Breslin, J.P. and Anderson, P. Hydrodynamics of Ship Propellers. Cambridge Ocean Technology Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.Google Scholar

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

Pashias, C. Propeller tip vortex capture using adaptive grid refinement with vortex identification. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 2005.Google Scholar

Rankine, W.J.M. On the mechanical principles of the action of propellers. Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 6, 1865, pp. 13–39.Google Scholar

Froude, R.E. On the part played in propulsion by differences in fluid pressure. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 30, 1889, pp. 390–405.Google Scholar

Froude, W. On the elementary relation between pitch, slip and propulsive efficiency. Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 19, 1878, pp. 47–65.Google Scholar

Betz, A. Schraubenpropeller mit geringstem Energieverlust. K. Ges. Wiss, Gottingen Nachr. Math.-Phys., 1919, pp. 193–217.Google Scholar

Goldstein, S. On the vortex theory of screw propellers. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London Series A, Vol. 123, 1929, pp. 440–465.Google Scholar

Prandtl, L. Application of modern hydrodynamics to aeronautics. NACA Annual Report, 7th, 1921, pp. 157–215.Google Scholar

Lerbs, H.W. Moderately loaded propellers with a finite number of blades and an arbitrary distribution of circulation. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 60, 1952, pp. 73–123.Google Scholar

Sparenberg, J.A. Application of lifting surface theory to ship screws. Proceedings of the Koninhlijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B, Physical Sciences, Vol. 62, No. 5, 1959, pp. 286–298.Google Scholar

Pien, P.C. The calculation of marine propellers based on lifting surface theory. Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1961, pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kerwin, J.E. The solution of propeller lifting surface problems by vortex lattice methods. Report, Department Ocean Engineering, MIT, 1979.Google Scholar

van Manen, J.D. and Bakker, A.R. Numerical results of Sparenberg's lifting surface theory of ship screws. Proceedings of 4th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Washington, DC, 1962, pp. 63–77.Google Scholar

English, J.W. The application of a simplified lifting surface technique to the design of marine propellers. National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division Report, 1962.Google Scholar

Brockett, T.E. Lifting surface hydrodynamics for design of rotating blades. Proceedings of SNAME Propellers ’81 Symposium, Virginia, 1981.Google Scholar

Greeley, D.S. and Kerwin, J.E. Numerical methods for propeller design and analysis in steady flow. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 90, 1982, pp. 415–453.Google Scholar

Hess, J.L. and Valarezo, W.O. Calculation of steady flow about propellers by means of a surface panel method. AIAA Paper No. 85-0283, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, H.T. and Stern, F. Viscous flow around a propeller-shaft configuration with infinite pitch rectangular blades. Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1990, pp. 434–444.Google Scholar

Uto, S. Computation of incompressible viscous flow around a marine propeller. Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 172, 1992, pp. 213–224.Google Scholar

Stanier, M.J. Design and evaluation of new propeller blade section. 2nd International STG Symposium on Propulsors and Cavitation, Hamburg, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar

Stanier, M.J. Investigation into propeller skew using a ‘RANS’ code. Part 1: Model scale. International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 45, No. 443, 1998, pp. 237–251.Google Scholar

Stanier, M.J. Investigation into propeller skew using a ‘RANS’ code. Part 2: Scale effects. International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 45, No. 443, 1998, pp. 253–265.Google Scholar

Chen, B. and Stern, F. RANS simulation of marine-propulsor P4119 at design condition, 22nd ITTC Propulsion Committee Propeller RANS/PANEL Method Workshop, Grenoble, April 1998.Google Scholar

Maksoud, M., Menter, F.R. and Wuttke, H. Numerical computation of the viscous flow around Series 60 C_B=0.6 ship with rotating propeller. Proceedings of 3rd Osaka Colloquium on Advanced CFD Applications to Ship Flow and Hull Form Design, Osaka, Japan, 1998, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar

Maksoud, M., Menter, F. and Wuttke, H. Viscous flow simulations for conventional and high-skew marine propellers. Ship Technology Research, Vol. 45, 1998.Google Scholar

Jessup, S. Experimental data for RANS calculations and comparisons (DTMB4119. 22nd ITTC Propulsion Committee, Propeller RANS/Panel Method Workshop, Grenoble, France, April 1998.Google Scholar

Bensow, R.E. and Liefvendahl, M. Implicit and explicit subgrid modelling in LES applied to a marine propeller. 38th Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper, 2008-4144, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, K., Turnock, S.R., Ando, J., Becchi, P., Minchev, A., Semionicheva, E.Y., Van, S.H., Zhou, W.X. and Korkut, E. The Propulsion Committee: final report and recommendations. The 25th International Towing Tank Conference, Fukuoka, Japan, 2008.Google Scholar

Phillips, A.B., Turnock, S.R. and Furlong, M.E. Evaluation of manoeuvring coefficients of a self-propelled ship using a blade element momentum propeller model coupled to a Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes flow solver. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 1217–1225.Google Scholar

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

Turnock, S.R. Technical manual and user guide for the surface panel code: PALISUPAN. University of Southampton, Ship Science Report No. 100, 66 pp., 1997.Google Scholar

Turnock, S.R. Prediction of ship rudder-propeller interaction using parallel computations and wind tunnel measurements. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 1993.Google Scholar

Gutsche, F. Die induction der axialen strahlzusatgescnwindigheit in der umgebung der shcraubenebene. Schiffstecknik, No. 12/13, 1955.Google Scholar

Young, Y.L. and Kinnas, S.A. Analysis of supercavitating and surface-piercing propeller flows via BEM. Computational Mechanics, Vol. 32, 2003, pp. 269–280.Google Scholar

Turnock, S.R., Pashias, C. and Rogers, E. Flow feature identification for capture of propeller tip vortex evolution. Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Rome, Italy, INSEAN Italian Ship Model Basin / Office of Naval Research, 2006, pp. 223–240.Google Scholar

Phillips, A.B. Simulations of a self propelled autonomous underwater vehicle. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, 2010.Google Scholar

Pemberton, R.J., Turnock, S.R., Dodd, T.J. and Rogers, E. A novel method for identifying vortical structures. Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 16, No. 8, 2002, pp. 1051–1057.Google Scholar

Hill, J.G. The design of propellers. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 57, 1949, pp. 143–192.Google Scholar

Eckhardt, M.K. and Morgan, W.B. A propeller design method. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 63, 1955, pp. 325–374.Google Scholar

O'Brien, T.P. The Design of Marine Screw Propellers. Hutchinson & Co., London, 1967.Google Scholar

Burrill, L.C. Calculation of marine propeller performance characteristics. Transactions of North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 60, 1944.Google Scholar

Molland, A.F., and Turnock, S.R. Marine Rudders and Control Surfaces. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2007.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, Indiana, 1989.Google Scholar

Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E. Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publications, New York, 1958.Google Scholar

Ginzel, G.I. Theory of the broad–bladed propeller, ARC, Current Papers, No. 208, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1955.Google Scholar

Morgan, W.B., Silovic, V. and Denny, S.B. Propeller lifting surface corrections. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 76, 1968, pp. 309–347.Google Scholar

Molland, A.F. and Turnock, S.R. A compact computational method for predicting forces on a rudder in a propeller slipstream. Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 138, 1996, pp. 227–244.Google Scholar

Burrill, L.C. The optimum diameter of marine propellers: A new design approach. Transactions of North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, Vol. 72, 1955, pp. 57–82.Google Scholar

Papers in Fourth International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, SMP’15 Austin, Texas, USA, 2015.Google Scholar

Sauer, J. and Schnerr, G.H. Development of a new cavitation model based on bubble dynamics. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 81, pp. 561–562, 2001.Google Scholar

Plesset, M.S. and Prosperetti, A. Bubble dynamics and cavitation. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1977.Google Scholar

Bensow, R. and Bark, G. Implicit LES predictions of the cavitating flow on a propeller. Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 4, 2010. p. 041302.Google Scholar

Lidtke, A.K., Turnock, S. R. and Humphrey, V.F. The influence of turbulence modelling techniques on the predicted cavitation behaviour on a NACA0009 foil. In 17th Numerical Towing Tank Symposium (NuTTS ’14), Marstrand, Sweden, 2014.Google Scholar

Brooker, A. and Humphrey, V.F. Measurement of radiated underwater noise from a small research vessel in shallow water. In A. Yücel Odabaşı Colloquium Series, 2014. pp. 47–55.Google Scholar

Audoly, C., Rousset, C., Folegot, T., André, M., Benedetti, L., and Baudin, E. AQUO European Collaborative Project: development of methods and indicators for the assessment of shipping noise footprint on underwater environment and impact on marine life. In Transport Research Arena, 2014.Google Scholar

Lidtke, A.K., Humphrey, V.F. and Turnock, S.R. Feasibility study into a computational approach for marine propeller noise and cavitation modelling. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 120, 2016. pp. 152–159.Google Scholar

Ffowcs Williams, J.E. and Hawkings, D.L. Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. London, Series A, Math. Phys. Sci., Vol. 264, No. 1151, 1969, pp. 321–342.Google Scholar

Ianniello, S., Muscari, R. and Mascio, A. Ship underwater noise assessment by the acoustic analogy. Part I: Nonlinear analysis of a marine propeller in a uniform flow. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2013. pp. 547–570.Google Scholar

Lloyd, T.P., Turnock, S.R. and Humphrey, V.F. Assessing the influence of inflow turbulence on noise and performance of a tidal turbine using large eddy simulations. Renewable Energy, Vol. 71, 2014, pp. 742–754.Google Scholar