Propeller Cavitation Study Using an Unstructured Grid Based Navier-Stoker Solver

[+] Author and Article Information
Shin Hyung Rhee1

 Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766shr@fluent.com

Takafumi Kawamura

Department of Environmental and Ocean Engineering,  University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Huiying Li

 Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH 03766


Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 127(5), 986-994 (May 02, 2005) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1989370 History: Received December 09, 2003; Revised May 02, 2005

The cavitating flow around a marine propeller is studied using an unstructured grid based Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics method. A cavitation model based on a single-fluid multi-phase flow method is implemented in the Navier-Stokes solver. The proposed computational approach for cavitation is validated against a benchmark database for a cavitating hydrofoil as well as measured data for a cavitating marine propeller. The leading edge and mid-chord cavitation on the hydrofoil is reproduced well and shows good comparison with the well-known experimental data. The predicted noncavitating open water performance of the marine propeller geometry agrees well with the measured one. Finally, the cavitating propeller performance as well as cavitation inception and cavity shape are in good agreement with experimental measurements and observation. The overall results suggest that the present approach is practicable for actual cavitating propeller design procedures without lengthy preprocessing and significant preliminary knowledge of the flow field.

Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

MP 017 propeller geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Surface grid of the baseline grid for MP 017 propeller

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Vapor volume fraction contours at α=4°, σ=0.91

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Pressure coefficient distributions on the suction side of the foil surface: σ=0.84 (upper left), σ=0.91 (upper right), σ=1.00 (lower left), and σ=1.76 (lower right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Vapor volume fraction contours at α=1°, σ=0.38

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Pressure distributions on the foil surface: σ=0.34 (upper right), σ=0.38 (upper left), and σ=0.43 (lower center)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

KT and KQ vs. J for noncavitating conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

(Color) Pressure coefficient contours on backside: J=0.2 (top), J=0.55 (middle), and J=0.8 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Computational domain and grid for the leading edge hydrofoil cavitation case: full view (upper) and partial view (lower)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

KT and KQ vs. σ. J=0.2 (upper) and 0.55 (lower)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

(Color) Pressure coefficient contours on backside at J=0.2 and σ=2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

(Color) Vapor volume fraction contours on back side at J=0.2 and σ=2.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

(a) Cavity shape on blade at J=0.2 and σ=2.0 case: present (upper) and experiment (lower). (b) Cavity shape on blade at J=0.4 and σ=2.0 case: present (upper) and experiment (lower). (c). Cavity shape on blade at J=0.5 and σ=1.0 case: present (upper) and experiment (lower).




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In