Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
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
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
,