27 views

Uploaded by saba135

Cavitation Models

Cavitation Models

© All Rights Reserved

- fluid mechanics introduction
- Abaqus-CFD
- 5965_48_40_a Study of Turbulence Induced Forces Acting on the Blobe Valve_2005
- New Microsoft Office Word Document
- TP
- Three Modeling of Soil Erosion by Water
- Methodology for Surge Pressure Evaluation in a Wat
- Pump Centrifugal Consider Changing the Speed Not the Pump
- Navier Strokes Equation
- Numerical Analysis of Fin Side Turbulent Flow for Round and Flat Tube Heat Exchangers
- Model need.pdf
- 12-Hole Cleaning-A-03-April-12 - Copy - Copy.ppt
- Lf 3619161920
- Pipe-Re1000-L300
- Cf d Analysis Cham Fe Red Ribs
- ICWE_FULL-PAPER.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S004579301930043X-main
- MT BITS
- flujo a traves de lechos.pdf
- Kawahara_2002.pdf

You are on page 1of 7

Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 1418, 2002

FEDSM2002-31011

EVALUATION OF CAVITATION MODELS FOR

NAVIER-STOKES COMPUTATIONS

Inanc Senocak and Wei Shyy

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611

inanc@aero.ufl.edu, wss@aero.ufl.edu

ABSTRACT

The predictive capability of three transport equation-based

cavitation models is evaluated for attached turbulent, cavitating

flows. To help shed light on the theoretical justification of these

models, an analysis of the mass and normal-momentum

conservation at a liquid-vapor interface is presented. The test

problems include flows over an axisymmetric cylindrical body

and a planar hydrofoil at different cavitation and Reynolds

numbers. Proper grid distribution for high Reynolds number

cavitating flows is emphasized. Although all three models give

satisfactory predictions in overall pressure distributions,

differences are observed in the closure region of the cavity,

resulting from the differences in compressibility characteristics

handled by each model.

Keywords: CFD, cavitation, turbulence

INTRODUCTION

Navier-Stokes computations of turbulent cavitating flows

have received a growing attention due to advances in

computational capabilities and physical understanding for these

problems. The cavitating flow problem is complicated due to

high Reynolds number and multiphase nature of the flow with

large disparity between fluid properties of each phase. The

inception and concurrent development of a cavity into other

stages of cavitation, namely sheet, cloud, vortex and

supercavitation, is driven by the phase change due to

hydrodynamic pressure drop and bubble dynamics [1]. To date,

no computational model can offer comprehensive capabilities of

all these flow regimes based on first principles.

Due to changes in fluid properties and physical

mechanisms across the liquid-vapor boundaries, conventional

computational algorithms of single-phase incompressible flow

experience severe convergence and stability problems for

cavitating flows. To remedy this situation, improved numerical

methods have been proposed. In the context of density-based

methods, the artificial compressibility method has been applied

with special attention given to the preconditioning technique [25]. The preconditioning technique is guided by examining the

eigenvalues of system and may not be unique depending on the

forms of the governing equations [6]. Following the spirit of the

well-established SIMPLE algorithm [7], a pressure-based

method for turbulent cavitating flows has been developed [8]. It

is shown that the pressure correction equation for turbulent

cavitating flows shares common features of high speed flows

and a pressure-density coupling scheme is developed that

results in a unified incompressible-compressible formulation.

Upwinded density interpolation is adopted to improve mass and

momentum conservation in cavitating regions [8]. Highresolution non-oscillatory convection schemes have been

applied in both pressure-based and density-based methods [2-5,

8]. The use of such convection schemes is very important

especially in the vicinity of sharp density gradients. Both

methods, pressure-based and density-based, have been

successful to compute turbulent cavitating flows around

axisymmetric bodies and hydrofoils with comparable accuracy.

A common approach in cavitation modeling is to use the

homogeneous flow theory. In this theory, the mixture density

concept is introduced and a single set of mass and momentum

equations are solved. Different ideas have been proposed to

generate the variable density field; a review of such studies is

given in Ref. [9]. Some of the existing studies solve the energy

equation and determine the density through suitable equations

of state [3]. Since most cavitating flows are isothermal,

arbitrary barotropic equations have been proposed to

supplement the energy consideration [10]. Another popular

approach is the transport equation-based model (TEM) [2, 4-6,

8]. In TEM, a transport equation for either mass or volume

fraction, with appropriate source terms to regulate the mass

transfer between phases, is solved. Different source terms have

been proposed by different researchers, which will be discussed

in the next section. A recent experimental finding [11] helps

assess the adequacy of the above-mentioned physical models. It

adequacy of the above-mentioned physical models. It shows

that vorticity production is an important aspect of cavitating

flows, especially in the closure region [11]. Specifically, this

vorticity production is a consequence of the baroclinic

generation term of vorticity equation.

1

(1)

P

then the gradients of density and pressure are always parallel;

hence the baroclinic torque is zero. This suggests that physical

models that utilize a barotropic equation will fail to capture an

experimentally observed characteristic of cavitating flows.

Likewise, solving an energy equation will also experience the

same situation if the flow is essentially isothermal. However in

TEM approach the density is a function of the transport

process. Consequently, gradients of density and pressure are

not necessarily parallel, suggesting that TEM can accommodate

the baroclinic vorticity generation.

Different modeling concepts have been introduced in TEM,

with inconsistent numerical treatments such as grid resolution

and no consideration of pressure-density dependency. As a

result, there is a lack of clear consensus of the capability and

relative merits of these models. The goal of the present study is

to assess the predictive capability of existing transport

equation-based models using a unified pressure-based method

for turbulent cavitating flows [8], with an emphasis on grid

resolution. Three models [(2, 12), 4, 13] are considered in this

study. A common characteristic of these models is the use of

user-defined empirical factors to regulate the mass transfer

process. Although these empirical factors may seem ad-hoc,

satisfactory results for different geometries and flow conditions

have been obtained with consistent modeling parameters [8, 14].

Nevertheless, it is desirable to gain insight into the meaning of

these empirical parameters based on the first principles. In this

study, an analysis based on the interfacial dynamics is

presented to shed light on the nature of the modeling

parameters.

In what follows, each cavitation model is shortly

summarized along with the empirical parameters used in the

computations. Following this, a derivation, starting from the

mass and momentum conservation at a liquid-vapor interface is

presented to explain the modeling concept. The first set of

results cover the empirical cavitation models tested for the

cases of flow over an axisymmetric cylindrical object with

hemispherical forehead and a NACA66MOD hydrofoil.

NUMERICAL METHOD

The present Navier-Stokes solver employs a pressurebased algorithm and the finite volume approach. The governing

equations are solved on multi-block structured curvilinear grids

[15, 16]. To represent the cavitation dynamics the transport

equation models described in the upcoming section are

cavitating flows is solved using the pressure-based method

developed by Senocak and Shyy [8]. As already mentioned, a

key feature of this method is to reformulate the pressure

correction equation into a convective-diffusive, instead of a

pure diffusive, equation. This modification is achieved through

the inclusion of a pressure-velocity-density coupling scheme

into the pressure correction equation. For details of the

numerical algorithm, the reader is referred to Ref. [8]. The

original k- turbulence model with wall functions is employed as

the turbulence closure [17].

SUMMARY

OF

TRANSPORT

EQUATION-BASED

MODELS (TEM)

Model-1 (from Refs. [2, 12])

Several researchers have adopted this model [2, 5, 12]. Both

volume fraction and mass fraction forms of it have been

adopted. Evaporation and condensation terms are both

functions of pressure. The liquid volume fraction form is

considered in this study.

L

r

C MIN ( PL PV , 0) L

+ ( L u) = dest L

+

t

V (0.50 LU 2 ) t

(2)

( 0.50 LU2 ) t

The empirical factors have the following values (Cdest=1.0,

Cprod=8.0x101). These parameters have been non-dimensionalized

with free stream values to have the correct dimensional form as

the convective terms. The same parameters can be used for

different geometries and flow conditions provided that they are

non-dimensionalized with the free stream values. The

discussion holds for the other cavitation models also.

Model-2 (from Ref. [4])

The liquid volume fraction is chosen as the dependent

variable in the transport equation. The evaporation term is a

function of pressure whereas the condensation is a function of

the volume fraction.

L

r

C MIN ( PL PV , 0) L

+ ( L u ) = dest V

+

t

(0.50 LU 2 ) L t

(3)

C prod L2 (1 L )

L t

The empirical factors have the following values, which have

been determined previously [8]. (Cdest=9.0x105, Cprod=3.0x104)

Model-3 (from Ref. [13])

The vapor mass fraction is the dependent variable in the

transport equation. Both evaporation and condensation terms

are functions of pressure. The model equations that are

presented here are slightly different from the ones in the original

paper [13], which considers only a non-condensable gas. No

such a limitation is imposed here.

( m fV )

r

(4)

+ ( m fV u) = ( m

& +m

& +)

t

m& = Cdest

U

2 P P

L V V

3 L

if : P < PV

The final form reads the following after further arranging the

terms.

(5)

U

2 P PV

LV

if : P > PV

3 L

1

f

(1 fV )

(6)

= V +

m V

L

The empirical factors have the following values (Cdest/=1225,

Cprod/=36750).

m& + = C prod

MODEL

The derivation starts by considering a liquid-vapor

interface. The mass and normal momentum conservation at such

an interface can be written as follows.

(7)

L (VL ,n VI ,n ) = V (VV ,n VI ,n )

V

V

1

1

PV PL = + + 2V V ,n 2 L L,n

(8)

n

n

R1 R2

+ L (V L ,n V I ,n ) 2 V (VV ,n V I, n ) 2

Figure 1 illustrates a typical representation of a liquid-vapor

interface based on the homogeneous flow theory. The mixture

density is defined as follows based on the liquid volume

fraction [18].

(9)

m = L L + V (1 L )

Assuming that a hypothetical interface lies in the liquid-vapor

mixture region, as illustrated in Fig. 1, and neglecting the surface

tension and viscosity effects, the mass and normal momentum

conservation conditions reduces to the following forms.

(10)

V (VV ,n VI ) = m (Vm ,n V I )

PV PL = m (Vm ,n V I )2 V (VV ,n V I )2

(11)

relation can be obtained:

(V m,n VI ) =

V (VV ,n V I )

m

(12)

rearranged to the following form by incorporating the mass

conservation condition, Eq. (10), and Eq. (12).

(13)

PV PL = V (VV ,n V I ) 2 V 1

m

At this point the definition of mixture density, given in Eq. (9), is

incorporated into the above equation that leads to the following

forms:

(14)

PV PL = V (VV ,n V I ) 2

1

(

1

)

L L

V

L

( V L ) L =

L =

( PV PL ) L L + ( PV PL ) V (1 L )

V (VV ,n V I ) 2

L ( PL PV ) L

( PL PV )(1 L ) (16)

+

2

V (VV ,n V I ) ( L V ) (VV ,n V I ) 2 ( L V )

In the context of TEM, it is necessary to couple the above

interfacial condition as a source term into the transport equation

of liquid volume fraction. For this purpose, Eq. (16) is simply

normalized with a characteristic time scale so that a

dimensionally correct form that represents the rate of generation

of L appears.

L ( PL PV ) L

S& = L =

t

(VV ,n V I ) 2 ( L V ) t

1V44

44

4244444

3

(17)

( PL PV )(1 L )

+

2

(VV ,n V I ) ( L V ) t

1444424444

3

L as shown below.

L

r

L ( PL PV ) L

+ ( L u ) =

t

V (VV ,n V I ) 2 ( L V ) t

(18)

( PL PV )(1 L )

+

(VV ,n V I ) 2 ( L V ) t

No empirical constants appear in the above equation. The first

term on the right hand side, compared to the second term, is

scaled naturally by a factor of the nominal density ratio ( L/ V).

To utilize the above equation, the vapor phase velocity normal

to the interface (VV,n) and the velocity of the interface (VI) are

needed.

The derivation of the model is based on an existing

interface; hence, conditional statements are required on the

pressure terms in order to couple the model to the flow

computation. Cavitation inception condition suggests that

cavitation incepts once the hydrodynamic pressure drops below

the vapor-pressure value of the corresponding liquid. As seen

from Eq. (17), in the pure liquid phase (L=1) the second term

will be zero. Hence the inception condition is imposed as

minimum (MIN) function on pressure difference term of the first

term of Eq. (17). Then the desinent cavitation condition is

imposed as a maximum (MAX) function on the pressure

difference term of the second term. As a result the first term of

Eq. (17) is responsible for conversion of liquid phase to vapor

phase (evaporation) and the second term of Eq. (17) is

responsible for conversion of vapor phase back to liquid phase

(condensation). With these inclusions, the model equation to be

solved along with Navier- Stokes equations is the following:

(15)

Eq. (19) forms a fundamental cavitation model for NavierStokes computations of cavitating flows. Unlike the existing

transport equation-based models in the literature, the proposed

model does not require empirical constants to regulate the mass

transfer process. It is general to handle the time-dependency

since the interface velocity (VI) is taken into account in the

model. The model requires that an interface be constructed in

order to compute the interface velocity for time-dependent

computations, as well as the normal velocity of the vapor phase.

However in sheet type of attached cavitation the cavity is often

modeled in a steady-state computation and the assumption can

be valid and does produce satisfactory results [4, 5, 8]. Hence

the interface velocity (VI) is zero for steady-state computations

and the normal velocity of the vapor phase can be computed by

taking the gradient of the liquid volume fraction [19, 20]. The

vapor phase normal velocity is the dot product of the velocity

and the normal vector.

L

(20)

VV ,n = u n

n=

L

RESULTS

Two flow configurations have been considered, namely, (i)

an axisymmetric cylindrical object with a hemispherical

forehead (referred to as hemispherical object) at a Reynolds

number of 1.36x105 and a cavitation number of 0.30, and (ii)

the NACA66MOD hydrofoil at an angle of attack of 4 with

Reynolds number of 2.0x106. It is experimentally observed that

sheet (attached) cavitation occurs for both of the geometries

under given conditions and time averaged experimental data of

pressure distribution along the surface is available [21, 22].

Hence steady-state computations are carried out in this study.

Figure 2 compares the performance of the cavitation

models for the hemispherical object at a cavitation number of

0.30.

All three models match the experimental data

satisfactorily. Differences in the performance are more

noticeable in the closure region, where the vapor phase

condenses. Figure 3 shows the corresponding density

distribution along the surface. As seen from density plots, the

liquid phase first expands and vapor phase appears uniformly

inside the cavity, then the vapor phase compresses, in a shock

like fashion, back to the liquid phase. The differences among

the three models in density profiles are significant. This implies

that each model generates different compressibility

characteristics, although they produce very similar steady-state

pressure distributions. This issue has important implications in

time dependent problems; which model produces the correct

compressibility is an open question and needs further

investigation. Figure 4 shows the distribution of density

throughout the cavity and the spanwise vorticity distribution.

The interface is captured sharply with Model-2 and Model-3

compared to Model-1, especially in the downstream region of

the cavity. As seen from the spanwise vorticity distribution, also

given in Fig. 4, there is additional generation of vorticity at the

confirming the discussion given in Introduction.

The NACA66MOD hydrofoil case is computed at a

Reynolds number of 2x106. The turbulent boundary layer is

extremely thin at such high Reynolds numbers. Since the

original k- turbulence model along with the wall function is

adopted [17], it is important to offer spatial resolutions

consistent with the modeling requirement [23]. This requires

that the non-dimensional normal distance from the wall (y+), a

representation of the local Reynolds number, should be in the

log-law region. More details on the wall function formulation

are given in Ref. [23]. Once a cavity occurs on the surface, the

local Reynolds number decreases due to reduction in density

and the first grid point away from the wall may not be

positioned in the log layer. This issue has important

implications in both accuracy and convergence. It is found that

proper grid distribution is very important for satisfactory results

and convergence of cavitating flow computations. However

there is a trade-off between positioning the first grid point away

from the wall in the log layer verses having enough points to

discretize the cavity, especially for high Reynolds number

cases.

Two grids have been tested. Model-2 is used in the

computations. Grid-A is a three-block domain with

approximately 6.6x104 nodes whereas Grid-B is a six-block

domain with approximately 9.8x104 nodes. The grid resolution

is further clustered close to the suction side of the hydrofoil in

Grid-B compared to Grid A. Close up views of the same region

in both grids are shown in Fig. 5 to demonstrate the spatial

resolution. The extend of the cavity region is also highlighted

on the grids to give an idea of how many grid points have been

used to discretized the vapor cavity. As shown in Fig. 6 the

predictions with Grid-A are very poor compared to the case

with Grid-B. A very short cavity has been captured with Grid-A

as a result of poor resolution. The vapor cavity is so thin that

Grid-A can only accommodate two grid points in this region. In

Fig. 7 the y+ distribution of the first grid points away from the

wall is plotted along the surface. The law of the wall is also

highlighted on this plot. As can be observed in Fig.5, special

attention has been given during grid generation to place the

points of the Grid-B in the log layer. A higher resolution grid is

also utilized and it is found that if the y+ values of the cavitating

region are in the viscous sublayer, the computation is not stable

and convergent. This may be because in the wall function

formulation a linear velocity profile is imposed in the viscous

sublayer and such a profile may not be suitable to represent the

phase change dynamics. It should be emphasized that the

original k- turbulence model [17] is based on the equilibrium

assumption, and the rate of turbulence production and

dissipation are balanced in the log-layer, hence it is advisable to

place the near wall region in the log layer [24]. If higher

resolution is required a low Reynolds number two-equation

turbulence model should be the choice. Nevertheless Grid-B is

used for all other computations of NACA66MOD hydrofoil

case.

4

Computational modeling of the dynamics of sheet

cavitation, Proc. Third Intern. Symp. on Cavitation,

Grenoble, France.

[3] Edwards, J.R. Franklin, R.K. and Liou, M.S., 2000, Lowdiffusion flux-splitting methods for real fluid flows with

phase transitions, AIAA J. 38(9), pp. 1624-1633.

[4] 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, Computer and Fluids, 29, p. 849.

[5] Ahuja, V., Hosangadi, A. and Arunajatesan, S., 2001,

Simulations of cavitating flows using hybrid unstructured

meshes, ASME J. of Fluids Engineering, 123, pp. 331-340.

[6] Venkateswaran, S., Lindau, J.W., Kunz, R.F and Merkle,

C.L., 2001, Preconditioning algorithms for the computation

of multi-phase mixture flows, AIAA 39th Aerospace

Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA-2001-0125.

[7] Patankar, S.V., 1980 Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid

Flow, Hemisphere, Washington DC.

[8] Senocak, I. and Shyy, W., 2002, A pressure-based method

for turbulent cavitating flow simulations, J. of

Computational Physics, 176, pp. 1-22

[9] Wang, G., Senocak, I., Shyy, W., Ikohagi, T., and Cao, S.,

2001, Dynamics of Attached Turbulent Cavitating Flows,

Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 37, pp. 551-581.

[10] Delannoy, Y. and Kueny, J.L., 1990, Cavity flow

predictions based on the Euler equations, ASME Cavitation

and Multi-Phase Flow Forum.

[11] Gopalan, S. and Katz, J. 2000 Flow structure and modeling

issues in the closure region of attached cavitation, Physics

of Fluids, 12(4), p. 895.

[12] Singhal, A.K., Vaidya, N. and Leonard, A.D., 1997, Multidimensional simulation of cavitating flows using a PDF

model for phase change, ASME Fluids Engineering

Division Summer Meeting, ASME Paper FEDSM97-3272.

[13] Singhal, A.K., Li, N. H., Athavale, M. and Jiang, Y., 2001,

Mathematical basis and validation of the full cavitation

model, ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer

Meeting, ASME Paper FEDSM2001-18015.

[14] Senocak, I., and Shyy, W. 2001, "Numerical Simulation of

Turbulent Flows with Sheet Cavitation," CAV2001 4th

International Symposium on Cavitation, Paper No.

CAV2001A7.002.

[15] Shyy, W., Thakur, S. S., Ouyang, H., Liu, J., and Blosch, E.,

1997, Computational Techniques for Complex Transport

Phenomena, Cambridge University Press, New York.

[16] Shyy, W., 1994, Computational Modeling for Fluid Flow

and Interfacial Transport, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, (revised printing 1997).

[17] Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B., 1974, The Numerical

Computation of Turbulent Flows, Computational Methods

in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 3, pp. 269-289.

[18] Wallis, G.B., 1969, One-dimensional Two-phase Flow,

McGraw-Hill, New York.

[19] Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B. and Zemach, C., 1992, A

Continuum Method for Modeling Surface Tension, J. Of

Computational Physics, 100, pp. 335-354.

[20] Francois, M., 1998, A Study of the Volume of Fluid

Method for Moving Boundary Problems, M.Sc. Thesis,

been assessed for cavitation numbers of 0.91 and 0.84

respectively. For cavitation number of 0.84, the vaporous cavity

covers about 60% of the hydrofoil surface. All three models

produce satisfactory results at both cavitation numbers.

Differences in predictions are more pronounced, similar to the

hemispherical object case, at the closure region, which is due to

the different compressibility characteristics imposed by the

cavitation models. Model-2 and Model-3 do relatively a better

job to capture the pressure distribution at the closure region as

compared to the predictions of Model-1.

CONCLUSIONS

An improved pressure-based method for turbulent

cavitating flows is employed to evaluate the existing transport

equation-based cavitation models in literature. Three versions

of the transport equation-based model (TEM) are considered.

To help understand these models, a theoretical derivation is

presented starting from mass and normal momentum

conservation at a liquid-vapor interface. Unlike the existing

empirical cavitation models, the new model needs no user

defined empirical factors to regulate the mass transfer process.

It helps interpret the implication of the empirical parameters

required by the existing models.

Two flow configurations have been tested, including a

hemispherical projectile and the NACA66MOD hydrofoil. For

both geometries, all three models produce comparable and

satisfactory results in wall pressure distributions. However,

different density distributions, especially in the closure region

are predicted by the models, implying that the compressibility

effects are handled differently. These differences can

significantly impact the time dependent flow computations. It is

also shown that a wall-function consistent grid is required to

improve predictive capability for high Reynolds number cases.

The present results have further validated the generality of the

pressure-based algorithm for turbulent cavitating flows. The

numerical method have successfully accounted for the

compressibility effects induced by different cavitation models.

The present study suggests that the existing versions of the

TEM have merits and limitations. Further research is needed to

address the modeling uncertainties. Direct utilization of the

interfacial dynamics, such as that presented here, should be

further pursued to alleviate the need for empirically adjusting

modeling parameters with a sound theoretical foundation. We

will further pursue this path and report our findings in the

future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has been supported partially by ONR and NSF.

The first author would like to thank Marianne Francois for

helpful discussions on computation of normal velocities.

REFERENCES

[1] Knapp, R.T., Daily, J.W. and Hammitt, F.G., 1970,

Cavitation, McGraw-Hill, New York.

[22]

[23]

[24]

Model-1

Model-2

Model-3

0.8

density

[21]

USA.

Rouse, H., and McNown, J. S., 1948, Cavitation and

Pressure Distribution, Head Forms at Zero Angle of Yaw,

Studies in Engineering, Bulletin 32, State University of

Iowa.

Shen, Y., and Dimotakis, P., 1989, The Influence of Surface

Cavitation on Hydrodynamic Forces, Proceedings of 22nd

ATTC, St. Johns, pp.44-53.

He, X., Senocak, I., Shyy, W., Gangadharan, S.N. and

Thakur S., 2000, Evaluation of Laminar-Turbulent

Transition and Equilibrium Near Wall Turbulence Models,

Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A, 37, pp.101-112.

Versteeg, H.K. and Malalasekera, W., 1995, An

Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics, p. 73,

Longman, London.

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.5

1.5

2

s/D

2.5

3.5

from empirical cavitation models. Experimental data is from

Ref. [21].

Model-1

Model-2

flow theory.

Hemispherical, Re=1.36x105, =0.30

Model-3

1.2

the density distribution; on the right is the spanwise vorticity

distribution.

Model-1

Model-2

Model-3

Exp. data

1

0.8

Cp

0.6

0.04

0.04

GRID-A

0.4

GRID-B

0.035

0.035

0.03

0.03

0

-0.2

-0.4

0

0.2

0.025

0.025

Cavity edge

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

s/D

from empirical cavitation models. Experimental data is from

Ref. [21]

0.02

-0.23

-0.225

-0.22

-0.215

-0.21

0.02

-0.23

-0.225

-0.22

-0.215

-0.21

1.5

1.2

1

Grid-A

Grid-B

Exp. data

Model-1

Model-2

Model-3

Exp. data

0.8

0.6

0.5

-Cp

-Cp

0.4

0.2

0

0

-0.2

-0.5

-0.4

-1

-0.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.8

X/C

used. Experimental data is from Ref. [22].

NACA66MOD, Re=2.0x106, =0.91

10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

X/C

from empirical cavitation models. Experimental data is from

Ref. [22].

Grid-A

Grid-B

defect layer

10

y+=400.0

2

Y+

10

log layer

y+=11.63

10

viscous sublayer

0

10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

X/C

away from the wall along the hydrofoil surface.

NACA66MOD, Re=2.0x106, =0.91

1.4

1.2

Model-1

Model-2

Model-3

Exp. data

1

0.8

-Cp

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

X/C

from empirical cavitation models. Experimental data is from

Ref. [22].

- fluid mechanics introductionUploaded byIastra
- Abaqus-CFDUploaded bydashengyue
- 5965_48_40_a Study of Turbulence Induced Forces Acting on the Blobe Valve_2005Uploaded byChinmay Tiwari
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentUploaded byArvind Yelshetti
- TPUploaded byDolly Priya
- Three Modeling of Soil Erosion by WaterUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Methodology for Surge Pressure Evaluation in a WatUploaded byprabhuarunkumar85
- Pump Centrifugal Consider Changing the Speed Not the PumpUploaded byRicardo Bec
- Navier Strokes EquationUploaded byYahan Weerathunga
- Numerical Analysis of Fin Side Turbulent Flow for Round and Flat Tube Heat ExchangersUploaded byIJMER
- Model need.pdfUploaded bymuco
- 12-Hole Cleaning-A-03-April-12 - Copy - Copy.pptUploaded bySaranya Yellela
- Lf 3619161920Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Pipe-Re1000-L300Uploaded bysuperman3k
- Cf d Analysis Cham Fe Red RibsUploaded byKrishna Singh
- ICWE_FULL-PAPER.pdfUploaded byAnonymous FYiVPYgXVU
- 1-s2.0-S004579301930043X-mainUploaded byBARARI
- MT BITSUploaded byKundan Kumar
- flujo a traves de lechos.pdfUploaded byximena
- Kawahara_2002.pdfUploaded byRavi Prakash
- Draft ASMEUploaded byManoj Tripathi
- UntitledUploaded byWWW_MICHAELCHRISTSACRED
- International Master on TurbulenceUploaded byAakash Patil
- Pore-Scale Modeling of Navier-Stokes Flow in Distensible Networks and Porous MediaUploaded byTaha Sochi
- 104_catalog_C24-C25.pdfUploaded byTimur Turan
- Modelo Hidrodinamico Reactor Cilindrico ElectrodoUploaded byalerozco
- cplan_AE221Uploaded byjaibalayya
- ahn2009.pdfUploaded byibrahim zulfahmiakbar
- mebs6008_1415_01-fluid01Uploaded byahtin618
- Fluid Mechanics II Part 1Uploaded byWaleed Tayyab

- Salvadores Et Al. - 2014 - Detection of Misfolded a Oligomers for Sensitive Biochemical Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease-AnnotatedUploaded byDeodatus Kardo Girsang
- ICD 10 CM SPECIALIZED CodingWorkbookwithAns v1.1Uploaded byAntonSusanto
- 358.50 Win10 Win8 Win7 Winvista Desktop Release NotesUploaded bybiswa217
- Signature Bank 2011 Annual ReportUploaded bybarkerdesign
- Sample WpsUploaded byPradeep Kumar Raju B
- Belt Conveyor DesignUploaded byAshok Kumar
- WKRulesDecUploaded bylardielad
- CREATING EMPOWERMENT THROUGH CRITICAL DISCOURSE IN COMMUNICATION AND MEDIAUploaded byJoanna Cruz Guerrero
- The World Conference On Laser, Optic Science & Photonics (LSP 2020) - SponUploaded byHazel Group
- Architectural Technical Requirements for Public HousingUploaded byusernaga84
- Full Text 01Uploaded byBabacar Tall
- Agem 2 MarksUploaded byRamaswamy Subbiah
- ColorUploaded byvignesh0617
- Physique As A Weapon - Weapons Of Mass InfluenceUploaded byAdonis
- Dow Corning 991 Product InfoUploaded bycurlyjockey
- change makers listUploaded byapi-271361046
- Bone formation -ossification 2.pdfUploaded byalan
- Implementation of Dynamic Time Warping for Video IndexingUploaded byijcsis
- H-6DEL_Report_DOF_2017.07.21 Coriendo TR de 20Uploaded byPAZCOSL3 MEJIA
- Orange SquashUploaded byElnathan Samson
- Gravimetric ChlorideUploaded bymarinegirl67
- 08.Non-Verbal Reasoning Counting Sides Symbols and More 1Uploaded byRameeSahiba
- Presentation 3Uploaded byasrahaman9
- UV-Vis.pdfUploaded byDyna Threea Smid
- P072-E2-02+SysmacCatalogue_2012Uploaded byFlashPT
- g 04083741Uploaded byIJERD
- MTPlus Spanish Final V5 (2)Uploaded byleidy vidal
- 3 Behaviour of Steel BeamsUploaded byRaj Kumar
- citation-298456690Uploaded bygiovanni
- Mercedes-Benz-Classe-E-sedan-wagon-notice-mode-emploi-manuel-pdf.pdfUploaded byCLAKOS