0
Journal of Fluids Engineering | Volume 139 | Issue 10 | research-article
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Cloud Cavitating Flow That Surrounds a Vertical Hydrofoil Near the Free Surface

[+] Author and Article Information
Chang Xu, Chenguang Huang, Jian Huang

Key Laboratory for Mechanics in
Fluid Solid Coupling Systems,
Institute of Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 15 Beisihuanxi Road,
Beijing 100190, China;School of Engineering Science,
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 19(A) Yuquan Road,
Shijingshan District,
Beijing 100049, China

Yiwei Wang

Key Laboratory for Mechanics in
Fluid Solid Coupling Systems,
Institute of Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 15 Beisihuanxi Road,
Beijing 100190, China;School of Engineering Science,
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 19(A) Yuquan Road,
Shijingshan District,
Beijing 100049, China
e-mail: wangyw@imech.ac.cn

Chao Yu

Key Laboratory for Mechanics in
Fluid Solid Coupling Systems,
Institute of Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 15 Beisihuanxi Road,
Beijing 100190, ChinaSchool of Engineering Science,
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
No. 19(A) Yuquan Road,
Shijingshan District,
Beijing 100049, China

1Present address: Room 201, Building 2, No. 15 Beisihuanxi Road, Beijing 100190, China.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received December 15, 2016; final manuscript received April 12, 2017; published online July 10, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Hui Hu.

J. Fluids Eng 139(10), 101302 (Jul 10, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: FE-16-1827; doi: 10.1115/1.4036669 History: Received December 15, 2016; Revised April 12, 2017
Article
References
Figures
Tables
Citing Articles

Unstable cavitation presents an important speed barrier for underwater vehicles such as hydrofoil craft. In this paper, the authors concern about the physical problem about the cloud cavitating flow that surrounds an underwater-launched hydrofoil near the free surface at relatively high-Froude number, which has not been discussed in the previous research. A water tank experiment and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation are conducted in this paper. The results agree well with each other. The cavity evolution process in the experiment involves three stages, namely, cavity growth, shedding, and collapse. Numerical methods adopt large eddy simulation (LES) with Cartesian cut-cell mesh. Given that the speed of the model changes during the experiment, this paper examines cases with varying constant speeds. The free surface effects on the cavity, re-entry jet location, and vortex structures are analyzed based on the numerical results.
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

1
Knapp, R. T. , Daily, J. W. , and Hammitt, F. G. , 1970, Cavitation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
2
Brennen, C. E. , 2013, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
3
Peng, X. , Ji, B. , Cao, Y. , Xu, L. , Zhang, G. , Luo, X. , and Long, X. , 2016, “ Combined Experimental Observation and Numerical Simulation of the Cloud Cavitation With U-Type Flow Structures on Hydrofoils,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 79, pp. 10–22. [CrossRef]
4
Wei, Y. , Wang, Y. , Fang, X. , Huang, C. , and Duan, Z. , 2011, “ A Scaled Underwater Launch System Accomplished by Stress Wave Propagation Technique,” Chin. Phys. Lett., 28(2), p. 024601. [CrossRef]
5
Kanfoudi, H. , Lamloumi, H. , and Zgolli, R. , 2012, “ Numerical Investigation for Steady and Unsteady Cavitating Flows,” Advances in Modeling of Fluid Dynamics, InTech, Rijeka, Croatia.
6
Wu, Q. , Huang, B. , and Wang, G. , 2015, “ Numerical Simulation of Transient Flows Around a 3D Pitching Hydrofoil,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 7(2), p. 808034. [CrossRef]
7
Wang, Y. , Huang, C. , Fang, X. , Yu, X. , Wu, X. , and Du, T. , 2016, “ Cloud Cavitating Flow Over a Submerged Axisymmetric Projectile and Comparison Between Two-Dimensional RANS and Three-Dimensional Large-Eddy Simulation Methods,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 138(6), p. 061102. [CrossRef]
8
Yu, X. , Huang, C. , Du, T. , Liao, L. , Wu, X. , Zheng, Z. , and Wang, Y. , 2014, “ Study of Characteristics of Cloud Cavity Around Axisymmetric Projectile by Large Eddy Simulation,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 136(5), p. 051303. [CrossRef]
9
Bensow, R. E. , and Bark, G. , 2010, “ Implicit LES Predictions of the Cavitating Flow on a Propeller,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 132(4), p. 041302. [CrossRef]
10
Pendar, M.-R. , and Roohi, E. , 2016, “ Investigation of Cavitation Around 3D Hemispherical Head-Form Body and Conical Cavitators Using Different Turbulence and Cavitation Models,” Ocean Eng., 112, pp. 287–306. [CrossRef]
11
Hidalgo, V. , Luo, X. , Escaler, X. , Ji, J. , and Aguinaga, A. , 2014, “ Numerical Investigation of Unsteady Cavitation Around a NACA 66 Hydrofoil Using OpenFOAM,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 22, p. 052013.
12
Gnanaskandan, A. , and Mahesh, K. , 2015, “ Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Cavitating Flows,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 656(1), p. 012135. [CrossRef]
13
Egerer, C. P. , Schmidt, S. J. , Hickel, S. , and Adams, N. A. , 2016, “ Efficient Implicit LES Method for the Simulation of Turbulent Cavitating Flows,” J. Comput. Phys., 316, pp. 453–469. [CrossRef]
14
Egerer, C. P. , Hickel, S. , Schmidt, S. J. , and Adams, N. A. , 2014, “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Cavitating Flow in a Micro Channel,” Phys. Fluids, 26(8), p. 085102. [CrossRef]
15
Ma, J. , Hsiao, C.-T. , and Chahine, G. L. , 2015, “ Shared-Memory Parallelization for Two-Way Coupled Euler–Lagrange Modeling of Cavitating Bubbly Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(12), p. 121106. [CrossRef]
16
Gnanaskandan, A. , and Mahesh, K. , 2016, “ Numerical Investigation of Near-Wake Characteristics of Cavitating Flow Over a Circular Cylinder,” J. Fluid Mech., 790, pp. 453–491. [CrossRef]
17
Kim, J. , and Lee, J. S. , 2015, “ Numerical Study of Cloud Cavitation Effects on Hydrophobic Hydrofoils,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 83, pp. 591–603. [CrossRef]
18
Hidalgo, V. , Luo, X.-W. , Escaler, X. , Bin, J. , and Aguinaga, A. , 2015, “ Implicit Large Eddy Simulation of Unsteady Cloud Cavitation Around a Plane-Convex Hydrofoil,” J. Hydrodyn, Ser. B, 27(6), pp. 815–823. [CrossRef]
19
Chen, Y. , Chen, X. , Gong, Z. , Li, J. , and Lu, C. , 2016, “ Numerical Investigation on the Dynamic Behavior of Sheet/Cloud Cavitation Regimes Around Hydrofoil,” Appl. Math. Model., 40(11), pp. 5835–5857. [CrossRef]
20
Ji, B. , Luo, X. , Peng, X. , Wu, Y. , and Xu, H. , 2012, “ Numerical Analysis of Cavitation Evolution and Excited Pressure Fluctuation Around a Propeller in Non-Uniform Wake,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 43, pp. 13–21. [CrossRef]
21
Li, L. , Jia, Q. , Liu, Z. , Li, B. , Hu, Z. , and Lin, Y. , 2015, “ Eulerian Two-Phase Modeling of Cavitation for High-Speed UUV Using Different Turbulence Models,” IEEE International Conference on Cyber Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), Shenyang, China, June 8–12, pp. 1247–1252.
22
Ji, B. , Peng, X. , Long, X. , Luo, X. , and Wu, Y. , 2015, “ Numerical Evaluation of Cavitation Shedding Structure Around 3D Hydrofoil: Comparison of PANS, LES and RANS Results With Experiments,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 656(1), p. 012127. [CrossRef]
23
Akcabay, D. T. , and Young, Y. L. , 2014, “ Influence of Cavitation on the Hydroelastic Stability of Hydrofoils,” J. Fluids Struct., 49, pp. 170–185. [CrossRef]
24
Faltinsen, O. M. , 2005, Hydrodynamics of High Speed Marine Vehicles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
25
Faltinsen, O. M. , and Semenov, Y. A. , 2008, “ The Effect of Gravity and Cavitation on a Hydrofoil Near the Free Surface,” J. Fluid Mech., 597, pp. 371–394. [CrossRef]
26
Bal, S. , and Kinnas, S. , 2002, “ A BEM for the Prediction of Free Surface Effects on Cavitating Hydrofoils,” Comput. Mech., 28(3–4), pp. 260–274. [CrossRef]
27
Bal, S. , 2007, “ High-Speed Submerged and Surface Piercing Cavitating Hydrofoils, Including Tandem Case,” Ocean Eng., 34(14), pp. 1935–1946. [CrossRef]
28
Bal, S. , 2011, “ The Effect of Finite Depth on 2D and 3D Cavitating Hydrofoils,” J. Mar. Sci. Technol., 16(2), pp. 129–142. [CrossRef]
29
Wang, Y. , Wu, X. , Huang, C. , and Wu, X. , 2016, “ Unsteady Characteristics of Cloud Cavitating Flow Near the Free Surface Around an Axisymmetric Projectile,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 85, pp. 48–56. [CrossRef]
30
Gnanaskandan, A. , and Mahesh, K. , 2015, “ A Numerical Method to Simulate Turbulent Cavitating Flows,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 70, pp. 22–34. [CrossRef]
31
Gnanaskandan, A. , and Mahesh, K. , 2016, “ Large Eddy Simulation of the Transition From Sheet to Cloud Cavitation Over a Wedge,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 83, pp. 86–102. [CrossRef]
32
Harwood, C. , Young, Y. , and Ceccio, S. , 2016, “ Ventilated Cavities on a Surface-Piercing Hydrofoil at Moderate Froude Numbers: Cavity Formation, Elimination, and Stability,” J. Fluid Mech., 800, pp. 5–56. [CrossRef]
33
Young, Y. L. , Harwood, C. M. , Miguel Montero, F. , Ward, J. C. , and Ceccio, S. L. , 2017, “ Ventilation of Lifting Bodies: Review of the Physics and Discussion of Scaling Relations,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 69(1), p. 010801. [CrossRef]
34
Li, K. , Wang, A. , Mao, L. , and Fu, S. , 2013, “ Shapes and Memory Effects of Natural Supercavitation of Navigating Bodies With Variable Speeds,” J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.), 41(6), p. 019.
35
Shin, B. R. , Iga, Y. , and Ikohagi, T. , 2001, “ Numerical Analysis of Cavitating Flow Through a 2-D Decelerating Cascade,” Computational Fluid Dynamics 2000, Springer, Berlin, pp. 651–656.
36
Chen, Y. , Lu, C. , Chen, X. , and Cao, J. , 2015, “ Numerical Investigation on the Cavitation Collapse Regime Around the Submerged Vehicles Navigating With Deceleration,” Eur. J. Mech. B: Fluids, 49, pp. 153–170. [CrossRef]
37
Wang, Y. , Huang, C. , Fang, X. , Wu, X. , and Du, T. , 2016, “ On the Internal Collapse Phenomenon at the Closure of Cavitation Bubbles in a Deceleration Process of Underwater Vertical Launching,” Appl. Ocean Res., 56, pp. 157–165. [CrossRef]
38
Zwart, P. , Gerber, A. , and Belarmri, T. , 2004, “ A Two-Phase Flow Model for Predicting Cavitation Dynamics,” Fifth International Conference on Multi-Phase Flow (ICMF), Yokohama, Japan, May 30–June 4.
39
Berger, M. J. , Aftosmis, M. J. , and Allmaras, S. , 2012, “ Progress Towards a Cartesian Cut-Cell Method for Viscous Compressible Flow,” AIAA Paper No. 1301.
40
Günther, C. , Hartmann, D. , Schneiders, L. , Meinke, M. , and Schröder, W. , 2011, “ A Cartesian Cut-Cell Method for Sharp Moving Boundaries,” AIAA Paper No. 3387.
41
Hunt, J. C. , Wray, A. A. , and Moin, P. , 1988, “ Eddies, Streams, and Convergence Zones in Turbulent Flows,” Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Report No. N89-24555.
42
Ji, B. , Luo, X. , Peng, X. , and Wu, Y. , 2013, “ Three-Dimensional Large Eddy Simulation and Vorticity Analysis of Unsteady Cavitating Flow Around a Twisted Hydrofoil,” J. Hydrodyn., Ser. B, 25(4), pp. 510–519. [CrossRef]
43
Ji, B. , Luo, X. , Arndt, R. E. , and Wu, Y. , 2014, “ Numerical Simulation of Three Dimensional Cavitation Shedding Dynamics With Special Emphasis on Cavitation–Vortex Interaction,” Ocean Eng., 87, pp. 64–77. [CrossRef]
44
Ji, B. , Luo, X. , Arndt, R. E. , Peng, X. , and Wu, Y. , 2015, “ Large Eddy Simulation and Theoretical Investigations of the Transient Cavitating Vortical Flow Structure Around a NACA66 Hydrofoil,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 68, pp. 121–134. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The Split–Hopkinson pressure bar technology. Three parts the incident bar, the transfer bar, and the test model are included. The launch process is shown.

+The Split–Hopkinson pressure bar technology. Three parts the incident bar, the transfer bar, and the test model are included. The launch process is shown.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
The Split–Hopkinson pressure bar technology. Three parts the incident bar, the transfer bar, and the test model are included. The launch process is shown.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Speed of the tested hydrofoil changes with time in the water tank experiment from t = 0.001 s to t = 0.014 s

+Speed of the tested hydrofoil changes with time in the water tank experiment from t = 0.001 s to t = 0.014 s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Speed of the tested hydrofoil changes with time in the water tank experiment from t = 0.001 s to t = 0.014 s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Typical cavitation at t = 0.006 s. The white foam like re-entry jet inside cavity is marked by the line.

+Typical cavitation at t = 0.006 s. The white foam like re-entry jet inside cavity is marked by the line.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Typical cavitation at t = 0.006 s. The white foam like re-entry jet inside cavity is marked by the line.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Cavity length changes with time from t = 0 s to t = 0.014 s. Three stages of the cavity evolution are marked.

+Cavity length changes with time from t = 0 s to t = 0.014 s. Three stages of the cavity evolution are marked.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Cavity length changes with time from t = 0 s to t = 0.014 s. Three stages of the cavity evolution are marked.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Typical cavitation in cavity growth stage 1 (0.002, 0.006 s). The re-entry jet inside the cavity which is deflected from and is located parallel to the free surface is pointed out by the arrow.

+Typical cavitation in cavity growth stage 1 (0.002, 0.006 s). The re-entry jet inside the cavity which is deflected from and is located parallel to the free surface is pointed out by the arrow.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Typical cavitation in cavity growth stage 1 (0.002, 0.006 s). The re-entry jet inside the cavity which is deflected from and is located parallel to the free surface is pointed out by the arrow.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Typical cavitation in cavity shedding stage 2 (0.008 s, 0.009 s, 0.01 s, and 0.011 s)

+Typical cavitation in cavity shedding stage 2 (0.008 s, 0.009 s, 0.01 s, and 0.011 s)
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Typical cavitation in cavity shedding stage 2 (0.008 s, 0.009 s, 0.01 s, and 0.011 s)
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Typical cavitation in cavity collapsing stage 3 (0.013 s and 0.014 s). The horseshoe cavity structure induced by the re-entry jet is pointed out by the arrows.

+Typical cavitation in cavity collapsing stage 3 (0.013 s and 0.014 s). The horseshoe cavity structure induced by the re-entry jet is pointed out by the arrows.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Typical cavitation in cavity collapsing stage 3 (0.013 s and 0.014 s). The horseshoe cavity structure induced by the re-entry jet is pointed out by the arrows.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Calculated domain and boundary conditions. Boundary conditions that contain inlet, outlet, and wall are marked.

+Calculated domain and boundary conditions. Boundary conditions that contain inlet, outlet, and wall are marked.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Calculated domain and boundary conditions. Boundary conditions that contain inlet, outlet, and wall are marked.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of the cavity length among the experimental, original mesh, and refined mesh simulated results

+Comparison of the cavity length among the experimental, original mesh, and refined mesh simulated results
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the cavity length among the experimental, original mesh, and refined mesh simulated results
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the cavity evolution between the original mesh and refined mesh simulated results. The detailed structure of the cavity is shown and pointed out by the arrows.

+Comparison of the cavity evolution between the original mesh and refined mesh simulated results. The detailed structure of the cavity is shown and pointed out by the arrows.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the cavity evolution between the original mesh and refined mesh simulated results. The detailed structure of the cavity is shown and pointed out by the arrows.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the cavity length between the experiment results and the simulation results of cases with constant speeds of 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s

+Comparison of the cavity length between the experiment results and the simulation results of cases with constant speeds of 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the cavity length between the experiment results and the simulation results of cases with constant speeds of 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Resulted cavity evolution process of the simulated cases and water tank experiment. The characteristics of the cavitating flow are pointed out by the arrows.

+Resulted cavity evolution process of the simulated cases and water tank experiment. The characteristics of the cavitating flow are pointed out by the arrows.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Resulted cavity evolution process of the simulated cases and water tank experiment. The characteristics of the cavitating flow are pointed out by the arrows.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of the re-entry jet length among the simulation results of 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s

+Comparison of the re-entry jet length among the simulation results of 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the re-entry jet length among the simulation results of 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of the structure of the broken bubble ring at the end of the cavity at t = 0.004 s in the water tank experiment and at t = 0.006 s for the simulation results with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s. Pressure distribution is shown on the surface of the hydrofoil.

+Comparison of the structure of the broken bubble ring at the end of the cavity at t = 0.004 s in the water tank experiment and at t = 0.006 s for the simulation results with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s. Pressure distribution is shown on the surface of the hydrofoil.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the structure of the broken bubble ring at the end of the cavity at t = 0.004 s in the water tank experiment and at t = 0.006 s for the simulation results with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s. Pressure distribution is shown on the surface of the hydrofoil.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of the experiment image at t = 0.006 s and the velocity contour chart of the cases with and without free surface for the model speed at 16 m/s at t = 0.008 s. The direction of the re-entry jet inside the cavity is pointed out by the arrows.

+Comparison of the experiment image at t = 0.006 s and the velocity contour chart of the cases with and without free surface for the model speed at 16 m/s at t = 0.008 s. The direction of the re-entry jet inside the cavity is pointed out by the arrows.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the experiment image at t = 0.006 s and the velocity contour chart of the cases with and without free surface for the model speed at 16 m/s at t = 0.008 s. The direction of the re-entry jet inside the cavity is pointed out by the arrows.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of the horseshoe cavity structure at t = 0.008 s in the water tank experiment and at t = 0.01 s for the simulation results with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s. Pressure distribution on the surface of the hydrofoil is shown. The horseshoe cavity structure induced by the re-entry jet is pointed out by the arrows.

+Comparison of the horseshoe cavity structure at t = 0.008 s in the water tank experiment and at t = 0.01 s for the simulation results with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s. Pressure distribution on the surface of the hydrofoil is shown. The horseshoe cavity structure induced by the re-entry jet is pointed out by the arrows.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Comparison of the horseshoe cavity structure at t = 0.008 s in the water tank experiment and at t = 0.01 s for the simulation results with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s. Pressure distribution on the surface of the hydrofoil is shown. The horseshoe cavity structure induced by the re-entry jet is pointed out by the arrows.
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of Q = 50,000 s−2 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s for the simulated cases at constant speed 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s

+Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of Q = 50,000 s−2 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s for the simulated cases at constant speed 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of Q = 50,000 s−2 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s for the simulated cases at constant speed 16 m/s, 18 m/s, and 20 m/s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of Q = 50,000 s−2 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s

+Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of Q = 50,000 s−2 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of Q = 50,000 s−2 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of vortex-stretching magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s

+Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of vortex-stretching magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of vortex-stretching magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of vortex-dilatation magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s

+Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of vortex-dilatation magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of vortex-dilatation magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of baroclinic torque magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s

+Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of baroclinic torque magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Velocity distribution on the added isosurface of baroclinic torque magnitude is 50,000 at t = 0.008 s, t = 0.01 s, t = 0.012 s, and t = 0.014 s of the simulated cases with and without free surface when the model speed is 16 m/s

Tables

Errata

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
Antilock-Braking System Using Fuzzy Logic
International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology, 3rd, (ICMET-China 2011), Volumes 1–3
Research of Key Technologies of the Stage Hydraulic System's Electro-Hydraulic Monitoring
International Conference on Information Technology and Management Engineering (ITME 2011)
Completing the Picture
Air Engines> Chapter 11
Dynamic Behavior of Pumping Systems
Pipeline Pumping and Compression Systems: A Practical Approach> Chapter 8
Siphon Seals and Water Legs
Hydraulics, Pipe Flow, Industrial HVAC & Utility Systems> Chapter 3
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
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
Sign In