0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Development and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Models for Initial Stages of Cavitation

[+] Author and Article Information
Eduard Amromin

Mechmath LLC,
Federal Way, WA 98003

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received August 26, 2013; final manuscript received February 5, 2014; published online May 19, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Olivier Coutier-Delgosha.

J. Fluids Eng 136(8), 081303 (May 19, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: FE-13-1520; doi: 10.1115/1.4026883 History: Received August 26, 2013; Revised February 05, 2014

Various computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models employed for cavitating flows are substantially based on semi-empirical assumptions about cavitation forms and liquid flows around cavitating bodies. Therefore, the model applicability must be validated with experimental data. The stages of validation of the models are analyzed here with data on cavitating hydrofoils and axisymmetric bodies in water. Results of Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS), large-eddy simulation (LES), detached-eddy simulation (DES), and viscous-inviscid interaction methods are compared. The necessity of simultaneous validation of several flow parameters (as cavitation inception number and location of the appearing cavity) is pointed out. Typical uncertainties in water tunnel model test data (water quality, simplified account of wall effect) and possibilities to take them into account are also discussed. The provided comparison with experimental data manifests the impossibility to describe initial stages of cavitating flows using any single model and importance of employment of a combination of models for both the cavitation zones and the flow outside of cavities.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cavity length oscillations on hydrofoils NACA16009 (from Ref. [2]) and NACA0010 (from Ref. [3])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Scheme of sheet cavitation in viscous fluid; the point of cavity surface contact to the body is either C (for completely hydrophilic body surface) or B (for partially hydrophobic body surface)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Snapshot of cavitation behind a self-driven body

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Scheme of flow over a propeller model blade: AB is the laminar separation curve, and CD is the laminar-turbulent transition curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Measured and computed with VII solver boundary layer reattachment abscissa behind laminar separation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of measured velocities in the vortex cores (symbols) with theoretical solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measurements (triangles) and RANS results (filed squares) [26] for vortex cavitation downstream of a ducted propulsor in comparison with results [30] (empty squares) employed Eq. (3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of water quality on definition of σ in Caltech water tunnel experiments [32] with NACA4412

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Computed pressure over the suction side of hydrofoil Cav2009 at CL = 0.65 and α = 7 deg in two channels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Cavitation inception and desinence numbers for Cav2003 (C-D computed in Ref. [18]; A by author)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Computed (C-D from Ref. [18]; A by author) and observed appearing cavity on hydrofoil Cav2003

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Computed (lines) and measured (symbols) lift coefficient of hydrofoil OK-2003 at two α; Re = 8 × 105

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

View of OK-2003 (its trailing edge is in the left) and its drag coefficient (in the right; computed: lines, measured: symbols) at two α

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Computed [42] with VII and measured [38] lift coefficient of 3D swept hydrofoil Clark Y11.7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Computed with RANS and measured lift coefficient of 2D hydrofoil Clark Y11.7

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Cavitation inception and desinence numbers on bodies with hemispherical heads; experimental data [6] are marked as 5HB, data [39] as 12GG, and 40GG, data [31] as 5 K. Numbers and computational curves [10] show corresponding values of D (in cm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Dependencies of σD (solid line: VII computation, solid triangles: measured), measured σI (clear triangles) and computed σI (dashed line) for NACA4412 at Re = 1.09 × 106

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