Click here to load reader
Upload
toshugo
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
64
8.0 EVALUATION OF DESIGN
8.1 BOLLARD PULLS
To be able to quantify what affect the ducting of the DJ60 waterjet has had on the propulsive
performance of the Greenliner, a standard static bollard pull was undertaken. The bollard pull was
conducted in three different configurations; the newly constructed extension with no steering attached
(Figure 46), a setup with the new stator with the new nozzle (Figure 47) and lastly with the standard
DJ60 jet configuration without the vectoring nozzle attached (Figure 48). The batteries were fully
charged and the Greenliner was entered into the survival centre. The force gauge was connected to the
vessel by ropes shown in Figure 49. The purpose of the bollard pull was to obtain the values need to
plot a graph the efficiencies with respect to power being drawn into the electric motor. This allowed
the effectiveness of the optimisation of the ducting to be quantified with respect to these static
measurements.
Figure 46: Newly constructed extension
Figure 47: New stator and nozzle
65
Figure 48: Original DJ60 waterjet without vectoring nozzle
Figure 49: Bollard pull configuration
66
Procedure
The procedure that was followed for testing on the new Greenliner extension is as stated:
1. Once the vessel was in the water and operational a tow line was attached.
2. Using the two bollards on the aft end of the vessel a tow line leading back to the 100kg force
gauge was secured.
3. A shorter line from the force gauge to the solid structure of the building was attached.
4. The two lines were connected to the force gauge and position in an appropriate place to read
and the zero of the gauge was adjusted.
5. An operator was placed aboard the Greenliner and tension was applied to the force gauge and
lines.
6. The RPM was increased to the maximum value and the vessel let settle before recording
results.
7. The force was recorded on the force balance.
8. The RPM of the impeller shaft was taken at the same time using a hand held tachometer.
9. Steps 6-8 were repeated for a range of speeds throughout the rev range.
10. Entire testing was repeated for the new stator and nozzle setup followed by in the original
DJ60 jet configuration.
67
Results
The efficiency of the waterjet with respect to the power being consumed by the electric motor was
plotted on Figure 50. This allowed a comparison between the efficiencies of the various
configurations to be undertaken.
Figure 50: Efficiency of the waterjet configurations with reference to input power
To allow the results of testing to be compared to the impeller curves supplied by DOEN, Figure 52,
the thrust force was plotted with reference to the impeller speed in Figure 51.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Eff
icie
ncy
Power In (W)
Complete new extension New Stator and Nozzle Original DJ 60
68
Figure 51: Thrust force with respect to impeller speed
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Th
rust
Fo
rce
(k
g)
RPM
Complete new extension New Stator and Nozzle Original DJ 60
69
Discussion
The calibration equation y = 0.9853x + 0.7506, was applied to all force readings from this test with
the results shown in Appendix 3. The method in finding this calibration equation is found in section
5.2. For the remainder of this discussion the forces discussed will be the calibrated values.
Figure 51 shows the graph of thrust force for the three waterjet setups tested with respect to the
impeller speed. This plot follows the same form of the graphs of the various impellers for the DJ 60
jet as shown in Figure 52. Although these graphs are for RPM’s greater than 2500 they follow a
power relationship similar to Figure 52. The DJ 60 waterjet is currently using the 16A5 impeller
which is not plotted on Figure 52 but its performance curve lies between that of the 16B5 and the
curve 16A4.
Figure 52: Impeller performance curves - DJ60 Waterjet
Figure 50 shows the graph of the waterjet efficiency with respect to the input power of the electric
motor for the three waterjet setups tested. It shows that the original DJ 60 waterjet configuration has
an efficiency advantage over the newly constructed extension. At full power this efficiency advantage
is 3%. The obvious conclusion to draw from these results would be to say that the pipe has provided
extra friction causing the loss in efficiency. The extension pipe does not account for the whole 3%
efficiency loss. This is evident when the results for the testing of the new stator and nozzle without the
70
extension pipe are compared to these results. The new stator and nozzle configuration without the
extension pipe has an efficiency that lies between that of the original DJ60 waterjet and the setup with
the extension in place. The efficiency of the new stator and nozzle without the extension piece in
place is only 1% higher than with the pipe. This means that the remaining 2% difference between the
original setup and the two additional arrangements must come from additional losses.
Several issues may have caused the 2% difference in performance from the original waterjet nozzle to
that of the new extension. It is a possibility that the water lube bearing for the impeller shaft that has
been inserted into the new stator causes more friction than the greased bearing of the original design.
This is unlikely the cause of the 2% difference but to eliminate it as the cause further investigation
would be needed.
An additional possibility is the fact that in the original design, the stator is incorporated into the
nozzle of the jet and the flow is passing the stator and leaving the nozzle within 30mm. In the
extension this is not the case as the stator was incorporated with the centre bearing for ease of
construction. This raises the possibility that it may be more efficient to incorporate the stator into the
nozzle. Another possibility may be the fact that it is simply more efficient to discharge the flow as
soon as physically possible after the impeller instead of keeping the nozzle angle at the optimum 60.
Another reason considered for the slight difference in performance was the flange that connects the
nozzle to the jet. The nozzle flange when built did not have the recess placed into the flange to assist
in sealing as designed. The flange was constructed as two flat plates sealing together. This may have
caused sealing issues where the nozzle connected to the jet causing the slight difference in
performance to that of the original DJ60 waterjet.
Conclusion
From this testing it is clear that there is a difference in performance from the original DJ60 waterjet to
that of the new extension which includes the new stator and nozzle. 1% of the 3% difference in the
value can be said to be caused by the additional friction loss cause by the extension pipe. The reason
for the additional two percent decrease in efficiency could be justified by one of the issues stated
above or a combination of them all.
This testing also served the additional purpose of validating the method developed to match nozzle
diameter to jet efficiency. This testing did not aim to achieve this goal but it did prove that the testing
procedure can pick up variances in thrust to approximately 0.5% which would be needed to match
nozzle diameter.