1 / 24

Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation

Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation. Sunho Park 1 , Shin Hyung Rhee 1 , and Byeong Rog Shin 2 1 Seoul National University, 2 Changwon National University 8 th International Symposium on Cavitation 13-16 August 2012, Singapore.

koen
Télécharger la présentation

Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation Sunho Park1, Shin Hyung Rhee1, and ByeongRog Shin2 1 Seoul National University, 2 Changwon National University 8thInternational Symposium on Cavitation 13-16 August 2012, Singapore

  2. Introduction • Cavitation • Cavitation : the liquid phase changes to vapor phase under the certain pressure • The liquid phase is usually treated as an incompressible flow • The vapor phase is treated as a compressible flow  To understand and predict cavitating flows correctly, incompressible and compressible flows should be considered at the same time vapor liquid Bark et al. (2009)

  3. Introduction • Incompressible flows • Pressure based method • Pressure is a primary variable • Advantage: liquid phase • Disadvantage: vapor phase Incompressible flows with compressibility - Pressure based methods for compressible flows (Rincon and Elder, Issa and Javareshkian, Darbandi et al.) • Compressible flows • Density based method • Density is a primary variable • Advantage: vapor phase • Disadvantage: liquid phase

  4. Introduction • Pressure-based compressible computation method • Shock waves • Underwater explosions • Cavitations • The objectives were • to develop pressure-based incompressible and isothermal compressible flow solvers, termed SNUFOAM-Cavitation • to understand compressibility effects in the cavitating flow around the hemispherical head-form body

  5. Governing Equations • Mass conservation equation • Momentum conservation equation • Standard k-turbulence model

  6. Cavitation Model • Singhal et al. (2002)

  7. Code Development Incompressible cavitating flow solver Start Momentum equation Turbulence Equations Update Properties take the divergence Increase t Momentum Equation using continuity equation Correct Velocity & Flux yes no Converge? Finish

  8. Code Development Isothermal compressible cavitating flow solver Start Momentum equation Turbulence Equations take the divergence Continuity Equation using continuity equation Update Properties Increase t Momentum Equation Substitute density to pressure Correct Velocity & Flux yes no Converge? Finish

  9. Numerical Methods • Unsteady state RANS equation solvers were used • A cell-centered finite volume method was employed • PISO type algorithm adapted for velocity-pressure coupling • Convection terms were discretized using a TVD MUSCL scheme • Diffusion terms were discretized using a central differencing scheme • Gauss-Seidel iterative algorithm, while an algebraic multi-grid method was employed • CFD code: SNUFOAM-Cavitation (Developed using OpenFOAM platform)

  10. Validation • Developed CFD code • Apply non-cavitating flow around the hemispherical head-form body • Apply cavitating flow around the hemispherical head-form body • Problem description (Hemispherical head-form body) • Experiment • Rouse, H. and McNown, J. S., 1948 • hemispherical (0.5 caliber ogive), blunt (0.0 caliber ogive) and conical (22.5o cone half-angle) cavitator shapes • Cavitation number: 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 & Reynolds number > 105

  11. Results and Discussion • Domain size and boundary condition • Mesh • 70 x (70+100) =11,900 • Axi-sym x (Hemisphere+cylinder)

  12. Results and Discussion • Uncertainty Assessment • To evaluate the numerical uncertainties in the computational results, the concept of grid convergence index (GCI) was adopted • Three levels of mesh resolution were considered for the solution convergence of the drag coefficient, and cavity length. • The solutions show good mesh convergence behavior with errors from the corresponding RE less than 0.5 %.

  13. Validation of Non-Cavitating Flow • Non-cavitating flow was simulated and validated against existing experimental data in a three-way comparison • the compressible flow solver well predicted the incompressible flow • Both almost same

  14. Validation of Cavitating Flow • Cavitating flow was simulated and validated against existing experimental data in a three-way comparison • the incompressible flow solver showed the earlier cavity closure, while the pressure overshoot was more prominent by the isothermal compressible flow solver • Overall, both results showed quite a close to the existing experimental data.  validate developed incompressible and compressible flow solvers

  15. Results and Discussion • The volume fraction contours when the cavity is fully developed • Overall cavity behavior was almost same for both solvers. • Noteworthy is the undulation of the cavity interface • Variations of the vapor volume fraction due to a re-entrant jet caused the change of the vapor volume, and then the cavity interface showed unsteady undulation Fully developed cavity Incompressible flow solver Compressible flow solver

  16. Results and Discussion • The volume fraction contours when re-entrant jet was greatest developed to its length • Incompressible flow solution: the cavity shedding was seen near the cavity closure due to a short re-entrant jet • Compressible flow solution: the cavity shedding was observed up to the middle of the cavity due to a relatively longer re-entrant jet • Unsteady undulation of the cavity interface was observed continuously Re-entrant jet Compressible flow solver Incompressible flow solver

  17. Results and Discussion • Cavity shedding cycle • Observed in the results with compressible flow solution • Developed cavity dynamics (shedding) repeats below two figures Compressible flow solver cavity is fully developed re-entrant jet is developed longest

  18. Results and Discussion • Streamwisevelocity contours when the re-entrant jet was fully developed • relatively strong and long re-entrant jet, which was in the reverse direction to the freestream flow, was observed Incompressible flow solver Compressible flow solver

  19. Results and Discussion • Nondimensionalizedturbulent eddy viscosity contours when the re-entrant jet is fully developed • The turbulent viscosity was large near the cavity closure in both cases • In the result of the compressible flow solution, the large turbulent viscosity was seen because of the stronger re-entrant jet. Incompressible flow solver Compressible flow solver

  20. Results and Discussion • Time history of the drag coefficient • 0  x/D  2 • Incompressible flow solution: converged to a certain constant value • Compressible flow solution : showed fluctuation behavior due to the unsteady cavity shedding.

  21. Results and Discussion • Strouhalnumber • Stinebring et al. (1983) carried out experiments on natural cavitation around axi-symmetric body with Re of 0.35 105 to 0.55105 • The Strouhal number (St) was calculated using the obtained cavity shedding frequency • St =0 by incompressible flow solver • The overall trend well captured by the compressible flow solver

  22. Concluding Remarks • To simulate the compressibility in the cavitating flow, the incompressible and compressible flow solvers were developed, and validated by applying it to a hemispherical head-form body • In the compressible flowsolver • The re-entrant jet was appeared to be relatively longer and the cavity interface showed unsteady undulation due to the re-entrant jet • The drag coefficient of the incompressible flow solver was converged to a certain value, while, one of the compressible flow solver showed fluctuation behavior due to the cavity shedding frequency • The Strouhal number, calculated using the drag coefficient history, shows quite a close agreement between experiments and computations by the compressible flow solver • From the results, the compressible flow computations, which including compressibility effects, were recommended for the computation of cavitatingflows

  23. Acknowledgement • This work was supported by the Incorporative Research on Super-Cavitating Underwater Vehicles funded by Agency for Defense Development (09-01-05-26), the World Class University Project (R32-2008-000-10161-0) and the Research Foundation of Korea (2010-0022835) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Korea government.

  24. Thank you for attention

More Related