Massey, B.S. and Ward-Smith, J. Mechanics of Fluids. 8th Edition. Taylor and Francis, London, 2006.Google Scholar

Duncan, W.J., Thom, A.S. and Young, A.D. Mechanics of Fluids. Edward Arnold, Port Melbourne, Australia, 1974.Google Scholar

Noordzij, L. Some experiments on cavitation inception with propellers in the NSMB-Depressurised towing tank. International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 23, No. 265, 1976, pp. 300–306.Google Scholar

ITTC. Report of the Specialist Committee on Procedures for Resistance, Propulsion and Propeller Open Water Tests. Recommended procedure for Open Water Test, No. 7.5-02-03-02.1, Rev 01, 2002.Google Scholar

Rose, J.C. and Kruppa, F.L. Surface piercing propellers: methodical series model test results, Proceedings of First International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST’91, Trondheim, 1991.Google Scholar

Ferrando, M., Scamardella, A., Bose, N., Liu, P. and Veitch, B. Performance of a family of surface piercing propellers. Transactions of The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 144, 2002, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar

ITTC 2005 Report of Specialist Committee on Azimuthing Podded Propulsors. Proceedings of 24th ITTC, Vol. II, Edinburgh, 2005.Google Scholar

ITTC Report of Specialist Committee on Azimuthing Podded Propulsors. Proceedings of 25th ITTC, Vol. II, Fukuoka, 2008.Google Scholar

ITTC Report of Specialist Committee on Validation of Waterjet Test Procedures. Proceedings of 23rd ITTC, Vol. II, Venice, 2002.Google Scholar

ITTC Report of Specialist Committee on Validation of Waterjet Test Procedures. Proceedings of 24th ITTC, Vol. II, Edinburgh, 2005.Google Scholar

Van Manen, J.D. Results of systematic tests with vertical axis propellers. International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 13, 1966.Google Scholar

Van Manen, J.D. Non-conventional propulsion devices. International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 20, No. 226, June 1973, pp. 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Volpich, H. and Bridge, I.C. Paddle wheels. Part I, Preliminary model experiments. Transactions, Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, Vol. 98, 1954–1955, pp. 327–380.Google Scholar

Volpich, H. and Bridge, I.C. Paddle wheels. Part II, Systematic model experiments. Transactions, Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, Vol. 99, 1955–1956, pp. 467–510.Google Scholar

Volpich, H. and Bridge, I.C. Paddle wheels. Parts IIa, III, Further model experiments and ship model correlation. Transactions, Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, Vol. 100, 1956–1957, pp. 505–550.Google Scholar

Carlton, J. S. Marine Propellers and Propulsion. 2nd Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2007.Google Scholar

Gawn, R.W.L and Burrill, L.C. Effect of cavitation on the performance of a series of 16 in. model propellers. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 99, 1957, pp. 690–728.Google Scholar

Burrill, L.C. and Emerson, A. Propeller cavitation: Further tests on 16in. propeller models in the King's College cavitation tunnel. Transactions North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 79, 1962–1963, pp. 295–320.Google Scholar

Emerson, A. and Sinclair, L. Propeller cavitation. Systematic series of tests on five and six bladed model propellers. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 75, 1967, pp. 224–267.Google Scholar

Emerson, A. and Sinclair, L. Propeller design and model experiments. Transactions North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 94, No. 6, 1978, pp. 199–234.Google Scholar

Van Manen, J.D. The choice of propeller. Marine Technology, SNAME, Vol. 3, No. 2, April 1966, pp. 158–171.Google Scholar

Szantyr, J.A. A new method for the analysis of unsteady propeller cavitation and hull surface pressures. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 127, 1985, pp. 153–167.Google Scholar

ITTC. Report of Specialist Committee on Cavitation. Proceedings of 25th ITTC, Vol. II, Fukuoka, 2008.Google Scholar

Molland, A.F., Bahaj, A.S., Chaplin, J.R. and Batten, W.M.J. Measurements and predictions of forces, pressures and cavitation on 2-D sections suitable for marine current turbines. Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 218, Part M, 2004.Google Scholar

Drela, M. Xfoil: an analysis and design system for low Reynolds number aerofoils. Conference on Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Aerodynamics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 1989.Google Scholar

English, J.W. Propeller skew as a means of improving cavitation performance. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 137, 1995, pp. 53–70.Google Scholar

Lloyds Register. Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships. Part 5, Chapter 7, Propellers, 2005.Google Scholar

Conolly, J.E. Strength of propellers. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 103, 1961, pp. 139–160.Google Scholar

Atkinson, P. The prediction of marine propeller distortion and stresses using a superparametric thick-shell finite-element method. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 115, 1973, pp. 359–375.Google Scholar

Atkinson, P. A practical stress analysis procedure for marine propellers using finite elements. 75 Propeller Symposium, SNAME, 1975.Google Scholar

Praefke, E. On the strength of highly skewed propellers. Propellers/Shafting’91 Symposium, SNAME, Virginia Beach, VA, 1991.Google Scholar

Atkinson, P and Glover, E. Propeller hydroelastic effects. Propeller’88 Symposium, SNAME, 1988, pp. 21.1–21.10.Google Scholar

Atkinson, P. On the choice of method for the calculation of stress in marine propellers. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 110, 1968, pp. 447–463.Google Scholar

Van Lammeren, W.P.A., Van Manen, J.D. and Oosterveld, M.W.C. The Wageningen B-screw series. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 77, 1969, pp. 269–317.Google Scholar

Schoenherr, K.E. Formulation of propeller blade strength. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 71, 1963, pp. 81–119.Google Scholar

Mulcahy, N.L., Prusty, B.G. and Gardiner, C.P. Flexible composite hydrofoils and propeller blades. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 153, 2011, pp. B39–B46.Google Scholar

Herath, M.T., Prusty, B.G., Yeoh, G.H., Chowdhury, M. and St. John, N. Development of a shape-adaptive composite propeller using bend–twist coupling characteristics of composites. Third International Symposium on Marine Propulsors SMP’13, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, May, 2013, pp. 128–135.Google Scholar

Young, Y.L. Fluid–structure interaction analysis of flexible composite marine propellers. Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 24, 2008, pp. 269–295.Google Scholar

Liu, Z. and Young, Y.L. Utilisation of bend–twist coupling for performance enhancement of composite marine propellers. Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 25, Issue 6, 2009, pp. 1102–1116.Google Scholar

Motley, M.R., Liu, Z and Young, Y.L. Utilizing fluid–structure interactions to improve energy efficiency of composite marine propellers in a spatially varying wake. Composite Structures, 90, 2009, pp. 304–313.Google Scholar

Nicolls-Lee, R.F., Turnock, S.R. and Boyde, S.W. Application of bend–twist coupled blades for horizontal tidal turbines. Renewable Energy, Vol. 50, February, 2013, pp. 541–550.Google Scholar