Type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.

) 1

Effects of lateral flows on the supercavitation and hydrody- 2

namic charecteristics of underwater series and parallel high- 3

speed projectiles 4

Lite Zhang 1, Chengwei Zhang 1 and Huixia Jia 1,* 5

1 National-Provincial Joint Engineering Laboratory for Fluid Transmission System Technology, Zhejiang Sci- 6
Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China; langzichsh@zstu.edu.cn 7
* Correspondence: huixia.jia@zstu.edu.cn 8

Citation: To be added by editorial
staff during production.
Abstract: In the real ocean environment there are ocean currents. When the direction of the projectile 9
movement is different with that of the currents, the currents will affect the supercavitation of the 10
moving objects. In this paper, the supercavitation of the parallel and tandem projectiles moving 11
underwater with high-speed under the condition with/without lateral flows is numerically simu- 12
lated by the volume of fracion (VOF) model. The motion of the projectiles was handled by the over- 13
lapping grid and 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) techniques. The supercavitation evolution and the 14
hydrodynamic characteristics of the projectiles were analyzed for the parallel and tandem projec- 15
tiles under different conditions. The results show that the cavity shape is symmetrical under the 16
condition without lateral flows but no longer asymmetrical under the conditions with lateral flows. 17
The asymmetry of the cavity contour increases with the velocity of the lateral flow. For the parallel 18
projectiles, the change trend of the axial velocity of the projectile 1 and projectile 2 is nearly the same. 19
The offset velocity of the projectile 1 and projectile 2 increases with the increase of the velocity of 20
the lateral flow. The deflection angle of the projectile 1 decreases with the increase of the lateral flow 21
velocity but that of the Projectile 2 increases with the increase of the lateral flow velocity. At t = 22
3.0ms, the deflection angle of the projectile 2 is up to 20°under the condition of the lateral flow 23
velocity of 11.25%, while the deflection angle of the projectile 1 and 2 under other conditions is in 24
the range of 5°. For the tandem projectiles, the axial velocity of the projectile 1 gradually decrease. 25
The change trend of the axial velocity of the projectile 2 at first is the same as that of the projectile 1, 26
and then the change is dependent on the velocity of the lateral flow. Under the condition of the 27
lateral flow velocity with 11.25%Vp, the projectile 2 can not enter the cavity of the front projectile. 28
The change trend of the axial velocity of the projectile 2 is similar as but some slower than that of 29
the projectile 1. For the parallel projectiles, the ballistic stability of the projectile on the oncoming 30
side is better than that of the projectile on the backflow side. Whether parallel or tandem projectiles, 31
the ballistic stability of the projectile 2 becomes worse with the increase of the lateral flow velocity. 32

Academic Editor: Firstname Last-

name Keywords: supercavitation; lateral flow; parallel projectiles; tandem projectiles 33
34
Received: date
Revised: date
Accepted: date
1. Introduction 35
Published: date
The pressure around the object moving underwater will decrease with the increase 36
of its velocity. When the pressure is reduced to the local saturated steam pressure, cavita- 37

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

tion will happen[1]. When the cavity wraps around the entire surface of the object, the so- 38

Submitted for possible open access

called "supercavitation" is formed[2]. The drag reduction of the object wrapped by super- 39
publication under the terms and con- cavitation can be more than 90%[3]. So, the supercavitation technology is extensively ap- 40
ditions of the Creative Commons At- plied in the underwater guns, underwater high-speed torpedoes, anti-submarine rockets, 41
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre- submarine-launched missiles and other weapons. Therefore, it is important to understand 42
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). the supercavitation mechanism. 43

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19

In view of the supercavitation flow, researches have carried out a lot of theoretical 44
and experimental research. Savchenko et al. [4,5] conducted a large number of experi- 45
mental studies on the supercavitation flow of high-speed underwater objects and im- 46
proved the empirical formula of the supercavitation shapes with cavitation numbers in 47
the range of 0.012 to 0.057. 48
Hrubes et al. [6] carried out the study of the cavity characteristics and ballistic stabil- 49
ity of underwater projectiles with the speed of up to 1100m/s. They found that the instan- 50
taneous impact caused by the collapse of the cavity is very huge, which can reach more 51
than 200 gravitational accelerations. 52
Vlasenko et al. [7] experimentally analyzed the shape of the cavitation under sub- 53
sonic and supersonic conditions, and obtained the influence of compressibility on the su- 54
percavitation flow. Nguyen et al. [8] numerically analyzed the characteristic parameters 55
of supercavitation flow around supersonic and transonic projectiles. 56
Truscott et al. [9] experimentally investigated the water-entry of spheres at small at- 57
tack angles and discussed the influence of different sizes of spheres and attack angles on 58
the supercavitation. It was found that the projectile with a low aspect ratio is prone to roll 59
in the supercavity, while the projectile with a high aspect ratio can lean against the inner 60
surface of the supercavity to reduce the roll behavior. 61
Li et al. [10] numerically studied the effect of the initial velocity, rotation speed and 62
attack angles of projectiles on the ballistic characteristics during the water-entry process. 63
The results show that the rotation speed of the projectile has little effect on the velocity of 64
the projectile, but it affects the movement stability of the projectile. 65
Saranjam et al. [11] experimentally and theoretically investigated the cavitation shape 66
and the motion trajectory of the bodies moving underwater. 67
Fan et al. [12] numerically studied the effect of the seabed obstacles on the shape of 68
the supercavitation. They found that at the same distance the larger the size of the obsta- 69
cle, the greater the impact on cavitation. 70
Guo et al. [13] experimentally and theoretically investigated the horizontal water en- 71
try behavior of different head shapes and proposed a model of the drag coefficient of the 72
projectile independent of the cavitation number. They found that with a certain head 73
shape the drag coefficient increases as the impact speed increases and the drag coefficient 74
of the projectile with an oblique head shape is the smallest among different head shapes. 75
Wang et al [14] experimentally investigated the effect of the head shape on the inter- 76
ference of underwater continuous multi-launch projectiles and found that tapered projec- 77
tiles have a more stable trajectory. 78
Lu et al. [15] numerically simulated the flow field of two continuously launched pro- 79
jectiles and analyzed the interaction between the wake vortex and the projectile with dif- 80
ferent launch velocities and launch sequences. They found that the stability of the latter 81
projectile is significantly affected by the wake vortex. 82
Xu et al. [16] numerically studied the water-entry of asynchronouslly parallel projec- 83
tiles. They found that the cavity of the asynchronouslly parallel projectiles is deformed 84
because of the interaction of the two projectiles. The movement stability of the latter pro- 85
jectile is worse than that of the front one. 86
Lu et al. [17] numercially simulated the supercavition flow of two parallel projectiles. 87
They found that the parallel projectiles are more easily wrapped by the supercavition than 88
a single projectile. 89
Zhou et al. [18] numericall simulated the water-entry and water-exit of two succes- 90
sively fired projectiles. They found that the second projectile can enter into the cavity of 91
the first projectile. 92
All of the above studies were carried out in still water without considering the pres- 93
ence of lateral flow. The researches considering the presence of lateral flow are relatively 94
few. 95
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Yu et al. [19] numericall simulated the water-entry of synchronously parallel projec- 96

tiles under conditions with lateral flow. They found that the head of the projectiles ap- 97
proach each other with a lower velocity of the lateral flow, while the head of the projectiles 98
seperate from each other with a higher velocity of the lateral flow. 99
Wang et al. [20] numerically analyzed the influence of the lateral flow velocity on the 100
supercavitation using OPENFoam. They found that the higher the convection velocity, 101
the weaker the influence of the lateral flow on the cavity profile and drag force under the 102
same lateral velocity. 103
In the above studies considering the effect of the lateral flow, it should be pointed out 104
that the change of the velocity and the trajectory of the projectile was not considered, that 105
is, the projectile is fixed in the researches, which is unreasonable in the real problem. 106
In this study, the cavitation flow of tandem projectiles and parallel projectiles under 107
different lateral flow conditions are numerically simulated. The attenuation of projectile 108
velocity and the deflection of ballistic trajectory of the parallel and tandem projectiles was 109
considered by the six degrees of freedom (6DOF) technology. The effect of the lateral flow 110
on the cavitation and kinematic characteristics of the projectiles are analyzed and dis- 111
cussed. 112

2. Theoretical model and numerical methods 113

The flow is two-phase flow when a projectile moves underwater with high speeds 114
considering the cavitation of the water. In the paper, the volume of fraction (VOF) model 115
was used to solve the two-phase flow field. The continuity and momentum equations of 116
the mixed-phase are given in the following. 117

    ui 
 0 (1)
t  xi

  ui    uiu j  P  ij
    SM (2)
t xi x j xi

where ρ is the density of mixed phase; t is time; ui is the velocity compoment of the 118
mixed phase in the i-direction; P is the pressure; τij is the viscous shear stress and given 119
below. 120

 u u j  2 u 
 ij    i
    ij l  (3)
 x j xi  3 xl 

121
where μ is the dynamic viscosity of the mixed phase, δij is the Kroneker symbol, SM 122
is an additional source term. The expressions of ρ and μ are respectively: 123

   v  v  (1   v ) l (4)

   v v  (1   v ) l (5)

whereαv is the volume fraction of water vapor phase; ρl and ρv are the density of 124
water and water vapor, respectively; μl andμv are the dynamic viscosity of water and water 125
vapor, respectively. 126

127
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

In this paper, the RNG k-ε turbulence model [21] was used to simulate the turbulent 128
flow field. The governing equations of turbulent kinetic energy κ and dissipation rate ε 129
are respectively: 130

  k    kui    k 
  k eff   Gk   (6)
t xi x j  x j 

       u i       2
      eff   C1 G k  C 2   (7)
t  xi  xi  x j  k k

where κ is the turbulent kinetic energy; ε is the dissipation rate; 𝜇 = 𝜇 + 𝜇 , μt is 131

turbulence viscosity; ακ, αε are the Prandtl numbers of negative effects of κ and ε, respec- 132
tively; Gk is the turbulent kinetic energy generated by the velocity gradient; C1ε, C1ε is the 133
empirical constant of turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation rate, respectively. 134
135
Schnerr-Sauer cavitation model [22] was adopted to consider water cavitation. The gen- 136
eral form of its equation is: 137


  V V   · V V vV   Re  Rc (8)
t
where Re and Rc are the evaporation- and condensation rate, respectively and given 138
in the following. 139

V 1 3 2  PV  P 
Re   1  v   ,P  P (9)
 v rB 3  1  V

V 1 3 2  P  PV 
Rc  v 1  v   ,P  P (10)
 rB 3  1  V

where rBis the radius of the gas core; Pv is the saturated vapor pressure of water. 140
141
The physical model of the projectile is shown in Figure 1, which is a cylinder with the 142
length L = 36mm and diameter D = 6mm. The ratio of the length to the diameter is 6. 143

144
Figure 1. Physical model of the projectile 145

Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the computational domain and boundary conditions of the 146
numerical simulation for the parallel and tandem projectiles in the environment with lat- 147
eral flow. The computational domain is a rectangular area of 90D × 25D × 25D. The size of 148
the domain is enough to avoid boundary effects and satify the requirement of the free 149
movement of projectiles. As shown in Figs. 2(b) and 3(b), the lower boundary condition is 150
set as the velocity inlet, the surface of the projectile is set as no-slip wall, and the other 151
boundary conditions are the pressure outlet. The spacing between two parallel projectiles 152
is ΔHp = D; the spacing between two tandem projectiles is ΔHc = 6D. The initial velocity 153
of the projectile is along the x-axis and the lateral inflow is along the z-axis. 154
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

155
156
(a) Three-dimensional view 157
158

159
160
(b) Two-dimensional view 161

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the computational domain and boundary conditions of the parallel 162
projectiles 163
164

165
(a) Three-dimensional view 166

167
(b) Two-dimensional view 168

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the computational domain and boundary conditions of the tandem 169
projectiles 170
171
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

172

173
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the two-dimensional grid in the xoy plane 174

The 2-dimension view (in xoy plane) of the used 3-dimension meshes for the simu- 175
lation of underwater movement of the parallel and series projectiles is given in Figure 4. 176
In the whole domain structured grids were adopted, and around the projectile the mesh 177
was densified. The motion of the projectile is hanled by overlapping meshes and 6 degrees 178
of freedom (DOF) techniques. The background grid covers the entire computational do- 179
main and the component grid is around every projectile. 180
In the numerical simulation, the pressure-velocity fields are solved by coupled algo- 181
rithm, The space discretization of the pressure field adopts PRESTO! scheme. The Modi- 182
fied HRIC scheme was used to handle the interface of phases. In the simulation the used 183
time step is 1×10-6s. 184

3. Verification of grid independence and numerical methods 185

In the numerical simulations of this paper, the grid-independence verification was 186
first performed. Three sets of grids with different density (case1, case2, case3) are estab- 187
lished for the simulation of a single projectile, and the number of grids is 0.6 million 188
(case1), 1.4 million (case2) and 1.8 million (case3), respectively. Figure 5 shows the com- 189
parison of the velocity variation of the projectile for cases 1-3. It can be seen from the figure 190
that the difference between case 1 and cace 2 is some obvious in the locally enlarged dia- 191
gram, but the difference between case 2 and case 3 can be neglected even in the locally 192
enlarged diagram. Considering the calculation accuracy and computational efficiency, the 193
same grid topology and grid density as in case 2 are used in the later numerical simula- 194
tions. 195

196
Figure 5. Comparison of velocity change of the projectile for three cases with different grid numbers 197
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

On the basis of the mesh-independence verification, the simulation results were com- 198
pared with the experimental data. [13] The parameters of the geometry and initial motion 199
of the projectile in the numerical simulation is the same with that in the experiment. The 200
diameter and lenth of the cylinder is 12.66 mm and 25.4 mm, respectively, and the initial 201
velocity of the projectile is 146 m/s. Figure 6(a) shows the comparison of the profile of the 202
supercavitation at different times between the experimental data and numerical results. It 203
can be seen that the numerical results and the experimental data agree well and the max- 204
imum error is about 3.2%. Figure 6(b) and Figure 6(c) show the comparison of the change 205
of the velocity and displacement along the initial direction of the projectile between the 206
simulation results and experimental data, respectively. Similarly, it can be seen that the 207
agreement between the simulation results and the experimental data are good. 208

209
(a) Supercavitation profile 210

211
(b) Velocity change of the projectile with time 212

213

(c) Displacement change of the projectile with the time 214

Figure 6. Comparison between simulation results and experimental data.[13] 215

4. Results and discussions 216

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

4.1. Supercavitation flow of parallel projectiles under the effect of lateral flow 217
In this section, the supercavitation flow field of two parallel projectiles was simulated 218
under different conditions with and without lateral flow. The spacing △Hp between the 219
two parallel projectiles is the same as the diamter D of the projectile. The initial velocity 220
of both projectiles is Vp = 80m/s, which is along the x-axis. The lateral flow direction is 221
perpendicular to the direction of the initial velocity of the projectile and along the z-axis. 222
The three investigated velocity Vc of the lateral flow is 3.75%Vp, 7.5%Vp and 11.25%Vp, re- 223
spectively. 224
When two projectiles move in parallel, the projectile, which is first affected by the 225
lateral flow, is defined as Projectile 1 and the other is named Projectile 2. Figure 7 shows 226
the water phase diagram of the supercavitation flow field of the parallel projectiles under 227
different conditions. Figure 7(a) shows the cavity evolution around the two parallel pro- 228
jectiles without lateral flow. It can be seen from Figure 7(a) that at t = 0.2ms the cavities 229
firstly appear at the shoulders and tail of the projectile. The shoulder cavity around every 230
projectile is not symmetrical and the size of the cavity in the inside zone between the two 231
projectiles is smaller than that in the outside zone, which may be caused by the higher 232
pressure in the zone between the two projectiles. At t = 0.8ms, the cavity size gradually 233
increases and tends to form a supercavity, but at this time, the cavity size in the inside 234
zone is still obviously smaller than that in the outside zone. At this time, it is also observed 235
that the direction of the movement of the two projectiles is symmetrically changed. At t = 236
1.4ms, the two cavities at the tail of the two projectiles are fused into one cavity and the 237
size of the cavity continues to increase. The trajectories of the two projectiles continues to 238
symmetrically deflect. At t = 2ms, the size of the cavity is larger. In addition, if the two 239
projectiles are viewed as a whole and named as parallel projectile group, under the con- 240
dition without lateral flow the cavitation around the parallel projectile group is symmet- 241
rical, and the trajectory change of the two projectiles is also symmetrical: the heads of both 242
projectiles are deflected by a tendency to separate from each other. 243

244
Figure 7. Evolution of the cavitation of parallel projectiles at different conditions 245

Figure 7(b) shows the cavity evolution under the condition of the lateral flow velocity 246
with 3.75%Vp. It can be observed that the symmetry of the cavitation profile of the parallel 247
projectile group dissappears under the condion with a lateral flow. 248
Even at t = 0.2ms, it can be observed that the size of the cavity of the projectile 1 is 249
bigger than that of the projectile 2 in the inside zone, while in the outside zone the size of 250
the cavity of the projectile 1 is smaller than that of the projectile 2. The reason may be as 251
follows: on one hand, under the effect of the lateral flow, the size of the cavity on the 252
oncoming side is decreased and that on the backflow side is increased; on the other hand, 253
the higher pressure between the two parallel projectiles suppresses the growth of the cav- 254
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

ity on the inside zone. At t = 0.8ms, it can be observed that the cavity profile on the on- 255
coming side of the projectile 2 is thinner than that under the condition with no lateral flow. 256
At t =1.4 ms, the cavity profile on the oncoming side of the projectile 2 becomes thinner, 257
so that the rewetted zone appears at the tail of the projectiles. In addition, the fusion pro- 258
cess of the cavity at the tail under this conditon has not been completed (Figure 7(b)), 259
while under the condition without lateral flows this process is already completed at this 260
time. 261
Comparing Figs. 7b, 7c and 7d, it can be seen that with the velocity increase of the 262
lateral flow the thickness of the cavity on the oncoming side of the projectile 1 and 2 de- 263
creases, while the thickness of the cavity on the backflow side increases. Because the on- 264
coming side of the projectile 2 locates in the inside zone between two projectiles, the size 265
of the cavity on the oncoming side of the projectile 2 is smaller than that of the projectile 266
1 under the same condition. Thus, the rewetted zone easily appears on the oncoming side 267
of the projectile 2. Furthermore, the rewetted zone increases with the increase of the lateral 268
flow velocity. 269
At t = 0.8ms, under the condition without lateral flow, the wall of the projectile 2 has 270
been completely covered by the cavity; under the condition of the lateral flow velocity 271
with 3.75%Vp, the cavity on the oncoming side of the rojectile 2 obviously decreases and 272
tends to disappear at the tail; under the condition of the lateral flow velocity with 7.5%Vp, 273
the wall on the oncoming side at the tail of the projectile 2 is re-wetted; under the condition 274
of the lateral flow velocity with 11.25%Vp, the rewetted zone increases. It can be also seen 275
from Fig. 7 that the deflection of the trajectory of the projectile 2 become bigger with the 276
increase of the velocity of the lateral flow, while the deflection of Projectile 1 seems to be 277
smaller. 278
Figure 8 shows the comparison of the cavitation profiles of two projectiles at t = 2ms 279
under different conditions. The abscissa and ordinate are the dimensionless length Lc/D 280
and diameter Dc/D of the cavity, respectively. It can be seen from the figure that the cavity 281
around the projectile group is symetrical under the condition without lateral flow, and for 282
the every projectile in the projectile group, the size of the cavity on the outer side of the 283
projectile group is larger than that on the inner side. In the presence of the lateral flow, 284
the cavity contour of the projectile group is no longer symmetrical. And with the increase 285
of the lateral flow velocity, the cavity size of the projectile 1 on the inner side decreases 286
while the size on the outer side increases. The change of the cavity size of the projectile 2 287
is opposite to that of Projectile 1: the size on the inner side decreases while increases on 288
the outer side. 289

290
Figure 8. Comparison of the cavitation contours at t = 2ms 291
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Figure 9(a)(b) shows the pressure and velocity contours around the projectile group 292
under the condition of the lateral flow velocity with Vc=7.5%Vp at t = 2ms. It can be seen 293
from Fig. 9(a) that the pressure near the head of projectiles is higher and that near the tail 294
is lower. Near the head of the projectile 2, the pressure distribution of the inner and outer 295
sides is asymmetrical, and the inner side pressure is slightly higher than that of the outer 296
side, which makes the projectile 2 deflect clockwise, which can also be seen in the subse- 297
quent results of the deflection angle of the projectiles. In addition, it can been seen that in 298
the middle zone between two projectiles the pressure near the projectile head is higher 299
than that near the projectile tail. For this reason, the heads of the two projectiles deflect 300
from each other. In Fig. 9(b), it can be seen that near the projectiles the velocity on the 301
backflow side is some greater than that on the oncoming side due to the effect of the lateral 302
flow. And the velocity on the backflow side of the projectile 2 is slightly greater than that 303
of the projectile 1. 304

305
306
(a) Pressure contour 307

308
309
(b) Velocity contour 310

Figure 9. Pressure and velocity contours around the projectiles under the condition of the lateral 311
flow velocity with Vc=7.5%Vp ( t = 2ms) 312

Figure 10 shows the change of the axial velocity of two parallel projectiles along the 313
x-axis under different conditions. The velocity of the ordinate was nondimensionalized 314
by the initial velocity Vp of the projectile. The direction of the movement of the projectile 315
is along the x-axis and the direction of the lateral flow is along the z-axis. It can be seen 316
from the figure that for different conditions the change trend of the axial velocity of the 317
projectiles is nearly the same. From the locally enlarged diagram, it can be seen that the 318
change of the axial velocity under conditions with lateral flow is faster than that under the 319
condition without lateral flows. The reduction of the axial velocity becomes some faster 320
with the increase of the velocity of the lateral flow. In addition, the reduction of the veloc- 321
ity of the projectile 2 is slightly faster than that of the projectile 1 under the same condition, 322
which may be due to the re-wetted of the wall on the inner side of the projectile 2. 323
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

324
Figure 10. The change of the axial velocity of the parallel projectiles under different conditions 325

326
In the investigated cases, the initial velocity of the projectiles is along the x-axis, and 327
the initial velocity component in the y- and z-direction is zero. The lateral flow is along 328
the z-axis. It can be known from the simulation results that the offset velocity in the y- 329
direction is much smaller than that in the z-direction. Thus, in the following section the 330
offset velocity in the y-direction is neglected and no longer dicussed. Thus, only the offset 331
velocity in the z-direction is given and discussed. Correspondingly, it can be considered 332
that the projectiles move in the xoz plane and the deflection angle around the y-axis will 333
only be given and discussed later. 334
Figures 11 and 12 show the change of the offset velocity and displacement of the two 335
parallel projectiles in the z-direction under different conditions. The displacement of the 336
ordinate in Figure 12 is nondimensionalized using the projectile diameter D. 337
It can be seen from Figure 11 that in the case of no lateral flow the offset velocity of 338
the projectile 1 and 2 is relatively small and in the range of 1m/s, which can also be verifed 339
in the change of the displacement. At t = 3.0ms, the change of the displacement of the 340
projectile 1 is less than 0.2D. 341
Under the conditions with lateral flows, the offset velocity for both projectiles in- 342
creases with the increase of the velocity of the lateral flow. 343

344
Figure 11. The change of the offset velocity of the Figure 12. The change of the displacement of the 345
projectiles in the z-direction projectiles in the z-direction 346
347
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Under the condition of the lateral flow velocity with 3.75%Vp, the offset velocity of 348
the projectile 2 is slightly higher than that of Projectile 1 at first and then slightly lower 349
than that of the projectile 1 later. And the lateral spacing between the two projectiles re- 350
mains nearly the same (Figure 12). When the lateral flow velocity is 7.5%Vp, the offset 351
velocity of the projectile 2 is higher than that of the projectile 1. The spacing between the 352
two projectiles increases (Figure 12). Furthermore, the offset velocity of the projectile 2 353
gradually and slowly increases, while the offset velocity of the projectile 1 remains nearly 354
unchanged. For the conditions of 3.75%Vp and 7.5%Vp, the offset velocity of the two pro- 355
jectiles at t =3.0ms is 30-40% of the lateral flow velocity. 356
When the velocity of the lateral flow is increased to 11.25%Vp, the difference of the 357
offset velocity between the two projectiles increases. The offset velocity of the projectile 2 358
is higher than that of the projectile 1, and the rate of the change of the offset velocity of the 359
projectile 2 rapidly increases. At t = 3.0ms, the offset velocity of the projectile 1 is about 360
22% of the lateral flow velocity, while the offset velocity of the projectile 2 is already up to 361
about 60% of the velocity of the lateral flow. This means that the ballistic stability of the 362
projectile 2 is worse than that of the projectile 1. This may be due to the seriously rewetted 363
wall on the inner side of the projectile 2 at this condition. For the projectile 2, the pressure 364
on the inside rewetted wall is obviously higher than that on the outside wall wrapped by 365
the cavity. Thus, the offset velocity is increased. Under the condition of the lateral flow 366
velocity with 11.25%Vp, the offset velocity of the projectile 2 rapidly increases and can 367
reach about 60% of the lateral flow velocity at t = 3.0ms. 368
Here, it should be remembered that the component of the initial velocity in the y- 369
direction is zero, and the offset velocity in the y-direction is very small because the direc- 370
tion of the lateral flow is along the z-axis. It can be considered that the projectiles is nearly 371
moving in the xoz plane due to the very small offset velocity in the y-direction. Thus, the 372
deflection angle α in the xoz plane was defined to consider the change of the trajectory of 373
the projectiles due to the effect of the lateral flow. The schematic diagram of the deflection 374
angle α is given in Figure 13. It is specified that the deflection angle α is positive with a 375
counterclockwise rotation around the y-axis, and vice versa. 376

377
378
Figure 13. Schematic diagram of the deflection angle α in the xoz plane 379

380

The change of the deflection angle α with the time for different conditions is given in 381
Figure 14. It can be seen from the figure that under the condition without lateral flows the 382
projectile 1 deflects counterclockwise, while Projectile 2 deflects clockwise. The deflection 383
angle of both the projectile 1 and 2 gradually increases with the time. 384
Under the conditon with lateral flows, the counterclockwise deflection angle of the 385
projectile 1 decreases with the increase of the velocity of the lateral flow, while the clock- 386
wise deflection angle of the projectile 2 increases with the velocity increase of the lateral 387
flow. The deflection angles of the projectile 1 and 2 are within 5° under the condition of 388
the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp and 7.5%Vp at t = 3.0ms. 389
Under the condition of the velocity of the lateral flow with 11.25%Vp, the deflection 390
angle of the projectile 2 rapidly increases and can reach up to about 20° at t = 3.0ms, while 391
that of the projectile 1 is only about 1°. This means the ballistic stability of the projectile 1 392
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

is much better than that of the projectile 2. And the trajectory of the projectile 2 signifi- 393
cantly deviates from the initial one. 394

395
396

Figure 14. The change of the deflection angle α versus time 397

The decrease of the deflection angle of the projectile 1 may be due to the fact that for the pro- 398
jectile 1 the effect of the high-pressure on the inner side of the projectile 1 induced by the presence 399
of the projectile 2 and the action on the outside of the projectile 1 induced by the lateral flow are 400
canceled out each other to some extent. For the projectile 2, the oncoming side of the lateral flow is 401
on the innerside of the projectile 2. Then, the effect of the high pressure between two projectiles and 402
the lateral flow are superimposed on the innerside of the projectile 2. Thus, the deflection angle of 403
the projectile 2 increases with the increase of the lateral flow velocity. 404

4.2. Supercavitation flow of the tandem projectiles in a lateral flow environment 405
In this section, the supercavitation flow field of two tandem projectiles with different 406
lateral flow velocities will be discussed. The spacing △Hc between the two tandem pro- 407
jectiles is 6D. The initial velocity Vp of the two projectiles is 80m/s, which is the same with 408
that for the parallel projectiles. And the lateral flow velocity Vc is also the same as that 409
used in the investigation of the parallel projectiles, which are 3.75%Vp, 7.5%Vp and 410
11.25%Vp, respectively. 411
Figure 15 shows the water phase diagram of the tandem projectiles moving under- 412
water for different conditions. Figure 15(a) shows the cavitation evolution under the con- 413
dition without lateral flows. In the figure, the projectiles move from the right to the left. 414
It can be seen from Figure 15(a) both the first and second projectiles have been 415
wrapped by the cavity at t = 1ms. And the shape of the cavity is basically symmetrical 416
along the axis of the projectile. The length of the cavity of both projectiles is nearly the 417
same. At t = 1.6ms, the head of the second projectile comes into contact with the tail of the 418
cavity of the first projectile. At this time, the cavity profile near the head of the second 419
projectile bocomes thinner because of the extrusion of the tail cavity of the first projectile. 420
At t = 2.2ms, the head of the second projectile has entered into the cavity of the front pro- 421
jectile and the cavity of the second projectile is extruded to the tail of itself by the influence 422
of the cavity of the first projectile. At t = 3.4ms, the second projectile has completely en- 423
tered into the cavity of the front projectile. The distance between the two projectiles is 424
decreased. This means that the speed of the second projectile may be greater than that of 425
the first one, which can be verified in the following results about the velocity change. The 426
cluster of the cavity falling off the second projectile will collapse under the action of the 427
surrounding fluid. 428
Figure 15(b) shows the cavity evolution for the condition with the lateral flow veloc- 429
ity of 3.75%Vp. It can be observed from the figure that the symmetry of the cavity profile 430
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

for the two projectiles no longer exists, which is due to the influence of the lateral flow. At 431
t = 1.0ms, it is already observed that the size of the cavity on the oncoming side of the two 432
projectiles is smaller than that on the backflow side. At t = 2.2ms the asymmetry of the 433
cavity can be also obviously observed. On the oncoming side a part of the wall of the 434
second projectile is still wetted, while on the backflow side the wall of the second projectile 435
is completely wrapped by the cavity of the front projectile. 436
When the lateral flow velocity increases to 7.5%Vp, the asymmetry of the cavity pro- 437
file is enhanced (Figure 15(c)). This asymmetry results in the increase of the wetted area 438
on the oncoming side of the second projectile, compared Figure 15(b) and 15(c) at t = 2.2ms 439
or 3.4ms . At t = 3.4ms, the second projectile has entered the cavity of the first projectile, 440
but there is still a wetted area at the tail of the second projectile on the oncoming side 441
under this condition. Under the condition without lateral flows and with the lateral flow 442
velocity of 3.75%Vp the second projectile is completely inside the cavity of the front pro- 443
jectile at the same time. 444

445

446
Figure 15. Cavity evolution of the tandem projectiles under different conditons. (a) no lateral flow; 447
(b) the lateral flow velocity Vc = 3.75%Vp; (c) Vc = 7.5%Vp; (d) Vc = 11.25%Vp 448

The asymmetry of the cavity shape is further enhanced when the lateral flow velocity 449
increases to 11.25%Vp. At t = 1.6ms, the head of the second projectile is close to the tail of 450
the cavity of the first projectile 1, which is similar with that at the same time in Figure 451
15(a-c). However, at t = 2.2ms, the head of the second projectile still did not enter the cavity 452
of the first projectile, and a slight deflection of the trajectory of the second projectile could 453
be observed at this time. At t = 3.4ms, the trajectory of the second projectile continues to 454
deflect. The second projectile still moves forward in its own cavity, without entering the 455
cavity of the front projectile like that under other conditions. It can be also observed that 456
the cavity size of the first projectile is reduced due to the influence of the second projectile. 457
At this time, the size of the cavity of the second projectile is larger than that of the first 458
one. 459
Figure 16 shows the change of the axial velocity of the tandem projectiles under dif- 460
ferent conditions. The horizontal coordinate is the time, and the vertical coordinate is the 461
dimensionless velocity Vx/Vp. 462
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

It can be seen from the figure that the axial velocity of the projectile 1 gradually de- 463
creases under all of the conditions. The change of the axial velocity of the projectile 2 is 464
some different for different conditions. Under the condition without lateral flows, the 465
change trend is nearly the same as that of the projectile 1 before t = 0.75ms and after that 466
the change rate of the velocity of the projectile 2 becomes slower. After t = 1.75 ms, the 467
velocity of the projectile 2 nearly keeps constant. The reason may be due to the fact that 468
the head of the projectile 2 at this time has already enter the cavity of the front projectile, 469
and the drag on the projectile 2 is significantly reduced. At t = 3.5ms, the axial velocity of 470
the projectile 1 is reduced by about 60%, while that of the projectile 2 is reduced by only 471
about 30%. 472
Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp, the change of the axial 473
velocity of the projectile 2 is nearly the same as that under the condition with no lateral 474
flows. The reason may be as follows: the deformation of the cavity is smaller for this con- 475
dition, and then the interaction of the cavity of the two projectiles is similar with that un- 476
der the condition with no lateral flows. 477

478

Figure 16. The change of the velocity in the x-direction with the time under different conditions 479

Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 7.5%Vp, the axial velocity of the 480
projectile 2 decreases slightly faster than that under the condition with the lateral flow 481
velocity of 3.75%Vp near t = 1.5ms. After t = 1.5ms, the change of the projectile 2 is also 482
nearly unchanged. 483
Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 11.25%Vp, the change trend of 484
the velocity of the projectile 2 is similar to that of the projectile 1, but the rate of the velocity 485
change of the projectile 2 is slightly slower than that of the projectile 1. The reason may be 486
that under this condition the projectile 2 does not enter into the cavity of the projectile 1 487
and the two projectiles separately move foreward within the cavity of itself. In addition, 488
because the projectile 1 moves in front of projectile 2, the fluid behind projectile 1 has a 489
velocity along the x-direction due to the pass of the projectile 1, which is helpful to the 490
forward movement of the projectile 2. Thus, the reduction of the velocity of the projectile 491
2 is slightly slower than that of the projectile 1. At t = 3.5ms, the reduction of the axial 492
velocity of the projectile 1 and 2 is about 60% and 55% of the initial velocity, respectively. 493
Figure 17 shows the change of the velocity component in the z-direction (named as 494
offset velocity) of the tandem projectiles under different conditions. It can be seen from 495
the figure that the offset velocitiy of the projectile 1 and the projectile 2 is nearly zero under 496
the condition with no lateral flow. That is, both projectiles move forward almost along its 497
initial velocity direction under this condition. 498
Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp, the offset velocity on 499
both the projectiles is larger than that under the condition with no lateral flow. The offset 500
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

velocity of the two projectiles increases faster before t = 0.5ms, which is due to the fact that 501
during this period the projectile is not completely wrapped by the cavity and the projectile 502
is more obviously affected by the lateral flow. After t = 0.5ms, the projectile 1 was com- 503
pletely wrapped by the cavity, and the offset velocity of the projectile 1 is nearly un- 504
changed. For the projectile 2, the offset velocity also remains nearly constant during the 505
period of t = 0.5~1.5ms. During this time, the projectile 2 is wrapped by its own supercavity 506
like the projectile 1. At about t =1.6ms, the offset velocity of the projectile 2 increases. At 507
this moment, the head of the projectile 2 reaches the tail of the cavitation of the projectile 508
1 (Figure 15(b)). The cavity profile is asymmetric due to the effect of the lateral flow and 509
there is a locally wetted area near the head of the projectile 2. The pressure on the projectile 510
2 is asymmetric and the pressure on the oncoming side of the head of the projectile 2 is 511
higher than that on the other parts of the projectile wall. This results in the increase of the 512
offset velocity of the projectile 2. After the projectile 2 completely enters the cavity of the 513
projectile 1, the offset velocity keeps nearly unchanged again. 514
Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 7.5%Vp, the change trend of the 515
offset velocity of both the projectile 1 and projectile 2 is basically the same as that under 516
the conditon of the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp. However, the offset velocities of the 517
two projectiles is some increased due to the increase of the lateral flow velocity. In addi- 518
tion, at about t = 1.6ms, the rate of the increase of the offset velocity of the projectile 2 is 519
greater than that under the conditon of the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp. This may be 520
due to the increase of the asymmetry of the cavity at this condition. The rewetted area on 521
the oncoming side increases and the lateral force on the projectile 2 is increased. Thus, the 522
offset velocity is increased. At t = 3.5ms, the offset velocity of the projectile 2 reaches about 523
60% of the lateral flow velocity, while the offset velocity of the projectile 1 is only about 524
30% of that. 525

526
Figure 17. The change of the velocity in the z-direction with the time 527

Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 11.25%Vp, the offset velocities of 528
the projectile 1 and projectile 2 are overall larger than those under other conditions. For 529
the projectile 2, the offset velocity increases at t = 1.6ms, but the rate of the increase is 530
significantly lower than that under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 7.5%Vp. 531
The reason is that at this condition the projectile 2 does not enter the cavitaty of the pro- 532
jectile 1. At t = 1.6ms, the increase of the offset velocity of the projectile 2 may be not due 533
to the emergence of the rewetted area on the oncoming side of the projectile 2, but because 534
of the interaction of the cavity flow field between the two projectiles. 535
Figure 18(a) and 18(b) shows the change of the deflection angle α and the angular 536
velocity of the projectiles around the y-axis with the time for the tandem projectiles under 537
different conditions, respectively. The positive value in the ordinate indicates that the de- 538
flection angle or the angular velocity of the projectile is counterclockwise around the y- 539
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

axis, and vice versa. It can be seen from the figures that both the deflection angle α and 540
the angular velocity of the two projectiles are nearly zero in the case of no lateral flow. 541
That is, the trajectory of the projectiles hardly deflect. 542
For the three conditions with different velocity of the lateral flow, the deflect angle 543
of the projectile 1 is firstly clockwise and then counterclockwise. However, for the projec- 544
tile 2 the deflection angle varies among the different conditions. 545
Under the conditions with the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp, the clockwise deflec- 546
tion angle of the projectile 2 first increase, then decrease, and finally the projectile 2 deflect 547
counterclockwise. During the period of t = 1.5ms~2.25ms the gradient of the angular ve- 548
locity is obviously larger, which can be seen in the change of the deflection angle. The 549
reason of the larger gradient of the angular velocity will be discussed later. 550
Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 7.5%Vp, the change trend of both 551
the deflection angle and the angular velocity is similar as that under the condition of the 552
lateral flow velocity with 3.75%Vp, but after t = 1.5ms the change gradient under this con- 553
dition is more obvious than the condition with 3.75%Vp. The reason of the change of the 554
angular velocity after t = 1.5ms can be explained by Figure 19. Figure 19 gives the sche- 555
matic diagram of the pressure disctribution around the projectile 2 at two different time 556
points ( t = 1.6 ms and 2.4ms). 557
In Figure 19(a), the projectile 2 begins to enter the cavity of the front projectile (at t = 558
1.6ms). Because of the deformation of the supercavity of the front projectile, a wetted zone 559
on the oncoming side of the projectile 2 exists. At the wetted zone, the pressure is higher 560
than that on the other part of the projectile 2 is lower. Thus, the moment and the angular 561
acceleration on the projectile 2 at this time is clockwise. The counterclockwise angular 562
velocity decreases at t = 1.6ms due to the clockwise angular acceleration (Figure 18(b)). 563
In Figure 19(b), the tail of the projectile 2 is rewetted (t = 2.4ms). The pressure at the 564
rewetted zone (on the coming side of the projectile tail) is higher than that on the other 565
part of the projectile. Thus, the angular acceleration of the projectile 2 around the y-axis is 566
couterclockwise at this time. Thus, the angular velocity at t = 2.4ms increases due to the 567
couterclockwise angular acceleration. 568
For the above three conditions with no lateral flow and the lateral flow velocity of 569
3.75%Vp and 7.5%Vp, the deflection angel of both projectiles is relatively small, which is in 570
the range of 2°. 571
Under the condition with the lateral flow velocity of 11.25%Vp, the deflection angle is 572
larger than that under other conditions. Both the projectile 1 and 2 deflect firstly clockwise 573
and then couterclockwise. At t = 3.5ms, the deflection angle of the projectile 1 is about 4°, 574
while that of the projectile 2 is up to 8°. 575

576

(a) deflection angle (b) angular accelleration 577

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 19

Figure 18. Change of the deflection angle α and the angular accelleration with the time under 578

different conditions 579

580

(a) t = 1.6ms, Vc = 7.5%Vp (b) t = 2.4ms, Vc = 7.5%Vp 581

582

Figure 19. Schematic diagram of the pressure disctribution around the projectile 2 at two different 583

time points 584

585

5. Conclusions 586
In this paper, the supercavitation flow field of the parallel and tandem projectiles 587
moving underwater under several conditions was numerically simulated. The effects of 588
the lateral flow on the cavitation evolution, the change of the velocity, and the deflection 589
angle of the two projectiles were analyzed. The results of the studies are as follows: 590
(1) Under the condition without lateral flow, the shape of the cavity of the parallel 591
projectile group and every tandem projectile is symmetrical. Under the condition with the 592
lateral flow, the cavity profile is no longer symmetrical. The size of the cavity on the on- 593
coming side decreases and that on the backflow side increases. The asymmetry of the cav- 594
ity contour increases with the velocity of the lateral flow. 595
(2) For the parallel projectiles, the change trend of the axial velocity of the projectile 596
1 and projectile 2 is nearly the same. The offset velocity of the projectile 1 and projectile 2 597
increases with the increase of the velocity of the lateral flow. And the offset velocity of the 598
projectile 2 increases obviously with the increase of the velocity of the lateral flow. At t = 599
3.0ms, under the condition of the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp, the offset velocity of the 600
projectile 2 is about 33% of the lateral flow velocity, while the offset velocity is up to about 601
61% of the lateral flow velocity under the condition of the lateral flow velocity of 11.25%Vp. 602
(3) For the tandem projectiles, the change trend of the axial velocity of the projectile 603
1 and projectile 2 is different. The velocity of the projectile 1 gradually decrease. The 604
change trend of the projectile 2 is different with the different velocity of the lateral flow. 605
Under the conditions of the lateral flow velocity of 3.75%Vp and 7.5%Vp, the axial velocity 606
of the projectile 2 gradually decreases at first and then keeps nearly constant when the 607
projectile 2 enters into the cavity of the projectile 1. Under the condition of the lateral flow 608
velocity of 11.25%Vp, the change trend of the axial velocity of the projectile 2 is like that of 609
the projectile 1. 610
(4) For the parallel projectiles, the deflection angle of the projectile 1 decreases with 611
the increase of the lateral flow velocity and that of the Projectile 2 increases with the in- 612
crease of the lateral flow velocity. At t = 3.0ms, the deflection angle of the projectile 2 is up 613
to 20° under the condition of the lateral flow velocity of 11.25%Vp, while the deflection 614
angle of the projectile 1 and projectile 2 under other conditions is in the range of 5°. 615
(5) For the tandem projectiles, the deflection angle of both projectiles is nearly equal 616
to zero under the condition with no lateral flow. Under the conditions with lateral flow, 617
the deflection angle is some complex. Dependent on the deformation of the cavity, the 618
interaction of the cavity of the two projectiles and the rewetted zone on the projectile wall, 619
the deflection angle appears different change. 620
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 19

References 621
1. Brennen, C. E. Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Publisher: Cambridge University Press, Britain, 2013; pp. 110–144. 622
2. Hirt, C. W. and Nichols B. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics 623
1981, 39, 201-225. 624
3. Ceccio, S. L. Friction Drag Reduction of External Flows with Bubble and Gas Injection, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 2010, 625
42, 183-203. 626
4. Savchenko, Y. N.; Vlasenko, Y. D.; Semenenko, V. N. Experimental Studies of High-Speed Cavitated Flows. International Journal 627
of Fluid Mechanics Research 1999, 26, 365-374. 628
5. Savchenko, Y. N., Modeling the Supercavitation Processes, International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research 2001, 28, 16. 629
6. Hrubes, J. D. High-speed imaging of supercavitating underwater projectiles. Experiments in Fluids 2001, 30, 57-64. 630
7. Vlasenko, Y.D. Experimental Investigation of Supercavitaion Flow Regimes at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds. 5th International 631
Symposium on Cavitation, Japan, Osaka.(2003) 632
8. Nguyen, V. T. and Park, W. G. Numerical study of the thermodynamics and supercavitating flow around an underwater high- 633
speed projectile using a fully compressible multiphase flow model. Ocean Engineering 2022. (in press) 634
9. Truscott, T. T.;Gomez, J. T.; Beal ,D. N., et al. Shallow angle water entry of ballistic projectiles. American Physical Society, 2008. 635
10. Li, Q.; Lu, L.; Cai, T. Numerical investigations of trajectory characteristics of a high-speed water-entry projectile. AIP Advances 636
2020, 10, 095107. 637
11. Saranjam, B. Experimental and numerical investigation of an unsteady supercavitating moving body. Ocean Engineering 2013, 638
59, 9-14. 639
12. Fan, C.Y.; Li, Z.; Du, M. and Yu, R. Numerical study of supercavitating flow around high-speed underwater projectile near 640
different seabed obstacles. Applied Ocean Research 2020, 102440. 641
13. Guo, Z.; Zhang, W.; Xiao, X.; Wei, G. and Ren, P. An investigation into horizontal water entry behaviors of projectiles with 642
different nose shapes. International Journal of Impact Engineering 2012, 49, 43-60. 643
14. Lu, J. X.; Wang, C.; Song W. C.; Wei, Y. J.; Yu, D. L. and Li, Y. G. Experimental investigation on interference characteristics of 644
projectiles launched successively underwater. Ocean Engineering 2022. (in press) 645
15. Xu, H.; Wei, Y .J.; Wang, C. and Lu, J .X. On wake vortex encounter of axial-symmetric projectiles launched successively under- 646
water. Ocean Engineering 2019. 647
16. Lu, L.,; Yan, X.; Li, Q.; Wang, C.; Shen, K. C. Numerical study on the water-entry of asynchronous parallel projectiles at a high 648
vertical entry speed. Ocean Engineering 2022. (in press) 649
17. Qi, C.; Wang, X. and Lyu, X. J. On the flow characteristics of two supercavitating projectiles moving in water side-by-side. 650
Physics of Fluids 2022. (in press) 651
18. Zhou, D.H.; Shi, H.H.; Jia, H.X. Characteristics of the multiphase flow field with super-cavitation induced by successively fired 652
projectiles under-water and cross-medium. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 2022, 36, 247-258. 653
19. Yu, D. L.; Wang, C.; He, C. J. Numerical simulation of cavitation and motion characteristics of revolution bodies entering water 654
in parallel, Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2021,53(12): 23-32. (in Chinese). 655
20. Wang, M.; Fan C.Y. and Hou, G.S. Numerical research of lateral flow influence on supercavitating flow. AIP Advances 2022. (in 656
press) 657
21. Zhou, L. and Wang, Z.Numerical Simulation of Cavitation Around a Hydrofoil and Evaluation of a RNG κ-ε Model. Journal of 658
Fluids Engineering-transactions of The Asme 2008, 130, 011302. 659
22. Singhal, A. K.; Athavale, M. M.; Li, H. and Jiang, Y. Mathematical Basis and Validation of the Full Cavitation Model. Journal of 660
Fluids Engineering 2002, 124, 617-624. 661