrated in Fig. 4, at right.
The Pareto optimal front obtained shows that the Pareto optimal solutions mostly tend
to the best Pareto optimal front found for RP M = 170. Almost 20% of the solutions are
distributed between the Pareto optimal fronts for RP M = 170 and RP M = 180. The search
history of the MOPSO algorithm is also illustrated in Fig. 4 to make sure that all of the Pareto
fronts obtained in the previous experiment have been explored. The search history clearly
illustrates that the fronts have been found by MOPSO, but all of them are dominated by the
Pareto optimal front for RP M = 170 and the solutions between RP M = 170 and RP M = 180
(blue points).
A parallel coordinates visualisation of the solutions from the Pareto optimal front in Fig.
4(right) is shown in Fig. 5, for RPM between 170 and 180.
It may be observed in this figure that the range of the RPM is between 170 to 180. However,
the density of solutions is higher close to RP M = 170. Other features that can be seen in this
representation are the diversity of solution values for the first three airfoils (P 1−P 6) suggesting
there are not specific values for these critical to performance. In contrast, values for P 7 − P 10
show clustering to particular values, indicating the significant influence of the shape of the fifth
and sixth airfoils on performance.

2253
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

‫ ܯܴܲ݊݅ܯ‬ൌ ͳ͹Ͳǡ ‫ ܯܴܲݔܽܯ‬ൌ ͳͺͲ

0.5
Normalized values

-0.5

-1
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 RPM Eff Cav
Parameters objectives

Figure 5: Optimal RPM coordinates

3.4 Effects of uncertainties in operating conditions on the objectives

This experiment was to investigate the effects of uncertainties in the RPM on the efficiency/-
cavitation of the propeller. To do this, the best Pareto optimal front obtained for the 5-blade
propeller in Fig. 3 was selected as the main front. The efficiency and cavitation of the Pareto
optimal solutions in this front were then re-calculated by changing the RPM as the most impor-
tant environmental condition. The projections of the solutions are illustrated in Fig. 6. Note
that the perturbation considered is δ = ±1, which has been recommended by an expert in the
field of mechanical engineering.

Figure 6: Pareto optimal solutions in case of (left) δRP M = +1 , (right) δRP M = −1 fluctuations
in RPM (right). Original values are shown in blue, perturbed results in red.

As Fig. 6 (left) shows, the efficiencies of all the Pareto optimal solutions obtained decrease
when δRP M = +1 perturbations occur. The cavitation of Pareto optimal solutions is also
increased. A similar behaviour for the efficiency can be observed in Fig. 6 (right). This figures
shows that the efficiencies of Pareto optimal solutions decrease when δRP M = −1. However, the
cavitation is decreased, which is obviously due to the lower rate of RPM. These results shows
that perturbations in RPM can have significant negative impacts on the expected and desired
efficiencies. The cavitation can also vary substantially with uncertainties in RPM.

2254
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

3.5 Uncertainties in the structural parameters

Uncertainties may occur in the structural parameters as well. This type of uncertainty mostly
originates from manufacturing errors. This subsection considers the maximum permitted errors,
according to ISO 484/2-1981, that can alter the optimal values obtained by MOPSO. Note that
the perturbation considered is δ = 1.5%.
The Pareto optimal solutions obtained in Fig. 3 are first selected. Maximum positive and
negative perturbations are then applied to parameters. Finally, the objectives of the Pareto
optimal solutions obtained are re-calculated. The results are illustrated in Fig. 7.

Figure 7: Pareto optimal solutions in case of (left) δ = +1.5% (right) δ = −1.5% perturbations
in parameters. Original values are shown in blue, perturbed results in red.

The trend is similar to the results of the preceding subsection, in that the uncertainties in
parameters also degrade the expected efficiency significantly. In addition, the results show that
the cavitation can vary dramatically in case of uncertainties in parameters.
In summary, these results strongly show the remarkably negative impacts of perturbations
on the performance of marine propellers and emphasise the importance of considering such
undesirable inputs when designing propellers. As a further illustration of the effect on efficiency,
it may be noted that the perturbations in structural parameters gave rise to reductions in
efficiency of about 0.25%. This translates directly to increased fuel consumption, the biggest
cost in marine shipping. For the vessels for which the propeller tested is suited, generally those
up to 100 tonnes displacement, the difference may be an increase of 40 litres per day. Scaling
the effect to typical container ships operating under normal conditions, the increased fuel usage
could be over half a tonne of bunker oil a day, increasing not only costs but also environmental
emissions.

4 Conclusion
In this paper, the shape of a ship propeller was optimised considering two objectives: efficiency
versus cavitation. MOPSO was first employed to find the best approximation of the true Pareto
optimal front for the propeller, then to undertake several experiments investigating the effect
of the number of blades, RPM, and uncertainties in manufacturing and operating parameters.
The results of MOPSO were also analysed to identify the possible physical behaviour of the
propeller.

2255
Multi-objective Optimisation of Marine Propellers Mirjalili, Lewis and Mirjalili

The results showed that the best efficiency and cavitation can be achieved by having five or
six blades, since any other number of blades significantly degrades one of the objectives. It was
observed that the best Pareto optimal front can be obtained when the propeller is operating
at RPM = 170 to 180. However, the results of the impact of uncertainties on RPM show that
the optimal RPM is very sensitive to perturbation: efficiency and cavitation can be degraded
significantly by a small amount of uncertainty. Simulation of manufacturing perturbations
also revealed that both of the objectives for the Pareto optimal solutions obtained can vary
dramatically.
For future work, we are planning to apply robust optimisation techniques to handle uncer-
tainties in RPM and shape parameters as this appears critically necessary for propeller design,
due to the severity of the impact of uncertainties. We also intend to explore more detailed
variation of blade shape.

References
[1] Jürgen Branke, Thomas Kaußler, and Harmut Schmeck. Guidance in evolutionary multi-objective
optimization. Advances in Engineering Software, 32(6):499–507, 2001.
[2] John Carlton. Marine propellers and propulsion. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012.
[3] Carlos A Coello Coello and Gary B Lamont. Applications of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms,
volume 1. World Scientific, 2004.
[4] C.A. Coello Coello and M.S. Lechuga. Mopso: A proposal for multiple objective particle swarm
optimization. In Evolutionary Computation, 2002. CEC’02. Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on,
volume 2, pages 1051–1056. IEEE, 2002.
[5] K. Deb, S. Agrawal, A. Pratap, and T. Meyarivan. A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm for multi-objective optimization: Nsga-ii. Lecture notes in computer science, 1917:849–
858, 2000.
[6] Seyedali Mirjalili, Tim Rawlins, Jan Hettenhausen, and Andrew Lewis. A comparison of multi-
objective optimisation metaheuristics on the 2D airfoil design problem. ANZIAM Journal, 54:C345–
C360, 2013.
[7] CP Pouw. Development of a multiobjective design optimization procedure for marine propellers.
Master’s thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, 2008.
[8] Guanmo Xie. Optimal preliminary propeller design based on multi-objective optimization approach.
Procedia Engineering, 16:278–283, 2011.

2256