Abstract:Cavitation is a complex multiphase phenomenon characterised by vapour bubbles forming due to a sudden pressure drop and is often accompanied by increased hull vibrations, increased radiated noise and decrease in propeller and impeller performance. Although the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) method coupled with a cavitation model is still considered a practical tool to predict cavitating flows owing to its computational efficiency, it is unable to predict the unsteadiness of vapor shedding and over-predicts the eddy viscosity. To improve the prediction, an empirical eddy viscosity correction,[Reboud et al. 1998] was proposed to consider the compressibility effects produced by cavitation. Additionally, a new type of models termed as hybrid RANS-Large Eddy Simulation (LES) models have also been recently introduced in the community, having the ability to behave as a RANS or a LES model in different regions of the flow in order to combine the computational cost efficiency of RANS with the accuracy of LES modelling. However, there exists a lack of a comprehensive review of various such turbulence models like the k-{\omega} Shear Stress Transport Model (SST), k-{\omega} SST Scale-adaptive Simulation (SAS), k-{\omega} SST Detached Eddy Simulation (DES), k-{\omega} SST Delayed DES (DDES), Filter-Based Method (FBM) and Partially-Averaged Navier Stokes Method (PANS) to predict cavitating flows. In this work, we conduct such a review to compare their ability to predict cloud cavitating flows by comparing them with x-ray experimental data in a venturi. It is shown that with mesh refinement, standard models do show the vapor unsteadiness as seen in the experiment similar to that seen when using the Reboud correction. However, on local comparison of turbulence quantities, it is observed both forms of models have huge discrepancies with experimental data that does not improve downstream.

Application of the partially-averaged Navier-Stokes method in computations of turbulent cavitating flows

Numerical Simulation of the Transient Cavitating Turbulent Flows Around the Clark-Y Hydrofoil Using Modified Partially Averaged Navier-Stokes Method

Partially-Averaged Navier-Stokes method with modified k-ε model for cavitating flow around a marine propeller in a non-uniform wake

A Nonlinear Partially-Averaged Navier–Stokes Model for Turbulence

Transient Cavitating Vortical Flows Around a Hydrofoil Using K-Ω Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Model

Numerical Simulation of a Turbulence Flow in the Cut-off Valve by RNG k- ε Turbulence Model

Numerical Modeling of Unsteady Cavitating Flow over a Hydrofoil with Consideration of Surface Curvature

Turbulence Simulations of Flow Past a Circular Cylinder Based on a Nonlinear Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes (PANS) Method

Numerical Analysis of Unstable Turbulent Flows in a Centrifugal Pump Impeller Considering the Curvature and Rotation Effect

Turbulent Flows over a Backward Facing Step Simulated Using a Modified Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Model

Modified Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Model for Turbulent Flow in Passages with Large Curvature

A Modified Partially Averaged Navier-stokes Model for the Turbulent Flows over a Backward Facing Step

A Pressure-Based Algorithm for Cavitating Flow Computations

The Influence of Nonlinear Shear Stress on Partially Averaged Navier-Stokes (PANS) Method

Data-driven turbulence model for unsteady cavitating flow

Numerical Simulation of the Cavitation Characteristics of A Mixed-Flow Pump

Research on blade tip clearance cavitation and turbulent kinetic energy characteristics of axial flow pump based on the partially-averaged Navier-Stokes model

An Assessment of PANS for Simulation of Turbulent Cross Flow over In-Line Tube Bundles

A comparative evaluation of turbulence models for simulation of unsteady cavitating flows

Investigation on cavitating turbulent flow for the twisted NACA66 hydrofoil using a PANS model with helicity modification

NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE VENTILATED CAVITATING FLOW AROUND AN UNDER-WATER VEHICLE BASED ON A THREE-COMPONENT CAVITATION MODEL