Bulletin of the American Physical Society
71st Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Fluid Dynamics
Volume 63, Number 13
Sunday–Tuesday, November 18–20, 2018; Atlanta, Georgia
Session Q09: Cavitation and Multiphase Flows
12:50 PM–3:26 PM,
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Georgia World Congress Center
Room: B214
Chair: Aren Hellum, Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Abstract ID: BAPS.2018.DFD.Q09.8
Abstract: Q09.00008 : Furthering the Understanding of Multi-modal Shedding on a Cavitating NACA0015 Hydrofoil using Cluster-Based Reduced-Order Modeling (CROM) and Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD)*
2:21 PM–2:34 PM
Presenter:
Harish Ganesh
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Authors:
Harish Ganesh
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Daniel Knister
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Shivam Barwey
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Malik Hassanaly
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Venkatramanan Raman
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Eric Johnsen
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Steven Ceccio
(Univ of Michigan - Ann Arbor)
Cavitation dynamics on a NACA0015 hydrofoil is known to be multi-modal with abrupt changes in shedding frequency corresponding to a change in cavitation number. By using time-resolved X-ray densitometry based void-fraction field measurements, the underlying physical mechanisms responsible for the observed behavior have been found to be the occurrence of a three-step shedding process which involved either partial or full-collapse of growing cavity due to shed cloud-collapse. In addition, occurrence of propagating bubbly shock waves as a dominant mechanism of shedding also coincided with the observance of multi-modal behavior. It was also observed that the shedding process under certain conditions involved abrupt oscillations from three-step shedding to a single-step shedding. Even though the flow structures responsible for this transition have been identified, the driving force behind the transition between modes is not clear. In this study, we use CROM and DMD on instantaneous void-fraction fields to understand the transition dynamics and relate them to physical processes. In addition, comparison between the two methods for a cavitating flow is also presented.
*This work is supported by Office of Naval Research, Program Manager: Ki-Han Kim, grant numberĀ N00014-14-1-0292
To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2018.DFD.Q09.8
Follow Us |
Engage
Become an APS Member |
My APS
Renew Membership |
Information for |
About APSThe American Physical Society (APS) is a non-profit membership organization working to advance the knowledge of physics. |
© 2024 American Physical Society
| All rights reserved | Terms of Use
| Contact Us
Headquarters
1 Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844
(301) 209-3200
Editorial Office
100 Motor Pkwy, Suite 110, Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 591-4000
Office of Public Affairs
529 14th St NW, Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20045-2001
(202) 662-8700