0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Assessment of Cavitation Erosion With a URANS Method

[+] Author and Article Information
Zi-ru Li

Wuhan University of Technology,
Hubei 430063China;
Delft University of Technology,
Delft 6700 AA, The Netherlands
e-mail: lisayhw333@hotmail.com

Mathieu Pourquie

Delft University of Technology,
Delft 6700 AA, The Netherlands
e-mail: M.J.B.M.Pourquie@tudelft.nl

Tom van Terwisga

Delft University of Technology
Delft 6700 AA, The Netherlands;
Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN),
Wageningen 6700 AA, The Netherlands
e-mail: t.v.terwisga@marin.nl

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received December 20, 2012; final manuscript received December 3, 2013; published online February 28, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Olivier Coutier-Delgosha.

J. Fluids Eng 136(4), 041101 (Feb 28, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-12-1644; doi: 10.1115/1.4026195 History: Received December 20, 2012; Revised December 03, 2013

An assessment of the cavitation erosion risk by using a contemporary unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) method in conjunction with a newly developed postprocessing procedure is made for an NACA0015 hydrofoil and an NACA0018-45 hydrofoil, without the necessity to compute the details of the actual collapses. This procedure is developed from detailed investigations on the flow over a hydrofoil. It is observed that the large-scale structures and typical unsteady dynamics predicted by the URANS method with the modified shear stress transport (SST) k-ω turbulence model are in fair agreement with the experimental observations. An erosion intensity function for the assessment of the risk of cavitation erosion on the surface of hydrofoils by using unsteady RANS simulations as input is proposed, based on the mean value of the time derivative of the local pressure that exceeds a certain threshold. A good correlation is found between the locations with a computed high erosion risk and the damage area observed from paint tests.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Time histories of the (a) residuals and (b) mass transfer rate during two successive time steps for the NACA0015 hydrofoil at 6 deg angle of attack at σ = 1.0 for the fine grid G1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Contours of the vapor volume fraction during one cycle for a NACA0015 hydrofoil (AoA = 6 deg) at σ = 1.0 with the modified SST k-ω turbulence model on fine grid G1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Sequences of isosurface plots of the instantaneous vapor volume fraction with a contour value of α = 0.1 during one typical shedding cycle in (a) top view (flow from right to left) and (b) downstream view on the NACA0015 hydrofoil (3D representation) with the modified SST k-ω turbulence model (C = 60 mm, AoA = 8 deg, σ = 2.01, U = 17.3 m/s, Pout = 302.295 kPa, T = 16.3 °C)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison between several typical instants obtained by (a) experimental observations and (b) numerical simulations (isosurface plots of the instantaneous vapor volume fraction with a contour value of α = 0.1) for the flow over an NACA0015 hydrofoil (3D representation) with the modified SST k-ω turbulence model (flow from right to left, C = 60 mm, AoA = 8 deg, σ = 2.01, U = 17.3 m/s, Pout = 302.295 kPa, T = 16.3 °C)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic diagram of the transformation process of a horseshoe cloudy cavity from break-off to violent collapse (Kawanami et al. [34])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of three typical instants during the collapse of the horseshoe-shaped cloudy cavity between the (a) experimental observations, and (b) numerical simulations (isosurface plots of the instantaneous vapor volume fraction with a contour value of α = 0.1 for the flow over an NACA0015 hydrofoil (3D representation) with the modified SST k-ω turbulence model (flow from right to left, C = 60 mm, AoA = 8 deg, σ = 2.01, U = 17.3 m/s, Pout = 302.295 kPa, T = 16.3 °C)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Paint test result after re-application of paint and run no.26 and 27 (C = 60 mm, σ = 2.01, U = 17.3 m/s) on an NACA0015 hydrofoil at 8 deg angle of attack (30–60 min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Paint test result on an NACA0018-45 hydrofoil at 6.5 deg angle of attack (C = 60 mm, σ = 0.72, U = 24.2 m/s) after 45 min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Contours of ∂p/∂t at the moment when its maximum value is observed for two intervals and corresponding plots of the vapor volume fraction with an isovalue of α = 0.1 at the relevant time points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison between (a) a high erosion risk predicted by Eq. (16) with a threshold value of 3e +09 and (b) the damage area observed from paint tests (foil: NACA0015, AoA = 8 deg; flow from right to left). (a) Numerical results; (b) results from paint tests.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison between (a) a high erosion risk predicted by Eq. (16) with a threshold value of 7e +08 and (b) the damage area observed from paint tests (foil: NACA0018-45, AoA = 6.5 deg; flow from right to left) (a)Numerical results, and (b) experimental results

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