0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Combined Experimental and Computational Investigation of Unsteady Structure of Sheet/Cloud Cavitation

[+] Author and Article Information
Biao Huang

School of Mechanical and Vechicular Engineering,
Beijing Institute of Technology,
5 South Zhongguancun Street,
Beijing, 100081, China;
Department of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: huangbiao@bit.edu.cn

Yin L. Young

Department of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
e-mail: ylyoung@umich.edu

Guoyu Wang

School of Mechanical and
Vechicular Engineering,
Beijing Institute of Technology,
5 South Zhongguancun Street,
Beijing, 100081, China

Wei Shyy

Department of Mechanical Engineering &
Provost's Office,
The Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
e-mail: weishyy@ust.hk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received September 19, 2012; final manuscript received January 16, 2013; published online May 17, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Frank C. Visser.

J. Fluids Eng 135(7), 071301 (May 17, 2013) (16 pages) Paper No: FE-12-1461; doi: 10.1115/1.4023650 History: Received September 19, 2012; Revised January 16, 2013

The objective of this paper is to apply combined experimental and computational modeling to investigate unsteady sheet/cloud cavitating flows. In the numerical simulations, a filter-based density corrected model (FBDCM) is introduced to regulate the turbulent eddy viscosity in both the cavitation regions on the foil and in the wake, which is shown to be critical in accurately capturing the unsteady cavity shedding process, and the corresponding velocity and vorticity dynamics. In the experiments, high-speed video and particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique are used to measure the flow velocity and vorticity fields, as well as cavitation patterns. Results are presented for a Clark-Y hydrofoil fixed at an angle of attack of α = 8 deg at a moderate Reynolds number, Re = 7 × 105, for both subcavitating and sheet/cloud cavitating conditions. The results show that for the unsteady sheet/cloud cavitating case, the formation, breakup, shedding, and collapse of the sheet/cloud cavity lead to substantial increase in turbulent velocity fluctuations in the cavitating region around the foil and in the wake, and significantly modified the wake patterns. The turbulent boundary layer thickness is found to be much thicker, and the turbulent intensities are much higher in the sheet/cloud cavitating case. Compared to the wetted case, the wake region becomes much broader and is directed toward the suction side instead of the pressure side for the sheet/cloud cavitation case. The periodic formation, breakup, shedding, and collapse of the sheet/cloud cavities, and the associated baroclinic and viscoclinic torques, are shown to be important mechanisms for vorticity production and modification.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Knapp, R. T., Daily, J. W., and Hammitt, F. G., 1970, Cavitation, McGraw Hill, New York.
Brennen, C. E., 1995, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Oxford Engineering & Sciences Series 44, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Joseph, D. D., 1995, “Cavitation in a Flowing Liquid,” Phys. Rev. E., 51, pp. 1649–1650. [CrossRef]
Rood, E. P., 1991, “Review-Mechanisms of Cavitation Inception,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 113, pp. 163–175. [CrossRef]
Kawanami, Y., Kato, H., Yamauchi, H., Tanimura, M., and Tagata, Y., 1997, “Mechanism and Control of Cloud Cavitations,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 119, pp. 788–794. [CrossRef]
Leger, A. T., and Ceccio, S. L., 1998, “Examination of the Flow Near the Leading Edge of Attached Cavitations—Part 1: Detachment of Two-Dimensional and Axisymmetric Cavities,” J. Fluid Mech., 376, pp. 61–90. [CrossRef]
Delange, D. F., and Debruin, G. J., 1997, “Sheet Cavitation and Cloud Cavitation, Re-Entrant Jet and Three-Dimensionality,” Appl. Sci. Res., 58, pp. 91–114. [CrossRef]
Wang, G., Senocak, I., Shyy, W., Ikohagi, T., and Cao, S., 2001, “Dynamics of Attached Turbulent Cavitating Flows,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 37, pp. 551–581. [CrossRef]
Kubota, A., Kato, H., Yamaguchi, H., and Maeda, M., 1989, “Unsteady Structure Measurement of Cloud Cavitation on a Foil Section Using Conditional Sampling Technique,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 111(2), pp. 204–210. [CrossRef]
Li, X., Wang, G., Zhang, M., and Shyy, W., 2008, “Structures of Supercavitating Multiphase Flows,” Int. J. Thermal Sci., 47(10), pp. 1263–1275. [CrossRef]
Gopalan, S., and Katz, J., 2000, “Flow Structure and Modeling Issues in the Closure Region of Attached Cavitations,” Phys. Fluids, 12(4), pp. 895–911. [CrossRef]
Arndt, R. E. A., Song, C. C. S., Kjeldsen, M., and Keller, A., 2000, “Instability of Partial Cavitation: A Numerical/Experimental Approach,” Proceedings the of Twenty-Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Valde Reuil, France.
Tseng, C.-C., and Shyy, W., 2010, “Modeling for Isothermal and Cryogenic Cavitations,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 53, pp. 513–525. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y., and Heister, S. D., 1996, “Modeling Hydrodynamic Nonequilibrium in Cavitating Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 118, pp. 172–178. [CrossRef]
Delannoy, Y., and Kueny, J. L., 1998, “Two Phase Flow Approach in Unsteady Cavitation Modeling,” Proceedings of the ASME Cavitation and Multiphase Flow Forum, Grenoble, France.
Kubota, A., Kato, H., and Yamaguchi, H., 1992, “A New Modeling of Cavitating Flows: A Numerical Study of Unsteady Cavitation on a Hydrofoil Section,” J. Fluid Mech., 240, pp. 59–96. [CrossRef]
Kunz, R. F., Boger, D. A., Stinebring, D. R., Chyczewski, T. S., Lindau, J. W., Gibeling, H. J., Venkateswaran, S., and Govindan, T. R., 2000, “A Preconditioned Navier–Stokes Method for Two Phase Flows With Application to Cavitation Prediction,” Comput. Fluids, 29, pp. 849–875. [CrossRef]
Merkle, C. L., Feng, J., and Buelow, P. E. O., 1998, “Computational Modeling of Sheet Cavitations,” Proceedings of Third International Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France.
Singhal, A. K., Athavale, M. M., Li, H., and Jiang, Y., 2002, “Mathematical Basis and Validation of the Full Cavitation Model,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124(3), pp. 617–624. [CrossRef]
Senocak, I., and Shyy, W., 2004, “Interfacial Dynamics-Based Modeling of Turbulent Cavitating Flows—Part-1: Model Development and Steady-State Computations,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 44, pp. 975–995. [CrossRef]
Senocak, I., and Shyy, W., 2002, “Evaluation of Cavitation Models for Navier–Stokes Computations,” Proceedings of the FEDSM’02, ASME 2002 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 14–18.
Ducoin, A., Huang, B., and Young, Y. L., 2012, “Numerical Modeling of Unsteady Cavitating Flows Around a Stationary Hydrofoil,” Int. J. Rotating Mach., 2012, p. 215678.
Huang, B., Ducoin, A., and Young, Y. L., 2012, “Evaluation of Cavitation Models for Prediction of Transient Cavitating Flows around a Pitching Hydrofoil,” Proceedings of 8th International Symposium on Cavitation, Singapore.
Reboud, J. L., Stutz, B., and Coutier-Delgosha, O., 1998, “Two Phase Flow Structure of Cavitation: Experiment and Modeling of Unsteady Effects,” Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France.
Coutier-Delgosha, O., Fortes-Patella, R., and Reboud, J. L., 2003, “Evaluation of the Turbulence Model Influence on the Numerical Simulations of Unsteady Cavitations,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 125(1), pp. 38–45. [CrossRef]
Wang, G., and Ostoja-Starzewski, M., 2007, “Large Eddy Simulation of a Sheet/Cloud Cavitation on a NACA0015 Hydrofoil,” Appl. Math. Modelling, 31(3), pp. 417–447. [CrossRef]
Johansen, S. T., Wu, J., and Shyy, W., 2004, “Filter-Based Unsteady RANS Computations,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 25(1), pp. 10–21. [CrossRef]
Wu, J., Wang, G., and Shyy, W., 2005, “Time-Dependent Turbulent Cavitating Flow Computations With Interfacial Transport and Filter Based Models,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 49, pp. 739–761. [CrossRef]
Kim, S., and Brewton, S., 2008, “A Multiphase Approach to Turbulent Cavitating Flows,” Proceedings of 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Seoul, Korea.
Wosnik, M., and Arndt, R. E. A., 2006, “Measurements in High Void-Fraction Bubbly Wakes Created by Ventilated Supercavitation,” Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Cavitation, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Zwart, P., Gerber, A., and Belamri, T., 2004, “A two-Phase Flow Model for Predicting Cavitation Dynamics,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Yokohama, Japan.
Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B., 1974, “The Numerical Computation of Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3, pp. 269–289. [CrossRef]
Zhang, M., Song, X., and Wang, G., 2006, “Design and Application of Cavitation Flow Image Programs,” Trans. Beijing Inst. Technol., 26, pp. 983–986.
Foeth, E. J., 2008, “The structure of Three-Dimensional Sheet Cavitation,” Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Foeth, E. J., Van Terwisga, T., and Van Doone, C., 2008, “On the Collapse Structure of an Attached Cavity on a Three-Dimensional Hydrofoil,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130, p. 071303. [CrossRef]
Laberteaux, K. R., and Ceccio, S. L., 2001, “Partial Cavity Flows Part 1: Cavities Forming in Models Without Spanwise Variation,” J. Fluid Mech., 431, pp. 1–41. [CrossRef]
Stutz, B., and Legoupil, S., 2003, “X-Ray Measurements Within Unsteady Cavitations,” Exp. Fluids, 35, pp. 130–138. [CrossRef]
Coutier-Delgosha, O., Devillers, J.-F., Pichon, T., Vabre, A., Woo, R., and Legoupil, S., 2006, “Internal Structure and Dynamics of Sheet Cavitations,” Phys. Fluids, 18, p. 017103. [CrossRef]
Ganesh, H., Makiharju, S., Paik, B.-G., and Ceccio, S. L., 2012, “Investigation of Partial Cavitation and Its Transition to Cloud Cavitation Using Time Resolved X-Ray Densitometry,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Measured mean velocity and turbulence intensity distributions along the spanwise direction in the test section without the presence of the hydrofoil at U = 10 m/s, σ = 2.00

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sketch of the foil's position in the test section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Schematic of the cavitation tunnel, and (b) schematic of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

2D boundary conditions and mesh used in the CFD computations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Typical flow visualization and schematic interpretation in experiment, and (b) comparisons of the predicted time evolution of the normalized cavity area (based on boundary defined by 10% vapor fraction isoline) with experimental measurements. σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparisons of the experimentally observed cavitation pattern (left), numerically predicted vapor fraction contours and flow streamlines (middle) and vorticity contours (right) σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Numerically predicted time evolution of the predicted (a) water vapor fraction (αv) and (b) reverse u-velocity in various sections (the position is reported in ordinate, from the foil leading edge x/L0 = 0 to the trailing edge x/L0 = 1) for σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Schematic of the configuration used for PIV measurements in the wake of a cavitating hydrofoil. Field of view is 80 mm × 55 mm, and is illuminated by Nd: YAG laser.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparisons of the predicted vorticity (left) and turbulent eddy viscosity (right) contours obtained using the original k–ε model, and the DCM and FBDCM approaches at 0.625 Tref for σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, and α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparisons of the measured (Exp) and predicted (Num) mean, mode, and SD of the ensemble averaged axial velocity profiles at selected chordwise locations along the foil for sheet/cloud cavitating flow. σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparisons of the measured (Exp) and predicted (Num) mean, mode, and SD of the ensemble averaged axial velocity profiles at selected chordwise locations along the foil for subcavitating flow. σ = 2.0, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparisons of the measured and predicted normalized ensemble averaged amplitudes of the turbulent velocity fluctuations at the selected monitoring locations along the foil for σ = 2.0 and σ = 0.8 at Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparisons of the measured and predicted normalized averaged z-vortity, ωz/ωo profiles at the selected monitoring locations along the foil for σ = 2.0 and σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of the predicted baroclinic torque (left), vorticity transport/stretching term (middle) and the ratio of the baroclinic torque to the vorticity/stretching term (right) in Eq. (12) at selected times obtained using the FBDCM model. σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparisons of the predicted baroclinic torque (left) and vorticity transport/stretching term (middle) in Eq. (12), and the corresponding ratio of baroclinic torque to the vorticity transport/stretching term (right) obtained using (a) the original k–ε model, (b) the DCM model, and (c) the FBDCM model at 0.625 Tref for σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Measured normalized amplitude of the turbulent velocity fluctuations in the wake region at (a) σ = 2.0 and (b) σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparisons of the measured (Exp) and predicted (Num) normalized fluctuating velocity profiles at the selected monitoring locations in the wake region for σ = 2.0 and σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparisons of the measured (Exp) and predicted (Num) normalized ensemble averaged z-vorticity, ωz/ωo, profiles at the selected monitoring locations in the wake region for σ = 2.0 and σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Measured normalized ensemble averaged axial velocity contours in the wake region at (a) σ = 2.0 and (b) σ = 0.8, Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparisons of the measured (Exp) and predicted (Num) normalized ensemble averaged axial velocity profiles at the selected monitoring locations in the wake region for σ = 2.0 and σ = 0.8 at Re = 7 × 105, α = 8 deg

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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