Sixth International Symposium on Cavitation

CAV2006, Wageningen, The Netherlands, September 2006

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL MODELING OF CAVITATION EROSION

Matevž Dular, Brane Širok

Laboratory for Water Turbine Machines, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
matevz.dular@fs.uni-lj.si

Bernd Stoffel
Chair of Turbomachinery and Fluid Power, Darmstadt University of Technology; Germany

ABSTRACT k1 coefficient
A study of visual and erosion effects of cavitation on k2 coefficient
simple single hydrofoil configurations in a cavitation p pressure
tunnel was made. A two-dimensional hydrofoil with pv vapour pressure
circular leading edge was used for the experiments. In P(mj) micro-jet occurrence probability
addition, the hydrofoil geometry was modified to obtain Pwave pressure wave power
some three-dimensional cavitation effects. A thin copper Re vapour generation source term
foil, applied to the surface of the hydrofoil, was used as an Rc vapour condensation source term
erosion sensor. The cavitation phenomenon on hydrofoils v velocity
at different flow conditions (system pressure, water gas vcrit critical velocity
content, flow velocity) was observed. Images of vapour vjet jet velocity
cavities from above and from a side view were taken. vm mixture velocity
Plausible results that showed a significant relationship t time
between cavitation erosion and the visual effects of x distance from cloud implosion
cavitation made it possible to use these information to α void fraction
develop a cavitation erosion model. The model is based on φ water gas content
the physical description of different phenomena, which are γ liquid surface tension
involved in the process of pit formation. The model is µ viscosity
capable to predict the influences of significant parameters µm mixture viscosity
as flow velocity and gas content of water. ρ density
The final goal of the study is numerical prediction of
ρl liquid density
cavitation erosion. Therefore a CFD simulation of a
ρm mixture density
developed cavitating flow was pursued. Numerical images
of cavitation structures were generated and used as an ρv vapour density
input to the cavitation erosion model. Numerically σ cavitation number
predicted distribution and magnitude of cavitation erosion τ time of exposure to cavitation
are in a relative good agreement to the measured values. ω angular velocity
Results promise a good possibility of accurate prediction of
cavitation erosion in real hydraulic machines in the future. INTRODUCTION
Though there exist many empirical rules developed to help
NOMENCLATURE engineers to evaluate the potential cavitation damage rate
Apit pit area in a given application (Hammit 1979), there remain a
Aref reference area number of basic questions regarding the fundamental
Arel part of eroded surface mechanisms involved. Recently there were many attempts
c sonic velocity to predict the magnitude of the cavitation erosion. For
Cc empirical constant example Pereira et al. (1998) found a relation between the
Ce empirical constant volume of transient cavities and its rate of production to
ES integral part of eroded surface the material deformation energy. Fortes-Patella et al.
f shedding frequency (2004) suggested that the damage of the solid surface is a
fg gas mass fraction consequence of a sequence of events – from cavitation
fv vapour mass fraction cloud collapse to the spherical implosion of a single bubble
k turbulence kinetic energy that causes the damage. Present authors Dular et al. (2004)

1
and Širok et al. (2002) suggested that a strong correlation
between erosion of the surface and visual cavitation
structures exists. However an attempt to include the whole
sequence of events, that lead to the appearance of damage
on the surface, into a method of damage prediction, has not
yet been successfully made.
The present paper is a conclusion of a systematical
research of cavitation erosion at Darmstadt University of
Technology. A number of experimental and numerical
studies were made by present authors (Dular et al. 2004a,
Širok et al. 2002, Dular et al. 2005). Some ideas can also
be found in the PhD theses of Boehm (1998), Hofmann
(2001), Lohrberg (2001) and Bachert (2004).
The model gives a new option of cavitation erosion
prediction and more importantly embraces the theories of
cavitation cloud collapse (Shimada et al. 1999, Brennen
1995), attenuation of the pressure wave (Beranek 1996),
micro-jet formation (Plesset & Chapmann 1971) and
finally pit formation (Lush 1983).
The commercial CFD code Fluent 6.1.18 was used for 3D
transient simulations of cavitating flow. A cavitation
model, based on bubble dynamics equations, described in
Singhal et al. (2002) is included in the code and it was used
to describe the unsteady behaviour of cavitation. A very
good prediction of different features (velocity distribution,
cavitation cloud shedding frequency, pressure distribution
etc.) of cavitating flow was achieved. Images of
numerically predicted cavitation structure shapes were
generated and were used as an input to the cavitation
erosion model.
The results of model prediction are compared to the
experimental results of pitcount measurements on single
hydrofoils.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Three simple hydrofoils were used. The basic geometry is
a 50 mm wide, 107.9 mm long symmetric hydrofoil with a
circular leading edge and constant thickness of 16 mm,
having a wedge shape near the trailing edge (CLE –
Circular Leading Edge hydrofoil). In order to obtain three-
dimensional cavitation effects the basic geometry was
modified by sweeping back the leading edge at an angle of
15 and 25 degrees (ALE15 and ALE25, respectively; ALE
– Asymmetric Leading Edge hydrofoil) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Copper coated CLE, ALE15 and ALE25 hydrofoils
The velocity in the reference plane upstream of the
hydrofoil was held constant at 13 m/s, except for two
measurements at 10 and 16 m/s. Developed cavitating flow
was observed at 5° incidence angle and at different values
of cavitation number (2.5, 2.3, 2.0).
2
Water quality, which can be measured by its content of
dissolved and undissolved gasses φ, was controlled using
the bubble generator system. For the majority of tests the
gas content was kept at a minimum possible level -
approximately 14.3 ± 0.5 mgg/lw (milligram of gas per liter
of water). Additionally three measurements were made at
higher water gas contents (25.9 mgg/lw, 36.7 mgg/lw and
48.9 mgg/lw) to study the influence of this parameter on the
aggressiveness of cavitation erosion.
Cavitation image capturing
A CCD camera SensiCam with sensor CCD-Interline
Progressive Scan was used. Images were captured at 8 bit
resolution in m-jpeg format.
Fig. 2 shows shedding of the cavitation structures on the
ALE25 hydrofoil at low gas content and at a cavitation
number σ = 2.3 from top view. Flow is from left to right. It
is obvious that the cavitation zone is asymmetrical and that
cavitation cloud separation occurs only in the region where
the length of the hydrofoil is the shortest while it is steady
on the other side.
Fig. 2: Cavitation cloud separation on ALE25 hydrofoil at
cavitation number σ = 2.3
Mean value and standard deviation of gray level in the
images was calculated (50 images of each cavitation
condition were used for statistical evaluation).
Fig. 3: Mean value and standard deviation of gray level on
ALE25 hydrofoil at cavitation number σ = 2.3
Results of statistically evaluated cavitation condition for
ALE25 hydrofoil at a cavitation number σ = 2.3, flow
velocity v = 13 m/s and low gas content φ = 14.7 mgg/lw in
Fig. 3. Left images represent the mean value (scaled to 0 –
black, 250 - white) while the right ones represent standard
deviation of gray level (scaled to 0 – white, 50 - black).
The upper two images show the top view and the bottom
two images show the side view.
If one compares Fig. 3 to Fig. 2 a distinctive relation
between the region of cavitation cloud separation and the
maximum of the standard deviation of gray level can be
seen.

Cavitation erosion tests

Due to the time limitation of the experiment only damage
in the incubation period was studied (where damage is
already present but there is no material loss).
To get the information about the erosion on the whole
surface of the hydrofoil, a polished copper foil, 0.2 mm Fig. 5: Cavitation damage on ALE25 hydrofoil at
thick, was fixed to its surface using an adhesive film. The cavitation numbers σ = 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5
hardness of the copper coating was approximately 40 HV.
A sufficient number of pits was obtained after 1 hour Fig. 5 confirms our hypothesis that the cavitation erosion is
exposure to the cavitating flow (the exposure time was conditioned by the separation of cavitation clouds. The
constant for all operating conditions). damaged surface in predominantly in the region near the
Pits have a diameter in order of magnitude 10-5 m, and can edge where the length of the hydrofoil is the shortest – in
be distinguished only by sufficient magnification. Images the same region where unsteady cavitation (with cloud
of the pitted surface were acquired using an Olympus BX- separation) is present.
40 microscope and a CCD camera.
The intensity of cavitation erosion was determined with the
pit-count method. The method is based on the assumption
that the area of the pitted surface and the number of pits
that are created by bubble implosions (micro-jet impacts)
in a certain time of exposure to cavitating flow give a
quantitative measure of the intensity of cavitation erosion.
The pit-count method gives a distribution of the number
and the area of the pits and consequently the distribution of
the magnitude of cavitation erosion on the surface.
Results of measurements are presented in Figs. 4-7. Fig. 6: Cavitation damage on CLE hydrofoil at cavitation
Contour diagrams are a result of an interpolation of pit- number σ = 2.3 at flow velocities v= 10, 13 and 16 m/s
count measurements at approximately 925 positions on the
hydrofoil surface. The flow is from bottom to top. The Tests with variable flow velocity revealed an obvious
results of surface damage are scaled from 0 % surface relation between flow velocity and erosion rate. The
damage...white to 10 % surface damage...black (in case of cavitation is much more aggressive at higher flow
variable flow velocity the scale reaches to 12 % surface velocities. The distribution of the pits and the position of
damage). The value of eroded surface (ES) represents the the maximum magnitude of damage are similar for all the
part of the whole surface that is damaged (covered by pits). tests since cavitation number was held constant (σ = 2.3) -
the topology of cavitation structures practically does not
change when the gas content is altered.

Fig. 4: Cavitation damage on CLE hydrofoil at cavitation

numbers σ = 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5
Fig. 4 reveals that, as expected, the region of maximum
cavitation damage moves away from the leading edge
when cavitation number is decreased. Interestingly, the
maximum value of total damaged surface (ES) occurs at
cavitation number 2.3 and not at 2.0 as expected. The
reason lies in the fact that the region of cloud separation
lies downstream of the copper coated surface and also
further away from the hydrofoil surface.
Fig. 7: Cavitation damage on CLE hydrofoil at cavitation
number σ = 2.3 at gas contents α = 13.8, 25.9,
36.7 and 48.9 mg/l
One can see that erosive aggressiveness decreases
significantly when the gas content rises. The surface
sustains almost 50 times less damage in the case with high
gas content (α = 48.9 mgg/lw) than in cases with low gas
content (α = 13.8 mgg/lw). Similarly to the tests with
variable flow velocity, the position of maximum erosion
magnitude and the distribution of pits on the hydrofoil

3
remain almost constant for all the cases, since the
cavitation number was constant.
The previous study (Dular et al. 2004a) showed that the
magnitude of cavitation damage is correlated with
unsteadiness of cavitation structures. For example, the
effect can be seen if we compare Fig. 2, Fig 3 and Fig. 5
(middle hydrofoil - σ = 2.3). Fig. 2 shows a sequence of
cavitation images on ALE25 hydrofoil. Statistical
evaluation (Fig. 3) reveals that the standard deviation has
its maximum in the region where cavitation cloud
separation occurs (in the region where the hydrofoil length
is the shortest). It is obvious (from Fig. 5 - middle
hydrofoil - σ = 2.3) that most of the damage also occurs in
this region. Results point out that the standard deviation of
gray level is a variable that could be included in a
cavitation erosion model as a measure of unsteadiness,
which is indirectly linked to the magnitude of cavitation
erosion.
THEORETICAL MODEL
A successful prediction of cavitation erosion still remains
one of the big goals in this field of research. As shown
above one could use visualization techniques as an input
for cavitation erosion model to determine the region and
possibly the magnitude of cavitation damage.
The process of pit formation is very complex. The
presented theory explains the pit formation in the following
way (Fig. 8):
• Collapse of the cavitation cloud causes a shock wave
that spreads in the fluid.
• The magnitude of the shock wave is attenuated as it
travels toward the solid surface.
• Single bubbles are present near the solid surface. As the
shock wave reaches them, they begin to oscillate and a
micro-jet phenomenon can occur.
• The damage (single pit) is caused by high velocity liquid
jet impact to the solid surface.
Fig. 8: Cavitation erosion model idea
If we take into account only the incubation period (surface
is plastically deformed but no material loss is present) we
can say that the eroded surface of a submerged body is a
result of repetition of abovementioned processes.
Amplitude of the emitted pressure wave
The power and consequently the magnitude of the emitted
pressure wave are closely related to the velocity of the
change of the vapour cloud volume (velocity of cavitation
cloud collapse) and to the surrounding pressure (Fortes-
Patella et al. 2004). We can write the following relation:
4
⎛ dV ⎞
Pwave = ∆p⎜ ⎟, (1)
⎝ dt ⎠
where ∆p is the difference between the surrounding
pressure and vapour pressure (psur – pv) and dV/dt is the
change of the vapour cloud volume in time t.
From the acoustics the magnitude of the emitted pressure
wave is proportional to the square root of its power (p0 ∝
Pwave ). If we consider the pressure difference ∆p to
remain approximately constant, we can write that the
distribution of the mean change in cavitation cloud volume
on the hydrofoil reveals the mean distribution of amplitude
of the pressure wave that is emitted by the cavitation cloud
collapse.
Since we have no possibility of measuring the
instantaneous change of the cavitation cloud volume a
standard deviation of gray level σ was used as the
parameter, which is related to the power of the emitted
pressure wave. Standard deviation can be used in this
manner since it is a function of the change of the gray level
in the image, which is a function of the cavitation cloud
volume:
⎛ dV ⎞
gray level = f (V ) ⇒ σ ∝ ⎜ ⎟. (2)
⎝ dt ⎠
The hypothesis is that the relation between the time
derivative of vapour cloud volume and the distributions of
standard deviation of gray level from side and top view
exists. A possible measure of the emitted pressure wave
power Pwave can be formulated in the following way:
⎡⎛ 1 M
⎞ ⎤
∑σ
Pwave (n, l ) ∝ ∆p ⋅ ⎢⎜ m ⎟ ⋅σ n ⎥ , (3)
⎣⎝ M m ⎠ ⎦ l =const .
where ∆p is the mean pressure difference, M is the height
of the matrix (see Fig. 9), l, m and n are direction vectors
(see Fig. 9) and σm and σn are standard deviations of gray
level in distribution matrix of side and top view,
respectively (see Fig. 9).
Fig. 9: The distribution of standard deviation of gray
level in the coordinate system.

It was found that a linear function shows the best
correlation to the experimental results (the relation was
obtained by comparison of model predictions and results of
experimental measurements from Hofmann (2001):
p 0 (n, l ) = k1 ∆p ⋅ ξ (n, l ) ; (4)
Distance of the cloud implosion
The position of the cloud collapse and consequently the
distance of cloud collapse from the hydrofoil surface x can
be determined from the standard deviation of gray level
from the side view (see Fig. 9). An equilibrium function
was used:
∑ (σ ⋅ m) − m
M
x(l ) = m m
h, (5)
∑σ
M
m
m
where mh is the position of the hydrofoil surface at a
specified l. The distance of cloud implosion had to be
considered constant for each value of l, what represents a
considerable simplification especially for the cases with
asymmetrical hydrofoils. .
Attenuation of the pressure wave
As the pressure wave travels away from its source its
energy is gradually converted into heat. For our problem
the main energy loss mechanism are the viscous losses
generated from the friction within the fluid itself (Beranek
1996). The pressure wave attenuation with the distance x
can then be written as:
2 ω2
− µ⋅x
3 ρ0c3
p = p0 ⋅ e −δ ⋅ x = p0 ⋅ e , (6)
where ω is the pressure wave frequency, µ is the viscosity
and c is the sonic velocity. µ and c are functions of the
local vapour volume fraction αv.
Formation of micro-jet
A well know theory developed by Plesset & Chapmann
(1971) determines the jet velocity under the following
assumptions: fluid inside the jet behaves as a solid
material, the potential energy of the bubble is fully
transformed into kinetic energy and the Kelvin impulse is
converted to the jet impulse. Micro-jet velocity is then:
p − pv
v jet = k 2 , (7)
ρ Arel =
Pit formation
The water hammer stress applied to the material at the
impact of the liquid micro-jet can be considered as the
main mechanism of damage to the solid surface (Plesset &
Chapmann 1971). In the present approach (Lush 1983) the
surface responds as a perfectly rigid solid until a certain
5
compressive stress is reached and then behaves as a
perfectly plastic solid, for which the stress will remain
constant. The deformation only occurs if the water hammer
pressure is higher than the limit pressure at which the
plastic flow of the material occurs. In other words: “the
liquid jet velocity must exceed some critical velocity at
which the damage occurs". The critical liquid jet velocity
at which the stress, high enough to produce a plastic flow
of the material py, is reached is:
⎛ − ⎞
1
py ⎜ ⎛ py ⎞ n ⎟
vcrit = ⎜1 − ⎜1 + ⎟ ⎟,
ρ l ⎜ ⎜⎝ B ⎟⎠ ⎟
(8)
⎝ ⎠
where py is the yield stress of the material.
The duration of the water hammer stress is as long as the
time for the impact signal to traverse the radius of the jet
(rjet):
r jet
t def = . (9)
c
After that time a stagnation pressure 1/2ρv2 is established.
It is unlikely that any damage occurs in this period since
the stagnation pressure is an order of magnitude smaller
than the water hammer pressure (unless exceptionally high
impact velocities are encountered).
If we consider only the center of the impact where only
motion (plastic flow) normal to the surface is present the
maximum depth of the pit can be calculated:
d pit = v def t def . (10)
Pit geometry
The ratio between the pit radius and pit depth is not
constant. Previous investigations showed that it usually lies
between 15 and 30 but can also be as low as 2 and as high
as 500 (Fortes-Patella et al. 2000). The mean ratio between
the pit radius and pit depth (26.7) was determined from the
laser profilometry measurements of the pitted surface of a
copper specimen from the hydrofoil from the same
cavitation tunnel done at LEGI – Grenoble (Reboud et al.
1999).
The measure of the damage caused by cavitating flow (the
part of the damaged surface after a certain amount of time
τ) can now be written:
A pit ⋅ τ ⋅ f ⋅ P(mj )
, (11)
Aref
where τ is the duration of the exposition to the cavitating
flow, f is the frequency of cavitation cloud implosion,
P(mj) is the probability of micro-jet occurrence and Aref is
the reference area. The Eqn. 11 is only valid in the
incubation period of cavitation erosion where no mass loss
is present.
Influences of fluid properties
Experimental results show obvious influences of fluid
properties on cavitation erosion. Is was shown that when
the experiment was conducted in water with high gas
content cavitation erosion was less aggressive. The main
reason lies in the fact that the sonic velocity is lower in
water with high gas content. Consequently compressibility
and pressure wave attenuation are higher.
The density and viscosity of the water considering the
presence of gases are:
ρ = αρ g + (1 − α ) ρ l (12)
and
ν = αν g + (1 − α )ν l . (13)
Influences of flow velocity
Previous investigations (Dular et al. 2005, Knapp et al.
1970) have shown that the flow velocity has an enormous
influence on the aggressiveness of cavitation. A power law
with coefficient n = 5…8 was found. Here we state some
physical explanations of the velocity influence that are
included in the cavitation erosion model.
• When the cavitation number is constant the pressure
difference has to increase with the power of 2 when
velocity is increased. This means that the pressure
emitted at bubble cloud collapse will also rise with the
power of 2.
• When the cavitation number is constant the pressure
difference has to increase with the power of 2 when the
flow velocity is increased. Higher system pressure acts
on the compressibility of the fluid.
• Past experiments have shown that the Strouhal number
increases linearly when the velocity is increased (for the
same cavitation number) (Böhm 1998), hence shedding
frequency will rise with the power of 2 when the flow
velocity is increased.
• There is a finite number of bubbles that have a potential
to form a micro-jet in the flow. Since the time of bubble
implosion (a few µs) is much smaller then the time
needed for transition of a bubble through the control
volume (a few ms) the probability for a bubble to
implode in micro-jet form does not alter with velocity
(this hypothesis was also confirmed by past experiments
(Knapp et al. 1970) Hence when the velocity is
increased, more bubbles implode in the form of micro-jet
in a certain time period.
RESULTS – SINGLE HYDROFOILS
Setting up the problem needs some iterative work. Guide
lines about the values of the parameters can be found in
past studies of Shimada et al. (1999), Brennen (1995),
Plesset & Chapman (1971), Hofmann (2001) and Lush
(1983).
6
The values of densities and viscosities of water and water
vapour (ρl, ρv, νl, νv) and the sonic velocity (cl) and water
vapour pressure (pv) correspond to the ambient temperature
of 20 °C.
A value of f = 0.75 MHz was chosen for the frequency of
the pressure wave that is emitted by cavitation cloud
collapse on the basis of theoretical and experimental
studies (Shimada et al. 1999, Lohrberg 2001) and also
based on measurements of pressure waves on similar
geometries done by Hofmann (2001).
Since the local gas volume fraction α was not a subject of
measurements, it was estimated that (right after the cloud
collapse) it is in the same order as the volume fraction of
the initial gas content of the water φ. The values from α ≈
0.01 for low gas content to α ≈ 0.04 for high gas content
relate well to the results of experimental measurements of
void fraction within cavitation by Stutz and Reboud
(2000).
It is possible to compare results of experimental
measurements and model prediction on CLE geometry at a
cavitation number 2.3, flow velocity 13 m/s and low gas
content φ = 13.8 mgg/lw. The histograms could reveal if the
model predictions fall within the expected (still physical)
range of values. Measurements of pressure on the hydrofoil
surface (Hofmann 2001) were compared to model
prediction. Additionally results of present pit-count
measurements (local relative damaged surface Arel) were
compared to the model results.
Fig. 10: Histograms of experimentally measured and
predicted pressure and local relative damaged surface
One can see that the model correctly predicts the histogram
of pressures on the surface of the hydrofoil (Fig. 10). It
also relates well to the histogram of values of the local
relative damaged surface from the pit-count measurements.
The model was used for prediction of surface damage
caused by cavitation on 3 different hydrofoils. The
diagrams have the same form as the experimental ones
(Figs. 4-7). The flow is from bottom to top. The results of
prediction of surface damage are scaled to 0 % surface
damage...white and 10 % surface damage...black (in case
of variable flow velocity the scale reaches to 12 % surface
damage). The value of eroded surface (ES) represents the
part of the whole surface that is damaged (covered by pits).
Fig. 11:Predicted damage on CLE hydrofoil at cavitation
numbers σ = 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5
We see that the predicted surface damage for the CLE
hydrofoil relates very well to the experimental results
(comparing Figs. 4 and 11). If we compare model
prediction and experimental measurements for the case of
cavitation number 2.0, we see that the model predicts the
damage to be concentrated in the region near the end of the
plane part of the hydrofoil, while the experimentally
measured damage stretches towards the leading edge and is
not so concentrated. The predicted distributions at
cavitation numbers 2.3 and 2.5 relate even better to the
experimental results. The model also correctly predicts the
cavitation at cavitation number σ = 2.3 to be the most
aggressive one.
Fig. 12:Predicted damage on ALE25 hydrofoil at
cavitation numbers σ = 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5
As a consequence of the hypothesis that cavitation damage
is conditioned by cavitation cloud separation (which is
characterized by higher values of standard deviation of
gray level), the model correctly predicts the damage to
occur predominantly in the region where the hydrofoil
length is the shortest, for ALE25 (Fig. 12). The predicted
damage is somewhat more evenly distributed over the
hydrofoil than experiments have shown (comparing Figs. 5
and 12). The model wrongly predicts a significant stretch
of damage reaching from the “main damage cluster”
toward the region where the hydrofoil length is the longest.
The stretch cannot be seen in experimental results (Fig. 5)
and is a result of small oscillations of quasi-steady
cavitation in this region that contribute to higher values of
standard deviation of gray level (seen also in standard
deviation diagram in Fig. 3) but have nothing to do with
cloud separation.
We can see that the model correctly predicts a significant
decrease of aggressiveness of cavitation when the flow
velocity is decreased (Fig. 13).
7
Fig. 13:Predicted damage on CLE hydrofoil at cavitation
number σ = 2.3 at flow velocities v= 10, 13 and 16 m/s
Finally the ability of the model to predict the influence of
water gas contents was put in question.
Fig. 14: Predicted damage on CLE hydrofoil at cavitation
number σ = 2.3 at gas contents α = 13.8, 25.9,
36.7 and 48.9 mg/l
The diagrams in Fig. 14 show that the model responds very
well to the change of water gas content. When the gas
content increases the aggressiveness decreases
dramatically.
SIMULATION OF CAVITATING FLOW
CFD simulation of cavitation was performed. A program
package Fluent 6.1.18 was used to calculate the flow. The
accuracy of the simulations was previously evaluated
(Dular et al. 2004b) and the results were in a good
agreement to the measurements.
Multiphase model
A single fluid (mixture phase) approach was used. The
basic approach consists of using the standard (Navier-
Stokes) viscous flow equations and a conventional
turbulence model (RNG k-ε model). The mass (eq. 4) and
momentum (eq. 5) conservation equations together with
the transport equation (eq. 6) and the equations of the
turbulence model form the set of equations from which the
fluid density (which is a function of vapour mass fraction
fv) is computed. The ρm - fv (mixture density – vapour mass
fraction) relationship is:
1 fv 1− fv
= + (14)
ρm ρv ρl
The volume fraction of the vapour phase (αv) is related to
of the mass fraction of the vapour phase with:
 ρm
αv = fv . (15)
ρv
The mass conservation equation for the mixture is:
∂
(ρ m ) + ∇ ⋅ (ρ m vrm ) = 0 .
∂t
The momentum conservation equation for the mixture is:
∂
(ρ m vrm ) + ∇ ⋅ (ρ m vrm vrm ) =
∂t
[ ( r r r v
= −∇p + ∇ ⋅ µ m ∇v m + ∇v mT + ρ m g + F )]
And the transport equation for the vapour is:
∂
(ρ m f v ) + ∇ ⋅ (ρ m vrm f v ) = Re − Rc .
∂t
Cavitation model
Source terms Re and Rc that are included in the transport
equation define vapour generation (liquid evaporation) and
vapour condensation, respectively. Source terms are
functions of local flow conditions (static pressure, velocity)
and fluid properties (liquid and vapour phase densities,
saturation pressure and liquid vapour surface tension). The
source terms are derived from the Rayleigh-Plesset
equation, where high order terms and viscosity term have
been left out. The derivation of the source terms can be
found in Singhal et al. (2002).
leads to a quasi steady behaviour of the cavitation sheet,
which becomes stabile. Also the overall length of the
predicted cavity structure is about 50 % too short
compared to experimental results. The problem seems to
lie in the overprediction of the turbulent viscosity in the
region of cavity closure. To improve the simulation a
(16) modification of the turbulent viscosity was applied as it
was proposed and successfully proven by Reboud et al.
(1998). In regions with higher vapour volume fractions
(lower mixture densities) a modification of the RNG k-ε
turbulence model was made by artificially reducing the
turbulent viscosity of the mixture.
(17)
Simulation
The computational domain stretched from 10 chord lengths
in front of the hydrofoil to 10 chord lengths behind the
hydrofoil. The cross sectional dimensions of the domain
were the same as the test section dimensions (50 mm wide
and 100 mm high).
(18) A C-type structured meshes with about 360000 nodes (Fig.
15) and time step 2*10-5 s were used. Standard wall
functions were applied, hence the y+ value lies between 30
and 80.
Fig. 15: Computational domain around ALE15 and ALE25
hydrofoil (the front wall is not represented)

They are given by: Approximately 40 iterations per time step were needed to
obtain a converged solution.
2 ( pv − p)
⋅ (1 − f v − f g ) , (19)
k Conditions applied for the simulation were the following:
Re = C e ⋅ ⋅ ρl ⋅ ρv ⋅ ⋅ • Boundary condition: Imposed velocity at inlet and static
γ 3 ρl
pressure at outlet. The channel walls are also considered
so that the possible wall effects are taken into account.
when pv > p, and by:
• Initial transient treatment: A low velocity was initially
applied to the flow field, for which no vapour appears.
k 2 ( p − pv ) The velocity was then increased until the desired
Rc = C c ⋅ ⋅ ρl ⋅ ρl ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ fv , (20)
γ 3 ρl operating point (cavitation number) was reached. The
turbulence level at inlet boundary condition was set to 3
when pv < p, where Ce and Cc are empirical constants, k is %.
the local kinetic energy, γ surface tension, fv vapour mass • Although vapour-fluid mixture flow can reach sound
fraction and fg mass fraction of noncondensable (dissolved) speed at relatively low velocities, compressibility effects
gases. Ce and Cc were determined by comparing were neglected since Fluent does not allow compressible
experimental and numerical results at different multiphase flow computation.
combinations of initial conditions and geometries, reported
by Singhal et al. (2002); their values are 0.02 and 0.01 It was shown by Coutier-Delgosha et al. (2003) that
respectively. plausible results can be obtained without consideration of
compressibility effects if a modification of turbulent
Turbulence model viscosity is applied. Despite the compressibility effects
The RNG k-ε turbulence model was applied for solving the were neglected is the simulation capable to predict many
transport equations of the turbulent kinetic energy and its features of the developed cavitating flow (like cloud
dissipation rate. The model itself is unable to correctly separation and re-entrant jet) but for example cannot
simulate the unsteady behaviour of cavitation. After an predict the shock waves that are emitted at cavitation cloud
initial fluctuation of the cavity volume, the calculation collapse.

8
Sequence of images of numerical simulation of cavitation
around ALE25 hydrofoil is presented. Isosurfaces of 10 %
vapour volume fractions are shown (the value of 10 %
vapour volume fraction was chosen on the basis of
previous experience that shows that it relates best to the
real cavity shapes) (Okita & Kajishima 2002). The time
delay between the images is 0.6 ms. As in the experiment
(Fig. 2) a steady attached cavitation can be seen in the
region where the hydrofoil is the longest. The cloud
separation occurs only in the region where the hydrofoil is
the shortest. The cavitation structure firstly grows. The re-
entrant jet (not presented in the sequence) causes the
cavitation cloud separation in the region near the front
wall. The separated cloud travels with the flow and
implodes downstream in a higher pressure region. The
implosion of the cloud forms a new re-entrant jet that
causes the next cavitation cloud separation.
Fig. 16: Numerically predicted time evolution of cavitation
structure on ALE25 hydrofoil at σ = 2.3
CFD PREDICTION OF CAVITATION EROSION
Finally, the results of numerical simulations were used as
an input into the cavitation erosion model. This way, the
cavitation erosion was predicted solely on the basis of
numerical simulations and the cavitation erosion model.
Fig. 17 shows the numerically predicted pit distribution for
the CLE hydrofoil for cavitation numbers σ = 2.0, 2.3 and
2.5, low gas content and flow velocity v = 13 m/s.
Fig. 17: CFD predicted damage on CLE hydrofoil at
cavitation numbers σ = 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5
9
The numerically predicted damage distribution shows good
correlation to the experimentally measured one (Fig. 4).
When the cavitation number is decreased the model
correctly predicts the maximum of damage to move away
from the hydrofoil leading edge towards the back of the
hydrofoil. The predicted damage is more evenly distributed
along the hydrofoil surface (no significant location of
extremely aggressive cavitation can be seen). The model
correctly predicts the cavitation in the case with cavitation
number σ = 2.3 to be the most aggressive one.
Numerically predicted pit distributions for the ALE25
hydrofoils at cavitation number σ = 2.3, low gas content
and flow velocity v = 13 m/s can be seen in Fig. 18.
Fig. 18: CFD predicted damage on ALE15 and ALE25
hydrofoils at cavitation number σ = 2.3
Similar to the model prediction from the experimental
visualization (Fig. 12) the numerical visualization model
predicts the damage to occur in a extension reaching from
the ``main damage cluster'' towards the region where the
hydrofoil length is the longest. The reason for the error is
the same as before - the small quasi steady oscillations of
cavitation cloud contribute to higher values of standard
deviation in this region. The pit distribution prediction is
nevertheless still plausible. The ES values of the model
prediction are comparable to the experimentally measured
ones.
In general the cavitation erosion model works better for the
cases with low gas content. The average discrepancy
between model predictions and experimental results was
estimated to less than 20 % for these cases.
CONCLUSIONS
In previous investigations (Dular et al. 2004a, Širok et al.
2002, Dular et al. 2005, Bachert et al. 2003) erosion on
single hydrofoils and its relationship to visual cavitation
structures was studied. It was found that the value of
standard deviation of grey level could be used as the
parameter for describing the unsteadiness of cavitation
and that this parameter could be used as an input for the
cavitation erosion model. Effects of parameters as the
flow velocity and the water gas content were also studied
and some physical explanations were given.
This paper presents the development of the cavitation
erosion model, which is based on the knowledge that was
gained during past measurements. The model is capable
of predicting the magnitude and distribution of damage
caused by cavitation erosion. It is also capable to
reproduce the influences of flow velocity and water gas
content.
A CFD simulation of cavitating flow was performed and
the numerical results were used as an input data to the
cavitation erosion model. The numerically predicted
cavitation erosion distribution and magnitude agree
relatively well to the measurements.
The presented results promise a good possibility of
prediction and control of damage caused by cavitation
erosion in real hydraulic machines.
REFERENCES
Bachert B., ‘Zusammenhang zwichen visueller
Erscheinung und erosiver Agressivität kavitierenden
Strömungen - PhD Thesis’, Technische Universität
Darmstadt, 2004
Bachert B., Ludwig G., Stoffel B., Širok B., Novak M.,
‘Experimental Investigations Concerning Erosive
Aggressiveness of Cavitation in a Radial Test Pump With
the Aid of Adhesive Copper Films’, Procedings of the
Fifth International Symposium on Cavitation, Osaka,
Japan, 2003
Beranek L.L., ‘Acoustics’, Acoustical society of America,
New York, 1996
Böhm R., ‘Erfassung und hydrodynamische
Beeinflussung fortgeschrittener Kavitationsustände und
ihrer Aggressivität - PhD Thesis’, Technische Universität
Darmstadt, 1998
Brennen C.E., ‘Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics’, Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford, 1995
Coutier-Delgosha O., Fortes-Patella R., Reboud J.L.,
‘Evaluation of turbulence model influence on the
numerical simulations on unsteady cavitation’, Journal of
Fluids Engineering, 125, pp. 38-45, 2003.
Dular M., Bachert B., Stoffel B., Širok B., ‘Relationship
between cavitation structures and cavitation damage’,
Wear 257, pp. 1176–1184, 2004
Dular M., Bachert R., Stoffel B., Širok B., ‘Experimental
evaluation of numerical simulation of cavitating flow
around hydrofoil’, European Journal of Mechanics -
B/Fluids, Vol. 24 (4), pp. 522-538, 2005
Dular M., Širok B., Stoffel B., ‘Influence of gas content
in water and flow velocity on cavitation erosion
aggressiveness’, Journal of Mechanical Engineering,
2005
Fortes-Patella R., Reboud J.L., Archer A., ‘Cavitation
Damage Measurement by 3D Laser Profilometry’, Wear
246, 2000
Fortes-Patella R., Reboud J.L., Briancon-Marjollet L., ‘A
Phenomenological and Numerical Model for Scaling the
10
Flow Agrssiveness in Cavitation Erosion’, Workshop on
Cavitation Erosion, Bassin d'essais des carenes, Val de
Reuil, France, 2004
Hammitt F. G., ‘Cavitation Erosion, The State of The Art
And Predicting Capability’, Appl. Mech. Rev., 32 (6), pp.
665–675, 1979
Hofmann M., ‘Ein Beitrag zur Verminderung des erosiven
Potentials kavitierender Stömungen - PhD Thesis’,
Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2001
Knapp R.T., Daily J.W., Hammitt F.G., ‘Cavitation’,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, London, 1970
Lohrberg H., ‘Messung und aktive Kontrolle der erosiven
Aggressivität der Kavitation in Turbomaschinen - PhD
Thesis’, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2001
Lush P.A., ‘Impact of a liquid mass on a perfectly plastic
solid’, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 135, pp. 373-387,
1983
Okita K., Kajishima T., ‘Three-Dimensional Computation
of Unsteady Cavitating Flow in a Cascade’, The 9th of
International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and
Dynamics of Rotating Machinery Honolulu, Hawaii,
2002
Pereira F., Avellan F., Dupont Ph., ‘Prediction of
Cavitation Erosion: An Energy Approach’, Journal of
Fluids Engineering, Vol. 120, pp. 719-727, 1998
Plesset M.S., Chapman R.B., ‘Collapse of an Innitially
Spherical Vapour Cavity in the Neighbourhood of a Solid
Boundary’, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 47, pp. 283-
290, 1971
Reboud J.L., Fortes-Patella R., Archer A., ‘Analysis of
damaged surfaces: Part I: Cavitation mark measurements
by 3D laser profilometry’, Proceedings of the 3rd ASME /
JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San
Francisco CA, 1999
Reboud J.L., Stutz B., Coutier O., ‘Two-phase flow
structure of cavitation: experiment and modelling of
unsteady effects’, Third International Symposium on
Cavitation, Grenoble, France, 1998
Shimada M., Kobayashi T., Matsumuto Y., ‘Dynamics of
Cloud Cavitation and Cavitation Erosion’, Proceedings of
the ASME/JSME Fluids Engineering Division Summer
Meeting, San Francisco CA, 1999
Singhal A.K., Li H., Atahavale M.M., Jiang Y.,
‘Mathematical Basis and Validation of the Full Cavitation
Model’, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 124, pp. 617-624,
2002
Stutz B., Reboud J.L., ‘Measurements within unsteady
cavitation’, Experiments in Fluids 29, 2000

Širok B., Dular M., Novak M., Hocevar M., Stoffel B.,
Ludwig G., Bachert B., ‘The Influence of Cavitation
Structures on the Erosion of a Symmetrical Hydrofoil in a
Cavitation Tunnel’, Journal of Mechanical Engineering,
Vol. 48, No. 7, p. 368-378, 2002

11