Applications of Fluid Dynamics pp 683-690 | Cite as
Insights into Ventilation Demand Estimation for High-Speed Supercavitating Underwater Vehicles
Abstract
The difference between the typical peak speeds of an aerial and an underwater vehicle is enormous. Evidently, the reason behind this huge disparity lies in the tremendous skin friction drag experienced by an underwater vehicle. However, this difference can be bridged if the underwater vehicles were somehow engulfed by elongated gas/vapor bubbles or cavities as these vehicles travel underwater. Such huge cavities or ‘supercavities’ can be generated via two different approaches—cavitation or ventilation. Among the two, the generation of a supercavity through ventilation is more interesting, since it can be accomplished at much lower speeds. For the operation of such underwater vehicles in the ventilation mode, it is imperative to determine the ventilation demand, or the amount of gas to be carried on board. The present study reports some interesting insights into the factors that determine the estimation of this ventilation demand. Two most important factors governing the estimation of ventilation demand are the ventilation requirement for the formation and sustenance of a supercavity. These two factors, in turn, are dependent upon the operational conditions of a vehicle, as well as unsteady state conditions prevailing under the ocean. The current work explores the dependence of the formation and sustenance air entrainment rates of a supercavity at different operational conditions of the supercavitating vehicle.
Keywords
Supercavitation Ventilation Air entrainment Ventilation demand Ventilation hysteresisNomenclature
- \(P_{\infty }\)
Ambient pressure
- \(P_{\text{c}}\)
Internal cavity pressure
- \(Fr\)
Froude number
- U
Flow velocity
- \(d_{\text{c}}\)
Cavitator size
- g
Gravitational acceleration
- \(C_{Q}\)
Gas entrainment coefficient
- \(\dot{Q}\)
Gas ventilation rate
- \(C_{{Q{\text{form}}}}\)
Formation air entrainment coefficient
- \(C_{{Q{\text{sust}}}}\)
Collapse gas entrainment coefficient
- \(P_{\text{in}}\)
Pressure inside at the supercavity rear portion
- \(P_{\text{out}}\)
Pressure outside at the supercavity rear portion
- \(\Delta \tilde{P}\)
Nondimensional pressure difference
- \(\Delta \tilde{P}_{\text{est}}\)
Estimated nondimensional pressure difference
- \(D_{\text{T}}\)
Diameter of the water tunnel
- \(C_{\text{D}}\)
Drag coefficient
Greek Symbols
- \(\sigma\)
Cavitation number
- \(\rho\)
Water density
References
- Karn A, Arndt REA, Hong J (2015a) Dependence of supercavity closure upon flow unsteadiness. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 68:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karn A, Ellis C, Hong J, Arndt REA (2015b) Investigation into the turbulent bubbly wake of a vented hydrofoil: moving towards improved turbine aeration techniques. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 64:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karn A, Arndt REA, Hong J (2016a) An experimental investigation into supercavity closure mechanisms. J Fluid Mech 789:259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Karn A, Shao S, Arndt R, Hong J (2016b) Bubble coalescence and breakup in turbulent bubbly wake of a ventilated hydrofoil. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 70:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kawakami E, Arndt REA (2011) Investigation of the behavior of ventilated supercavities. J Fluids Eng 133(9):091305-1–091305-11Google Scholar
- Kinzel MP, Lindau JW, Kunz RF (2009) Air entrainment mechanisms from artificial supercavities: insight based on numerical simulations. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on cavitation, CAV, 136, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar