The main parameter employed in descriptions of cavitating flows is cavitation number. This number should be calculated using the actual pressure within the cavity. However, the pressure in the cavity was not determined in many known experiments and the employed values of cavitation numbers were calculated using the vapor pressure instead of the actual cavity pressure there. This complicates interpretation of the experimental data and validation of computational tools. Meanwhile, as shown experimentally many decades ago, the pressure in cavities substantially depends on the inflow air content. A correction to the vapor cavitation number considering the impact of inflow air content and tuned to the experimental data from a single water tunnel is described in this article. This correction is validated with the various well-known experimental data. Such a correction makes it possible to revise the old experimental data and, as a result, to improve the agreement of the results of diverse computations with the corresponding measurements.
KermeenRW. Water tunnel tests of NACA 4412 and Walchner 7 profile hydrofoils in noncavitating and cavitating flows. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, 1956.
2.
WadeRBAcostaAJ. Experimental observation of the flow past a plano-convex hydrofoil. ASME J Basic Eng1966; 88: 273–283.
3.
HamittFG. Cavitation and multiphase flow phenomena. New York: McGraw-Hill Int. Book, 1980.
4.
KoprivaJAmrominELArndtREA. Improvement of hydrofoil performance by partial ventilated cavitation in steady flow and periodic gusts. ASME J Fluids Eng2008; 130: 0313011.
5.
GaneshHMakiharjuSACeccioSL. Bubbly shock propagation as a mechanism for sheet-to-cloud transition of partial cavities. J Fluid Mech2016; 802: 37–78.
6.
PellatJMPelloneC. Experimental validation of two-and three-dimensional numerical analysis of partially cavitating hydrofoils. J Ship Res1996; 40: 211–223.
7.
KatoHMaedaMYamagushiH. The effect of nuclei density on cavitation inception of the separated flow on a foil in for wake effects. In: BilletMLMorganWB (eds) Cavitation inception 1993, New York: ASME, 1993, pp.25–30.
8.
Coutier-DelgoshaODenisetFAstolfiJA, et al.Numerical prediction of cavitating flow on a two-dimensional symmetrical hydrofoil and comparison to experiments. ASME J Fluids Eng2007; 129: 279–292.
9.
ArndtREAKellerAP. Water quality effects on cavitation inception in a trailing vortex. ASME J Fluids Eng1992; 114: 430–438.
10.
GindrozBBilletML. Influence of the nuclei on the cavitation inception for different types of cavitation on ship propellers. ASME J Fluids Eng1998; 120: 171–178.
11.
KellerAP. Cavitation scale effects: empirically found relations and the correlations of cavitation number and hydrodynamic coefficients. In: Proceedings of the CAV2001 symposium. Pasadena, CA, USA, 2001. 2001.
12.
LindgrenHJohnsonCA. Cavitation inception on head form ITTC: comparative experiments. In: Proceedings of the 14th ITTC conference, Tokyo, Japan, 1966.
13.
IharaAWatanabeHShizukuishiS. Experimental research of the effect of sweep on unsteady hydrofoil loading in cavitation. ASME J Fluids Eng1989; 109: 263–270.
14.
BrandnerPAVenningJAPearceBW. Nucleation effects on cavitation about a sphere. J Fluids Mech2022; 946: A1.
15.
MalekshahEHWroblewskiW. Effect of turbulence modelling and non-condensable gas on cloud cavity dynamics. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2022; 98: 109070.
16.
BrennenCE. A numerical solution for axisymmetric cavity flows. J Fluids Mech1969; 37: 671–688.
17.
YuP-WCeccioSL. Diffusion induced bubble population downstream of a partial cavity. ASME J Fluids Eng1997; 119: 782–787.
18.
ParkinBWRavindraK. Convective gas diffusion in steady cavity flows. ASME J Fluids Eng1991; 113: 285–289.
19.
BrennenCE. The dynamic balance of dissolved air and heat in natural cavity flow. J Fluids Mech1969; 37: 115–127.
20.
AmrominEL. Explanation of the influence of inflow air content on the lift of cavitating hydrofoils. ASME J Fluids Eng2018; 140: 084501.
21.
LeeI-hMäkiharjuSAGaneshH, et al.Scaling of gas diffusion into limited partial cavities. ASME J Fluids Eng2016; 138: 051301.
22.
AmrominEL. Development and validation of CFD models for initial stages of cavitation. ASME J Fluids Eng2014; 136: 081303.
23.
AmrominEL. On enhancement of hydrofoil performance by partial cavitation. Int Shipbuild Prog2024; 71: 1–14.
24.
KunzRFBogerDAStinebringDR, et al.A preconditioned Navier-Stokes method for two-phase flows with application to cavitation prediction. Comp Fluids2000; 29: 849–875.
25.
AhujaVHosangadiAArunajatesanS. Simulation of cavitating flows using hybrid unstructured meshes. ASME J Fluids Eng2001; 123: 331–338.
26.
SinghalAKAthavaleMMLiH, et al.Mathematical basis and validation of the full cavitation model. ASME J Fluids Eng2002; 124: 617–624.
27.
BhattAGaneshHCeccioSL. Partial cavity shedding on a hydrofoil resulting from re-entrant flow and bubbly shock waves. J Fluid Mech2023; 957: 28.
28.
Coutier-DelgoshaODevillersJ-FPichonT. Internal structure and dynamics of sheet cavitation. Phys Fluids2006; 18: 017103.
29.
AmrominEL. Modeling of the impact of laminar-turbulent transition on cavitation inception. Appl Ocean Res2021; 114: 102796.
30.
KobayashiKKatayamaYWatanabeS, et al.Experimental investigation on cavity pressure inside sheet cavitation. ASME J Fluids Eng2021; 143: 121102. DOI:10.1115/1.4051580.
31.
AmrominELMishkevichVGRozhdestvenskiiKV. Approximate calculation of three-dimensional cavitating flow around marine propeller blade in viscous capillary fluid. Fluid Dyn1990; 25: 879–885.
32.
AmrominELVasilyevAVOrlovOP, et al.Calculation of cavitation inception number for propellers and method for wake effects. In: BilletMLMorganWB (eds) Cavitation inception 1993. New York: ASME, 1993, pp.103–112.
33.
AmrominEL. Scale effect of cavitation inception on a 2D Eppler hydrofoil. ASME J Fluids Eng2002; 124: 186–193.
34.
AmrominEL. Analysis of cavitation inception and desinence behind surface irregularities. Phys Fluids2016; 28: 075106.
35.
CeccioSGowingSShenYT. The effects of salt water on bubble cavitation. ASME J Fluids Eng1997; 119: 155–163.
36.
HollJWBilletML. Scale effects on various types of limited cavitation. ASME J Fluids Eng1981; 103: 405–414.
37.
ArakeriVHAcostaAJ. Cavitation inception observation on axisymmetric bodies at supercritical Reynolds numbers. J Ship Res1976; 20: 40–50.
38.
TerwisgaTvan WijngaardenEvan BosschersJ, et al.Achievements and challenges in cavitation research on ship propellers. Int Shipbuild Prog2007; 54: 1–22.
39.
van der MeulenJHJ. Boundary layer and cavitation study of NACA16012 and NACA4412 hydrofoils. In: Proceedings of the 13th symposium on naval hydrodynamics,Tokyo, Japan, 1980.
40.
AmrominEL. Combinations of numerical solutions for prediction of cavitation inception in flows around blades. Ocean Eng2023; 280: 114815.
41.
WuYBakkerDCEAchterbergEP, et al.Integrated analysis of carbon dioxide and oxygen concentration as a quality control of ocean float data. Commun Earth Environ2022; 3: 92.
42.
NoordziiL. Some experiments on cavitation inception with propellers in the NSMB-depressurized towing tank. Int Shipbuild Prog1976; 23: 300–306.
43.
LiuXKatzJ. Cavitation phenomena occurring due to interaction of shear layer vortices with the trailing corner of a two-dimensional open cavity. Phys Fluids2008; 20: 041702.
