9.

CONCLUSION

The DJ60 waterjet was successfully ducted to obtain the original performance of the jet. Testing proved that the levels of thrust from a certain input power into the waterjet were very similar for the extension as to the original setup.

The investigation into matching the nozzle diameter to the vessel speed was met with minimum success. The relevant theory was reviewed and it was found that it would be possible to find an efficient diameter for the jet using a pump curve for the jet. The issues arose in the fact that sufficient information was not available in the form of a pump curve. The method of optimising the nozzle diameter with reference to jet efficiency was outlined and explained. If a curve became available it would allow the optimum diameter to be found analytically using the method explained. In the absence of a pump curve an experimental method was developed to allow the efficiencies of different sized nozzles to be analysed. The method developed incorporates a static bollard pull being undertaken and the thrust developed along with the input power into the electric motor being measured. This then allows Mertess (2008) formula for jet efficiency to be used in the analysis. As the equipment was not available until close to the conclusion of this project the optimum diameter was not able to be experimentally found. However an evaluation of the newly designed extension with respect to the original DJ60 waterjet allowed for the methodology developed in this project to be tested. This testing found that the overall efficiency under static bollard pull conditions for the original DJ60 waterjet was 51.7%. This compared to an efficiency of 48.6% for the newly constructed extension that incorporated a new stator and nozzle. This shows that the testing procedure can measure slight differences in performance to approximately 0.5% of full power efficiency.

Additionally to the method developed to obtain the optimum diameter of the waterjet, a procedure was developed and undertaken to measure the mass flow rate of the jet. The test involved traversing a pitot tube across the nozzle of the waterjet and obtaining velocities in certain locations across the diameter. The locations of the readings were in specific locations to break up the area of the nozzle in to smaller equal areas. This allows the velocity and therefore the mass flow rate of the smaller areas to be obtained and added together to give the flow rate of the waterjet. The mass flow rate obtained for the original DJ60 water jet was 44kg/s at a speed of 1730 and an input power of 2.4kW.

The investigation in to whether the differences in performance when discharging either below or above the surface developed results consistent with the theoretical comparison. Firstly the issue was investigated by reviewing the theory as to whether there would be a large difference in thrust produced by either discharge location. This review found that there should not be a large difference in thrust produced from the jet flow. It did however state that extra drag would be produced by
71

discharging submerged due to the low pressure region acting upon the vessel. An experimental procedure was developed to investigate whether it was more efficient to discharge below or above the water. This testing found that it was more efficient to continue to discharge just submerged as the original DJ 60 currently did. This was because to modify the jet to discharge above the waterline, the jet had to overcome the extra head of raising the water 200mm as well as the friction provided by the bends within the pipe. The procedure used within this experiment included the method developed to obtain the mass flow rate within a waterjet.

The investigation into the optimum jet discharge location to reduce vessel drag was successful. It was successful in the fact that the CFD simulation showed that it is possible to located the jet in a certain position with respect to the hull to reduce vessel drag. This occurs as a direct result of the location of the low pressure region created by the jet such that it has minimal effect upon the hull. A position of 1250mm from the original transom of the Greenliner was found to minimise the drag upon the hull. Although this position was found the results were not accurate enough to be certain about the exact location necessary to reduce the drag to a minimum. But the investigation showed clearly that there is a low pressure region at the waterjet nozzle that is large enough to have an effect upon the hull surface.

72