See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264081450

Advantages/Disadvantages of different techniques of modeling of

supercavitation.

Conference Paper · March 2000

CITATIONS READS

2 1,080

2 authors:

Laurent Diéval Christian Pellone

Direction Régionale de l'Environnement de l'Aménagement et du Logement French National Centre for Scientific Research
9 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    109 PUBLICATIONS   590 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CAVITATING TURBULENT FLOW View project

Cavitating Hydrofoils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Pellone on 22 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES OF MODELING OF
SUPERCAVITATION

Laurent DIEVAL, Christian PELLONE

Laboratoire des Ecoulements Géophysiques et Industriels
B.P. 53 - 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 - France
Tél.:33 (0) 4 76 82 50 39 Fax.: 33 (0) 4 76 82 52 71
Email : christian.pellone@hmg.inpg.fr

Michel ARNAUD
DGA/SPN Toulon/SST
B.P. 91 - 83800 Toulon Naval France

1. Introduction
Three different methods are presented to compute cavitating flows, an integral method, a
homogeneous two-phase flow model and an interface tracking method. For the integral method, the
liquid is supposed inviscid and incompressible and the flow irrotational. The two other methods are
based on the Navier-Stokes equations. The homogenous method uses averaged Navier-Stokes
equations. For the tracking surface method, a Navier-Stokes solver gives the velocity and the pressure
in the flow field from which the interface is moved. The principle of each technique is briefly given
together with a typical example of results. For the integral method and the homogenous model, we
present the case of the supercavitating flow around a wedge. For the tracking method, we consider the
case of an emerging cavitating body.

2. The integral method

The integral method used here [1] allows to compute the two-dimensional irrotational flow of an
inviscid incompressible fluid around a hydrofoil. In the case of the potential flow around a
supercavitating foil with wetted upper side, without lift effect, the potential is generated by a surface
source distribution. To introduce the lift effect, a surface doublicity distribution is required. In this
context, the non-linear problem of the thick foil can be treated by a surface source and a doublicity
distribution over the foil and a surface doublicity distribution over the wake.

The treatment of the supercavitating foil is made possible by mathematical modeling of the cavity. The
main difficulties encountered are related, on the one hand, to difference in nature of the boundary
conditions which must be satisfied over the foil and the cavity, and on the other hand, to the unknown
shape of the cavity. Since the geometric boundary of the cavity must consist of constant-pressure
streamlines, the condition on this boundary is expressed by tangential velocity condition. Assuming
the cavity geometry to be known – as a first step – the solution to the problem is obtained by using a
surface source distribution on the foil, a surface doublicity distribution (tangential doublets) over the
cavity, and a surface doublicity distribution over the foil, the cavity and the wake (normal doublets),
plus a linear sink distribution at the rear of the cavity, the total intensity of which is equal to the sum of
the sources on the foil. Despite the fact that the solution to the boundary problem expressed is unique,
there is not unicity in the distribution of singularity creating the same potential. Consequently, the
density of normal doublets over the wake, assumed to be non-deformable, and the cavity is
characterized by a relation which is a function of the foil span. This relation, combined with a linear
relation as a function of the chord, allows the normal doublet density over the entire area of the foil to
be defined. Calculation of the exact shape of the cavity requires an iterative procedure. As a result of
the presence of a sink at the rear of the cavity, the cavity does not close completely. Consequently, the
model chosen is a quasi-closed cavity model.

y
Complex plane

j
P0 Free surface x
i xF

h
A D
Velocity w
M
B C
tM
nM

Figure 2.1

At any point M on the foil (figure 2.1) defined by z = x + iy in the complex plane z, the potential
r
Φ M and the velocity VM are written as follows :
r
Φ M = V∞ x + φ M
r r
 r
VM = V∞ + v M (2.1)
r r
v
 M = ∇ M φM

r
V∞ is the flow velocity at upstream infinity.

rr r r
On the wedge, the Neumann condition gives : v.n M = − V∞ .n M for M ∈ (AB) (2.2)

The constant pressure and Neumann conditions on the cavity (DA)U(BC) give :

r r rr
 vr . t M = V∞ ∈M 1 + σ − i . t M
For M ∈ (DA ) U (BC ) r r
rr
 v.n M = − VM .n M (2.3)

(
rr
with ∈M = sign i . t M )
σ is the cavitation number.

Taking into consideration the discontinuities introduced by the singularities used, and using
Hadamard’s notation, the conditions (2.2) and (2.3) lead to the two following equations :

For M ∈ (AB)
  1 α α
e i M dz' Q F e i M ~ (z )e i α M 
∫ ( ) i (α M − α M ' ) dz' 1 ~
z − z' 2π ( DA∫, BC )
Im =  σ − i γ e + µ + + w 
(z − z')2 2π z − z F
′
 2π ( AB )
M M ' tM '

σ r r
+ M = − V∞ .n M
2

For M ∈ (DA U BC )

 1 α α
e i M dz' Q F e i M ~ (z )e iα M 
(
∫ M M' ) i (α M − α M ' ) dz' 1 ~
z − z' 2π (DA∫,BC )
Re =  σ − i γ e + µ + + w 
(z − z')2 2π z − z F
′
 2π (AB )
tM '


+
2 µ tM
π ∆ sM
r
(
= V∞ ∈M 1 + σ − i . t M
rr
)
In these expressions :

µ tM ' is the tangential doublets distribution over the cavity

σ M ' is the source distribution over the foil
γ M ' is the vortex distribution over the foil
Q F is the strength of the sink placed at the near of the cavity
r r
α M is the orientated angle of the tangent unit vector t M with the unit vector i of the axis ox

~ (z ) represents the effect of symmetrical singularities with respect to ox at the point

In addition, w
~
M(z). Since fluid flow rate within the contour line must be zero, we have :

Q M = − ∫ σ M ' ds M '
( AB )

The continuity conditions at points A and B at the boundary between foil and cavity are expressed by :

The non lifting condition on the cavity.

when M → A
γ M → 0
and M → B

The zero normal velocity condition at these points.

rr r r
(v.n )A = −V∞ .n A
rr r r
(v.n )B = − V∞ .n B

In this study, the confinement effect is not taken into account.

3. The homogenous two-phase flow model
The homogenous model used here is based on the method originally developed by Kubota [2]. From a
macroscopic viewpoint, the bubble two phase flow model treats the inside and outside of the cavitation
zone as a unique continuum. The cavity flow field is modeled using a compressible viscous fluid
whose density varies greatly. The equations of the flow field are given below :

continuity equation
∂ρ r r
∂t
( )
+ ∇. ρU = 0 (3.1)

( ) (
r
∂ ρU r r r
) ( )
r 1  r 1r r r 
momentum equation + ∇ ρUU = −∇(P ) + µ ∆U + ∇ ∇.U  (3.2)
∂t Re  3 
r r
where t , ρU , U , ρ , P, Re, µ are time, mass flux vector, velocity, density, pressure, Reynolds
number and viscosity of the liquid/vapor homogeneous mixture. Liquid is considered as
incompressible. The compressibility of the mixture originates only in the change of void fraction. The
density of the mixture is given by :

ρ = (1 − f g )ρ l (3.3)

where ρ l is the water density and f g is the local void fraction. The mass and momentum of vapor are
ignored. The viscosity of the mixture is assumed as follows :

µ = (1 − f g )µ l + f g µ g (3.4)

where µ l is the water viscosity and µ g is the vapor viscosity.

r
To compute the flow field, it is necessary to know the local instantaneous void fraction f g (t , x ) .
Kubota’s model assumes that the liquid contains a density n of tiny identical bubbles (fig. 3.1) In the
present work, their radius is computed using a simplified form of the Rayleigh-Plesset equation (3.5).

Figure 3.1 : bubble density in a computation cell

Thus, the void fraction is computed from the two following equations :

4
fg = n R 3
3
2(Pv − P )
(3.5)
dR
=
dt 3ρ l
where R is the bubble radius, Pv is the vapor pressure.

The resolution of equations (3.1) to (3.5) gives the flow field evolution including the cavitating region.
The Navier-Stokes solver used is Fluent.

4. The tracking surface model

The tracking of the interfaces is conducted using the Volume of Fluid (VOF) method, Diéval [3]. The
flow domain is discretized in a fixed grid and the free surface is known only through a scalar variable
C defined in each cell as the fraction of volume of the cell occupied by the liquid. This variable C
therefore has values between 0 and 1. If C equals 0, the cell is empty (full of vapor). If C equals 1, the
cell is full of liquid. If 0<C<1 the cell is crossed by the interface, see figure 2. The evolution of
the scalar C in a given curvilinear cell Ω is obtained from the liquid continuity equation which
can be written for this cell as :

dC 1 r r
V + ∫ cU .ndS = 0 (4.1)
dt J

r
where V is the volume of the cell, ∂Ω its boundary, U the velocity vector at the interface and c is a
function defined at all the points which can have only two values : 1 at a point occupied by the fluid,
and 0 otherwise.

The integration of (4.1) for the calculation of C from instant n to n+1 raises difficulties if the cell Ω is
a partial cell, i.e. such that 0<C<1, since the distribution of c on ∂Ω cannot be exactly recovered from
the knowledge of C in Ω and in the neighboring cells. The originality and interest of the VOF method
is to provide an approximate – but conservative – evaluation of the mass flux through ∂Ω only from
the knowledge of C in Ω and in the surrounding cells.

1 1 1 1 Interface

Liquid 1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6

1 0.4 0.8 0 0 0

1 0.8 0.1 0 Vapor

1 0.7 0 0

Figure 2 : VOF definition

The VOF method is coupled with a Navier-Stokes solver to compute the viscous flow field.
5. Results
5.1. The integral method
We present the case of a supercavitating wedge. The final objective is to compare the numerical
results to the experimental ones. The experimental results are Michel’s data [4]. The geometry is given
in Fig. 5.1.1.

Pressure = P0 Free surface

h U∞
Velocity
U∞

c l

Figure 5.1.1 : Experimental plan

The wedge is placed below a free surface at a depth h. The upstream velocity is U ∞ , the pressure on
the free surface is P0 . The wedge chord is c, the angle is 16 degrees and the cavity length is l. In the
present case, h = 0,21 m, c = 0,0605 m, the pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure and the
velocity is equal to 31.574 m/s. The cavitation number is σ = 0,2 . The cavity experimental length is
4c.

The computation results give a cavity length (l/c) equal to 3,418. The cavity is about 14,5% shorter
with regard to the experimental data. This difference can be explained by the effect of confinement not
taken into account in the present calculation. The numerical results are given on the figure 5.1.1.

5.2. The homogenous method

The computation starts under subcavitating conditions. The velocity increases until the cavitation
number reaches its experimental value, see figure 5.2.1. The rising time for the flow velocity is 0,6
second. The cavity appears at about 20 m/s. The final cavity shape is obtained after about 0,65 s. From
this time, the cavity shape is steady, see the figures 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. The drag coefficient is equal to
0,18 and the lift coefficient is inferior to 0,02, see the figure 5.2.1. The computed cavity length is
about 24 % longer than the experimental one. The cavity thickness is in agreement with the measured
one. The error on the cavity length may be due to a bad choice on the boundary condition which
represents the free surface.

5.3. The tracking surface method

The example concerns the computation of the emergence of a cavitating body. The body moves
towards a free surface. In this case, the VOF method tracks two interfaces. The first is the free surface.
The second is the cavity interface. According to the velocity, two kinds of cavities are formed : a
partial cavity, see figure 5.3.1, or a supercavity, see figure 5.3.2.

In the partial cavity case, the bubble shrinks when the free surface approaches. During the emergence
of the body, the cavity merges with the free surface. When the body emerges, a water column forms.
In the supercavitation case, when the profile emerges, it is surrounded with vapor.
6. Conclusions
The experimental results are between the integral and the homogenous method. The integral method
can give very quickly the steady cavity shape for a given cavitation number. The computational time is
about 30 seconds. The drag coefficient is under estimated. The homogeneous method can represent the
unsteady behavior of the cavity. The order of magnitudes of the drag and lift coefficients are
satisfactory, but the cavity length is overestimated. The VOF method is capable of predicting the
transient cavity evolution, as the homogeneous model. These two approaches are equivalent except the
discontinuity on the interface. The results given in the present paper are preliminary and this work is
still in progress.

The advantages and disadvantages of the three methods used in the present work are summarized in
table 6.1.

Integral method Homogeneous method Tracking surface method

Advantages ♦ Very small CPU time
♦ Unsteady modeling
possible
♦ Predicts free surface
and cavity shapes
♦ Predicts the unsteady ♦ Predicts the unsteady
behavior of the cavity behavior of the cavity
and special features as : and special features as :
• Re-entrant jet • Re-entrant jet
• Cavity shedding • Cavity shedding
• Flow inside the • Flow inside the
cavity cavity
♦ Progressive transition ♦ Discontinuity between
of the void fraction liquid and vapor
between liquid and
vapor
♦ Predicts free surface ♦ Predicts free surface
and cavity shapes and cavity shapes

Disadvantages ♦ Inviscid flow ♦ Time consuming ♦ Time consuming

(underestimated drag) ♦ Discontinuity between
♦ Non rotational flow liquid and vapor at
♦ No cavity shedding closure

Table 6.1.

7. Reference
1 Pellone Christian, « Supercavitating hydrofoils in nonlinear theory », Third international
conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, June 16-19, 1981, Paris, France
2 Kubota Akihiro, « Numerical Studies of Unsteady on a Hydrofoil by a Bubble Two Phase Flow
Model », These of the University of Tokyo, december 1988
3 Diéval Laurent, « Simulation des écoulements cavitant par poche par une méthode de suivi
d'interface », Thèse de l'Université Aix Marseille II, April 1999.
4 Michel Jean Marie, « Etude physique du sillage en écoulement plan », La Houille Blanche, Vol. 3,
pp. 1-43.
 0.02 Figure 5.1.1 : Free surface and supercavity
Free surface
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
Depth in m

-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18
Wedge
-0.2
Supercavity
-0.22
-0.24
-0.26

-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
length in m
 30

25

0.2
20
Velocity in m/s

0.18

0.16 Drag coefficient

Lift coefficient
0.14

Drag and Lift coefficients

15 0.12

0.1

0.08

10 0.06

0.04

0.02

5 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Time in s

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time in s Figure 5.2.1
T=0s

T = 0,1 s

T = 0,2 s

T = 0,3 s

T = 0,4 s

T = 0,5 s

T = 0,5 s
Figure 5.2.2 : Supercavitation evolution (0,0 to 0.5 s)
T = 0,6 s

T = 0,62 s

T = 0,65 s

T = 0,7 s

T = 1,0 s

T = 1,5 s

T = 0,6 s
Figure 5.2.3 : Supercavitation evolution (0,6 to 1.5s)
Titre:
C réé par:
D ate de création:

Titre:
C réé par:
D ate de création:

Figure 5.3.1 : Free surface and partial cavity evolution

 Titre:
C réé par:
D ate de création:

Titre:
C réé par:
D ate de création:

Figure 5.3.2 : Free surface and super cavity evolution

View publication stats