CONDENSED MATTER: STRUCTURE, MECHANICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES |
|
|
|
|
Unsteady Cavitating Flow around a Hydrofoil Simulated Using the Partially-Averaged Navier–Stokes Model |
JI Bin, LUO Xian-Wu**, WU Yu-Lin, XU Hong-Yuan |
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084 |
|
Cite this article: |
JI Bin, LUO Xian-Wu, WU Yu-Lin et al 2012 Chin. Phys. Lett. 29 076401 |
|
|
Abstract Numerical simulations of unsteady cavitating flow around a NACA66-mod hydrofoil were performed using the partially-averaged Navier–Stokes method with different values of the resolution control parameters (fk=1.0–0.2, fϵ=1). With decreasing fk, the predicted cavitating flow becomes unsteady as the time-averaged turbulent viscosity at the rear part of the attached cavity is gradually reduced. For fk=0.9 and 0.8, the cavity becomes unstable and its length dramatically expands and shrinks, but the calculation fails to predict the vapor cloud shedding behavior observed experimentally. With smaller fk less than 0.7, the cloud shedding behavior is simulated numerically and the predicted cavity shedding frequency increases. With fk=0.2, the whole cavitating flow evolution can be reasonably reproduced including the cavity growth/destabilization observed previously. The re-entrant flow along the suction surface of the hydrofoil is the main trigger to cause the vapor cloud shedding. The wall pressure along the hydrofoil surface oscillates greatly due to the dynamic cavity shedding. Comparing the simulations and experiments, it is confirmed that for the PANS method, resolution control parameters of fk=0.2 and fϵ=1 are recommended for numerical simulations of unsteady cavitating flows. Thus, the present study shows that the PANS method is an effective approach for predicting unsteady cavitating flow over hydrofoils.
|
|
Received: 16 November 2011
Published: 29 July 2012
|
|
PACS: |
64.70.fm
|
(Thermodynamics studies of evaporation and condensation)
|
|
47.55.Ca
|
(Gas/liquid flows)
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Wang G Y, Senocak I, Shyy W, Ikohagi T and Cao S L 2001 Prog. Aerospace Sci. 37 551 [2] Kubota A, Kato H and Yamaguchi H 1992 J. Fluid Mech. 240 59 [3] Coutier-Delgosha O, Fortes-Patella R and Reboud J L 2003 J. Fluids Eng. 125 38 [4] Senocak I and Shyy W 2004 Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 44 975 [5] Singhal A K, Athavale M M, Li H Y and Jiang Y 2002 J. Fluids Eng. 124 617 [6] Kunz R F, Siebert B W, Cope W K, Foster N F, Antal S P and Ettorre S M 1998 Comput. Fluids 27 741 [7] Wang G and Ostoja-Starzewski M 2007 Appl. Math. Modelling 31 417 [8] Huang B A and Wang G Y 2011 Chin. Phys. Lett. 28 026401 [9] Wu J Y, Wang G Y and Shyy W 2005 Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 49 739 [10] Girimaji S S 2006 J. Appl. Mech. 73 413 [11] Huang B A and Wang G Y 2011 J. Hydrodyn. 23 26 [12] Zwart P J, Gerber A G and Belamri T 2004 Int. Conf. Multiphase Flow (Yokohama Japan 30 May–3 June 2004) [13] Ji B, Luo X W, Zhang Y, Ran H J, Xu H Y and Wu Y L 2010 Chin. Phys. Lett. 27 096401 [14] Leroux J B, Astolfi J A and Billard J Y 2004 J. Fluids Eng. 126 94 [15] Leroux J B, Coutier-Delgosha O and Astolfi J A 2005 Phys. Fluids. 17 052101 [16] Zhou L J and Wang Z 2008 J. Fluids Eng. 130 011302 |
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|