You are on page 1of 6

5

th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics ICAMEM2010
18-20 December, 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia
Kanfoudi, Lamloumi and Zgolli 1

Numerical model to simulate cavitating flow
H. Kanfoudi,H. Lamloumi and R. Zgolli
National Engineering School of Tunis, B.P.37, Tunis 1002, Tunisia
hatem.kanfoudi@enit.rnu.tn; ridha.zgolli@enit.rnu.tn

Abstract
For numerical simulation of cavitating flows, many numerical models currently proposed use some assumptions or/and
empirical formulations that must limit their performance. We present here a new model based on the void fraction transport
equation solved with the source term evaluating vaporization and condensation processes. The model is coupled with a CFD
code solving the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for the mixture (liquid and/or vapor) to approach the cavitating
flow. To test the validation of the numerical simulation, we present results obtained with a 2D and 3D approach for the flow
around a NACA0009 and NACA4412 hydrofoil.
Nomenclature
volume fraction of the vapor phase

+
mass transfer of vaporization

mass transfer of condensation

mixture density

liquid density

vapor density

mixture viscosity

liquid viscosity

vapor viscosity

saturation pressure

n
0
density of bubbles
R
0
initial radius
u

reference velocity
c chord
p local pressure
R radius of the bubble
B bubble
i attack angle in degrees
surface tension

Introduction
The phenomenon of cavitation that occurs within the flow of a liquid can be searched for specific
industrial applications as it should be avoided in order not to suffer adverse consequences in other
applications. In all cases we must learn to predict, and in this regard there is more research work. We
contribute here with the presentation of our development with the aim to develop a numerical method
to simulate the cavitating flow. The model presented here is developed in an attempt to predict the
onset of cavitation as a result of pressure drop and also the changes in the flow. The model is based on
the source term of the transport equation computing the vapor volume fraction which has the special
permit to reflect the quality of the liquid and also its tension surface. To validate the method we
consider the flow around hydrofoils that have been the subject of experimental measurements and also
other numerical methods.
Mathematical formulation
Governingequations
Many existing cavitation models in literature are categorized in VOF method known as well as two-
fluid model. The governing equations consist of the conservative from the Reynolds averaged Navier-
Stockes equation and a volume fraction transport equation. These equations are in cartesian
coordinates, presented below:
The Continuity Equation:
( )
0
m j
m
j
u
t x

c
c
+ =
c c
(1)
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics ICAMEM2010
18-20 December, 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia
Kanfoudi, Lamloumi and Zgolli 2


The Momentum Equations:
( ) ( )
( )
m j i
j m i
i
m t
j i j j i
u u
u u
u p
t x x x x x


( c | | c c
c c c
+ = + + + ( |
|
c c c c c c
(
\ .

(2)
Transport equation :
( ) ( )
v j
v v c
j
u
S m m
t x
o
o
o
c
c
+ = = +
c c

(3)


The mixture density, viscosity and the turbulent viscosity are defined respectively, as follows :
( ) 1
m v l
o o = +

(4)
( ) 1
m v l
o o = +

(5)
Our proposed cavitation model;
For numerical simulation of cavitating flows, many numerical models currently proposed use some
assumptions or/and empirical formulations that must limit their performance. We present here a new
model based on the void fraction transport equation solved with the source term evaluating
vaporization and condensation processes. It is able to take account of the effect of pressure forces and
surface tension. Fistly, we compare sensibility of pressure distribution with results obtained by
various source terms proposed by different researchers.
( ) ( ) ( ) , ( , )
pd
S C f g p sign g p
o
o o o =

(6)
with :
( )
1
3
0
3.3
v l
pd
m
C n

t

=

(7)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
3
2
0
1 f n h o o o =

(8)
( )
( )
( ) ( )
1
2
1 2
3 3
3 2
0 0
4 2.5 2 3
, 1 1
3
v
l
l
p p R R
g p
h
h h

o
o
o o
| |
| | (
| =
|
(
|
|
\ .
\ .

(9)

( )
( )
0
1
h
n
o
o
o
=


(10)
Comparison of model
We present a comparative study between the differnet vaporization and condensation terms
propsed for the the void fraction transport equation. Most of the terms depend mainly on the
diffence between the local pressure and the vapour pressure p-p
v
. Thus, the following
comparaison between the models is based on the expression of the sources terms as a
function of p-p
v
. However, the void fraction usually also appears in theexpression of the
source terms. To expres them as a function of p-p
v
only, the barotropic state law of Delannoy
is used (Fig. 1).
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics ICAMEM2010
18-20 December, 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia
Kanfoudi, Lamloumi and Zgolli 3

Figure 1 : Comparison between the sources terms, the left the vaporization process and the right the condensation
process.
In literature, empirical factors are determined through numerical/experimental results and are
adjusted for different geometries and different flow conditions.To make this comparison
possible, the empirical factors (production/destruction coefficients) are adjusted to obtain the
same maximum value for the source terms.The empirical factors have the following values:
C
p
=10. , C
d
=0.7 for the Kunz model,C
p
=410
-4
. , C
d
=1.4for the Singhal model,C
p
=50. , C
d
=0.005for
the Schnerr model and n
0
=10
10
B/m
3
for the Yuan and New models.
It is remarkable that the new model has the same form as the Kunz el al. model. It is
sensitivity to pressure change for the two processes.
Result and discussion
To compute the flow close to the wall, standard wall-function approach was used, and then the
enhanced wall functions approach has been used to model the near-wall region. For this model, the
used numerical scheme of the flow equations was the segregated implicit solver. For the model
discretization, the HIGH resolution scheme was employed for pressure-velocity coupling, for the
momentum equations, and first-order up-wind for other transport equations (e.g. vapor transport and
turbulence modeling equations).
The domain is 9 blocks C-type grid of 88000 mesh cells. The steady state RANS simulations with the
k-c/SST in this case. The boundary conditions are set using a velocity inlet (u

=20 m/s) and an


average static pressure at the outlet (the parameter which fixes the cavitation number). The turbulence
is set to 1% of intensity and 0.001m of eddy length scale. Both upper and lower section walls and the
hydrofoil are modelled using non-slip conditions with classical log-law functions (y
+
=1). Both lateral
sides of the domain are modelled as symmetrical planes. Numerical convergence is set to a maximum
of 10
4
for all the simulations.








Figure 2:NACA0009 domain grid (c=100 mm)
Inlet
Outlet
Zoom In
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics ICAMEM2010
18-20 December, 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia
Kanfoudi, Lamloumi and Zgolli 4

Validation
The numerical approach of cavitating flow use the CFD code with introduction of our proposed model
will be tested in first time into a 2-D flow around a hydrofoil that we have an experimental result. It
concerns a NACA0009 hydrofoil, truncated at 90% of the original chord length. It has the final
dimensions of 100mm of chord length and 150mm of span. The hydrofoil is placed in the test section
of the EPFL high-speed cavitation tunnel (Ait bouziad, 2006).

The performance of our proposed model is based on the critical values of computed volume
fractionused to locate the interface between pure liquid and pure vapor of the mixture flow. The same
assumptions of spherical bubbles used to establish the expression of source term of the proposed
model will be considered to calculate the tow critical values
vap
and
liq
. Where
vap
is the limit value
of volume fraction to the passage from liquid to vapor and corresponding to the engagement of
evaporation, and
liq
is the limit value of to the passage from vapor to liquid and corresponding to
the beginning of condensation.
If we consider equally sized spherical particles forming a rhomboid array, the average distance
between the centers of two adjacent particles with diameter D (D=2R) and volumetric fraction is:[7]
=

6
2

1 3
(17)
The non-oscillating particles will touch each other if l=D, this happens for a volume fraction value;
=

6
2 0.74 (18)
Whichis sometimes called in the literature the maximum packing density volume concentration. This
consideration leads to the conclusion that bubblesfill the whole field of flow for;
> 0.74 =

(19)
And inversely the mixture can be considered pure liquid for;
< 0.26 =

(20)
Then the range of volume fraction values (figure 3) is used by the proposed numerical model to
characterize the shape of the possible presence of vapor cavity.

Figure 3: Range of vapor volume fraction (o)
In order to assess the capabilities of the proposed model of cavitation to evaluate the shape of cavity
attached on the walls of the hydrofoil, we consider two cases of cavitating flow (figure 4-a for o = 0.8
and figure 4-b for o=0.85) around the same profile for which we have experimental (Ait bouziad,
2006). We can remark the good concordance of the pressure coefficient computed with the
experimental result. We can also note that the shape of the cavity can be correctly evaluated using this
model.

We begin by testing two models of turbulence k- and SST and we present the results in figure 4. We
note that the SST turbulence model is most stable and reflect the effect of the presence of cavitation
pocket closest to the experimental results, as shown in this figure.We also note that the k-c is the
turbulence model with the most attenuation of cavitation effects, which is due to a possible
overestimation of the turbulent viscosity.
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics ICAMEM2010
18-20 December, 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia
Kanfoudi, Lamloumi and Zgolli 5


Figure 4: Influence of turbulence model on the calculated pressure coefficient (i=2.5
,

=30 m/s, o =0.8 and o =0.85 ).


A 3D approach of cavitating flow
To test the performance of our proposed model with 3D flow simulation, we consider a water flow
around hydrofoil NACA 4412 with chord equal 3 in and Span equal 10 in., for which we have
experimental results (Knap, 1944). The computed domain is represented by figure 6.
The numerical solution was very sensitive to liquid quality that is managed here by the number n
0
. For
water the number n
0
can be fixed around 10
8
but physical explanations rest quite limited. To make our
model able to approach the real solution, we calibrate this number by comparison with experimental
results. Figure 7 shows the numerical results of lift force obtained for different values of n
0
, and we
can conclude that the best agreement with experimental measurements for o<1 (favorable conditions
for the appearance of cavitation) is the case with n
0
= 5.10
8
.








Figure 5: Computed domain of water flow around a Hydrofoil NACA 4412.













Figure 6: Cavitating flow computed (with our model) and observed (Knap, 1944)
Inlet
700 mm
254 mm
300 mm
a - o = 0.8 b - o = 0.85
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics ICAMEM2010
18-20 December, 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia
Kanfoudi, Lamloumi and Zgolli 6

We present in this figure the numerical result obtained for cavitating water flow around the hydrofoil,
and we can conclude the good concordance with the experimental result.
Conclusion
This study present a numerical method approaching cavitating flows that uses a CFD code solving the
Navier-Stokes equations with homogeneous mixture consideration. This method is based on the
introduction of a model with a form of source term of transport equation coupling the pressure
calculation with the volume fraction distribution. The model presented here has shown the ease with
which one can calibrate to suit different qualities of the liquid considered. Previously we gave some
insights on how to validate and especially the opportunities to rely on such models to monitor changes
in length and also the shape of the cavity which occurs in cavitating flow.Finally for temporal
evolution of the flow structure from cavity formation to cavity growth towards the trailing edge, we
present the unsteady behavior of cavitating flow simulated by this numerical method.
References
R. F. Kunz, D.A. Boger, D. R. Stinebring, et al. (2000)., A preconditioned Navier-Stokes method for two-phase flows with
application to cavitation prediction, Computers & Fluids, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 849-875.
R. F. Kunz, D.A. Boger, D. R. Stinebring, T.S. Chyczewski, J. W. Lindau and T.R. Govindan, (July 1999) Multi-phase
CFD analusis of natural and ventilated cavitation about submerged bodies, in Procceedings of 3rd ASME/JSME Joint
Fluids Engineering Conference (FEDSM99), p. 1, San Francisco, Calif,USA.
A.K. Singhal, M. M. Athavale, H. Li, and Y.Jiang, (2002) Mathematical basis and validation of the full cavitation model,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 124, no. 3, pp.617-624.
G. H. Schnerr and J. Sauer, (May-June 2001) Physical and numerical modeling of unsteady cavitation dynamics
inProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Multiphase Flow (IMCF01), New Orleans, La, USA.
Yuan, W. Sauer, J.,Schnerr, G.H (2001). Modeling and computation of unsteady cavitation flows in injection nozzles.
Mec.Ind., vol. 2, pp. 383-394.
AIT BOUZIAD Youcef (2006). Physicalmodelling of leading edge cavitation: computational methodologies and application
to hydraulic machinery, Thesis, French, pp. 70-80.
KNAP, Robert T. (1944). Force and cavitation characteristics of the NACA 4412 hydrofoil. USA : s.n.. pp. 20-21. 6.1-sr207-
1273.

You might also like