Numerical investigation of cavitation scale effects by bubble acoustic

1
Patrick Schiller,* 1Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud
1Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Ship Theory, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Hamburg, Germany

Abstract
This paper focuses on a number of issues related to scale effects based on acoustic cavitation inception.
The acoustic pressure emitted by flow bubbles is used to numerically detect the acoustic cavitation
inception. The acoustic pressure, the motion as well as the bubble size are calculated by a Lagrange
method, which is implemented in the in-house RANS code FreSCo+. In a numerical study on a 2D
hydrofoil, various aspects related to water quality, such as e.g. bubble size and bubble concentration,
are systematically investigated and analyzed. The inflow velocity and dimension of the investigated
body are varied. For a precise definition of acoustic cavitation inception two different criteria are used.
They are based on an event rate and an acoustic pressure, which have to be exceeded. The results of
the numerical study show that the known cavitation scale effects have a significant influence on the
detected cavitation inception number. Based on the analysis of the simulation results for the velocity
and body size variation, an extrapolation method is proposed and validated, which is also presented in
the paper.
Keywords: acoustic cavitation inception, bubble acoustic, Lagrange

Introduction
It is well known from systematic investigations as well as from practice that scale effects on cavitation phenomena
deviate from classical similarity laws, such as the cavitation number. This means the extrapolation from model scale
to full scale according to the Eulerian law of similarity will not always lead to reasonable results. For example,
developed cavitation might be observed on parts of the prototype, whereas no or incipient cavitation is detected in
model scale at the same cavitation number. Further, noticeable variations of the cavitation pattern on geometrically
similar bodies can be observed if they are tested in model scale at the same cavitation number but at different inflow
velocities. The viscosity and the intensity of turbulence of the fluid can have considerable influences on the cavitation
inception and extent. These effects are often categorized as ‘scale effects’.
Scale effects are often sensitive to variations in water quality, e.g. concentration and size of nuclei in the water,
tensile strength, and Reynolds number (model scale, flow velocity, viscosity, and intensity of turbulence) [1, 2].
Quantifying these scale effects is important for predicting the prototype cavitation behavior based on model tests, such
as water pumps and ship propellers.
It has been shown that the in-house RANS code FreSCo+ implemented Euler-Lagrange cavitation model is able
to predict scale effects regarding water quality, velocity and model dimensions in general (developed cavitation) [3,
4]. However, cavitation inception is also an important aspect. Two methods, visually or acoustically, can be used to
determine cavitation inception. The visual criterion, mostly used in model tests, is subjective because it based on
different perceptions of different observers. Further, in CFD, it is difficult to decide which vapor volume fraction or
vapor volume should be used for identifying the inception point. By defining a certain cavitation event rate (events
per time unit), a more precise criterion based on the acoustic behavior can be applied. This acoustic criterion can be
based on the acoustic pressure emitted by a spherical bubble that arises due to changing bubble volume. The acoustic
pressure emitted by a spherical bubble can be calculated via a formula according to Fitzpatrick and Strasberg, which
is additionally implemented into the Lagrange code. With the help of two different event rates and peak limits that
must be exceeded for the acoustic pressure, an acoustic cavitation inception criterion is defined and different flow
scenarios for an 2D NACA66(2)-415 a= 0.8 hydrofoil are numerically investigated for the acoustic cavitation
inception point.
In addition to determining a more precise definition of the cavitation inception criterion by bubble acoustics, this
method has the advantage of less computational effort because the negligible amount of vapor the bubbles contain
means there is no need to carry out a two-way coupling computation between the Euler and Lagrange phase. Thus, a
frozen Eulerian flow field can be used for the Lagrangian part, where only the ambient pressure is changed to ensure
the correct cavitation number.

*Corresponding Author, Patrick Schiller: patrick.schiller@tu-harburg.de

Numerical Method
The results of the numerical simulations presented here have been performed with the in-house RANS code
FreSCo+ [5], which is jointly developed by the Hamburg Ship Model Basin (HSVA) and the Institute for Fluid
Dynamics and Ship Theory (FDS) at Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH). Two-phase flows can be addressed
by interface-capturing methods based on the Level-Set or Volume-of-Fluid (VOF) technique. Cavitation can be
modelled using either mass-transfer models – i.e. Sauer [6], Zwart et al. [7] - or two-way coupled Euler-Lagrange
approaches. The method is parallelized using a domain-decomposition technique based on a Single Program Multiple
Data (SPMD) message-passing model. For the Euler-Lagrange simulation, a hybrid MPI/OpenMP parallelization
strategy is applied. The dynamic decomposition of the particles follows the Eulerian background phase.
The implemented Euler-Lagrange cavitation model is used to calculate the bubbles. In the Euler-Lagrange
approach, separate equations for calculating bubble size and motion are solved for each of the bubbles. More details
have already been presented in [3, 4, 8].
The acoustic pressure and the radiated noise of a bubble is the consequence of the temporal variation of the
bubble volume 𝑉𝑏 (𝑡) due to vaporization and condensation of the fluid. These pressure fluctuations in the surrounding
liquid are the reason for the cavitation noise. Most of the sound emitted by cavitating bubbles occurs during the
collapse phase, which is characterized by a smaller time-scale than the growing phase (see e.g. Ross [9]).
Instantaneously emitted acoustic pressure 𝑝𝑎𝑐 is related to the volume acceleration of a vapor–gas bubble:
𝜌 ∙ 𝑑 2 𝑉𝑏 4
𝑝𝑎𝑐 = 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑉𝑏 = 𝜋𝑅3 . (1)
4𝜋𝐿 𝑑𝑡 2 3
Length L is the distance between the bubble and the observer position. When 𝐿 ≫ 𝑅, this equation becomes the
expression for the acoustic pressure 𝑝𝑎𝑐 (𝑡) of Fitzpatrick and Strasberg [10] after introduction of the delayed time 𝑡 ′
due to the finite speed of sound 𝑎, which is
𝑡 ′ = 𝑡 − 𝐿/𝑎 . (2)
The time 𝑡 ′ is the time when the bubble event takes place. The information is transported to an observer with the speed
𝑎 over the distance 𝐿 between the observer and the instantaneous position of the bubble. The acoustic pressure reads
then
𝑅(𝑡 ′ )
𝑝𝑎𝑐 (𝑡) = 𝜌 (𝑅(𝑡 ′ ) ∙ 𝑅̈ (𝑡 ′ ) + 2𝑅̇ 2 (𝑡 ′ )) . (3)
𝐿
One approach for calculating the volume acceleration is the classical theory of Rayleigh, expressed by the Rayleigh–
Plesset equation. This information is already available in Lagrange method for the bubbles. So, the acoustic pressure
can be directly calculated.
To evaluate the acoustic pressure for an arbitrary recording position, the acoustic pressure is calculated for each
bubble and the values are saved in a timeline, where the delay time 𝑡 ′ is considered for each individual bubble. For
the traveling speed a, the speed of sound in water, a value of 1500 m/s is used. A damping of the acoustic pressure
signal (aside from the loss by the divergence) on its way to the observing point is not considered because the distances
between the bubbles and the observing points are too small in the cases considered in this work. Therefore, the
damping is negligibly small.

Investigated Case and Numerical Setup

The numerical investigations are conducted for a 2D hydrofoil. The section shape is a NACA66(2)-415 a=0.8
hydrofoil with constant chord length of c0=0.2025m. It was rigorously investigated in the cavitation tunnel of SVA
Potsdam during the KonKav I joint project under various flow conditions and already used for numerical investigations
in terms of the Euler-Lagrange cavitation model (see [1, 2]). The 2D hydrofoil was selected for this study because it
requires less computational effort in comparison to a more complicated geometry such as a ship propeller, and in turn,
a wider range of parameters can be varied and their influences can be analyzed.
The simulation grid used is a quasi 2D-structured grid with only one cell in span wise direction and generated
with HEXPRESS™ (see Figure 1(a)). The grid is scaled to achieve different foil sizes and the height of the first
boundary cell for the foil surface is selected in a way that it has a Y+-value ≤ 1 in the whole investigated parameter
range for flow velocity and foil size. The top and the bottom of the tunnel domain are treated as slip walls and at the
sides of the domain symmetry boundary conditions are used. The inflow velocity is given at the inlet, and a pressure
boundary condition is applied at the outlet. A reference or a baseline case is defined for the numerical study. The
baseline case has an inflow velocity of v0=5.5m/s and a chord length of c0=0.2025m at an angle of attack of AoA=7.0°.

(b)
(a)
Tunnel Height

2C C 4C

Figure 1: Details of the employed computational mesh (a) and normalized pressure distribution (b) around the hydrofoil at AoA=7°.

For this investigation of acoustic cavitation inception, a frozen flow field is used and the two-way coupling is disabled
because there is no need for a vapor-volume transfer from the Lagrange to the Eulerian flow field for conditions with
almost no vapor-volume. This saves a lot of computational effort.
The bubbles are released in front of the hydrofoil, as illustrated in Figure 2. The release area is located 0.5 chord length
in front of the foil and has a height so that the suction as well as the pressure side is adequately covered with bubbles.
To reduce the computational effort, the calculation domain is not completely filled with bubbles and the bubbles are
tracked only until 75% of the chord length (see Figure 2). The bubble concentration is kept constant for all simulations
by means of a constant number of bubbles per fluid volume. The concentration is 𝑛0 =6.22/cm² in this study and the
bubble diameter for the baseline case is 𝑑𝑏0 =90µm. The bubble release area and the number of bubbles released in
each timestep is adjusted if necessary when the chord length or inflow velocity is changed to keep the concentration
constant. The bubbles are released with a delta t of 10 -4s, which corresponds to the Euler timestep for a two-way
simulation, but tracked with the standard Lagrange timestep of 10 -7s.

Figure 2: Bubble release position (red line) relative to the hydrofoil and area filed with bubbles (green points).

For detecting the acoustic cavitation inception point, two criteria are used with the following event rates and peak
limits:
1. Criterion: 10peaks/s over 10Pa 2. Criterion: 50peaks/s over 40Pa.
They are chosen from a systematic variation of peak/s (from 10 to 50 in steps of 10) and different limits (from 10Pa
to 50Pa in steps of 10Pa) and found to be representative for a more or less stringent criterion.
A total simulation time of 10s is applied in order to ensure a sufficient statistical scope for the acoustic timeline. This
means that 100 and 500 Peaks above the corresponding peak limit must be counted in this time, respectively, in order
to fulfill the above criteria. As a recording position of the acoustic signal, a position directly above the leading edge
of the hydrofoil at a distance of 1m is chosen. This position is kept fixed for all investigated cases. The definition of
the cavitation number sigma used in this work is:
𝜎 = (𝑝∞ − 𝑝𝑣 )⁄(0.5 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝑣 2 ) (4)

Results
Figure 1(b) shows the normalized pressure distribution for the baseline case. The comparison of the simulation result
with the SVA measurements show a good agreement for the forces acting on the foil as well as for velocity profiles at
6 different positions before, along and behind the hydrofoil. These results are not presented here in detail but indicate
that the accuracy of the calculated flow field is sufficient for the acoustic cavitation inception study. In the following,
the results of the systematic investigation with respect to water quality (bubble size and number), flow velocity and
foil size (chord length) are presented.
 In a first step, the influence of different bubble diameters (𝑑𝑏 ) on the acoustic cavitation inception is studied
because the bubble diameter is an important parameter with respect to the water quality. The investigated bubble
diameters range from 10 to 360µm and are made dimensionless by the bubble dimeter of the baseline case (𝑑𝑏0 ). The
other parameters in the simulations are kept constant and correspond to the baseline case. The results in Figure 3(a)
show that for very small bubbles sigma increases drastically and then turns into a constant slope for larger bubble
diameters. The curves for both criteria are close together and show the same trend until a bubble diameter of 120µm.
The curve for the second criterion then turns into a constant level at a bubble diameter of 360µm. The curve for the
first criterion stays at the same inclination and a strong increasing trend is visible from 240µm. This is due to the fact
that background noise increases with increasing bubble diameter. Larger bubbles generate a higher acoustical pressure
amplitude even when there is only a small and slow change in the bubble diameter. But the sum of the acoustical
signal of all tracked bubbles can then reach the specified criterion, which is here the case for first one. A higher-
pressure level is required to suppress this phenomenon, which then automatically leads to higher cavitation inception
numbers, as one can see here.
An additional property with respect to water quality is bubble concentration. It is found that the number of peak
counts that exceeds a certain limit either increases or decreases linearly with the change of the concentration 𝑛 (Figure
3(b)), which is a quite plausible phenomenon. Due to the fact that the development of the peak count number is not
linear over the sigma value, the change of the acoustic cavitation inception point is also nonlinear. In the simulation,
the ambient pressure must be adjusted until the first or the second defined criterion is fulfilled. Changing the pressure
leads to a different cavitation number. The change depends on the characteristic curve of the peak counts over the
cavitation number and when it reaches the defined criterion. The increase of this peak count number is low for higher
sigma values und starts to increase drastically at a certain point when sigma is reduced. This point is close to the point
of cavitation inception found by the second criterion. Particularly at low concentrations there can be a remarkable
difference when the intersection of the characteristic curve with the inception criterion lies in the flat rising part of the
curve.
5.5 5000
(a) 4500
peaks over 10Pa (b)
5.0 10peaks/s over 10Pa
sigma acoustic inception [-]

peaks over 40Pa

number of peak counts

4000
4.5 50peaks/s over 40Pa peaks/n over 10Pa
3500
peaks/n over 40Pa
4.0 3000
3.5 2500
3.0 2000
1500
2.5
1000
2.0 500
1.5 0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 1 2 3 4 5
db/db0 [-] n/n0

6.0 3.50
(c) (d)
sigma acoustic inception [-]
sigma acoustic inception [-]

5.0 3.25

4.0 3.00

3.0 2.75

2.0 10peaks/s 10Pa 2.50 10peaks/s 10Pa

50peaks/s 40Pa 50peaks/s 40Pa
1.0 2.25
-cp min -cp min
0.0 2.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
v/v0 [-] c/c0 [-]

Figure 3: Influence of bubble concentration on number of peak counts (b) and development of the acoustic cavitation inception number for
bubble diameter variation (a), inflow velocity variation (c) and chord length variation (d).

To investigate the known velocity scale effect, the inflow velocity is varied in a range from 1.375 to 27m/s and the
other parameters are kept in line to the baseline case. The result is given in Figure 3(c), where the development of the
acoustic cavitation inception point is plotted over the velocity ratio with respect to the velocity of the baseline case.
The expected trend, lower acoustic cavitation inception numbers at low flow velocities and vice versa, is represented
correctly. But the development of the curve for the two criteria is different. Due to the increasing background noise,
the curve for the first criterion increases rapidly for velocities above 11m/s and 16.5m/s, respectively. This shows that
the chosen value for this criterion is not convenient for high velocities. But it works for low velocities where the
second criterion cannot be reached. The development of the curve for the second criterion shows a constant increasing
trend with decreasing gradient. It seems that there might be a certain limit for the cavitation inception number at very
high velocities.
The model scale of the cavitating object is another important influence factor for scale effects. The results of the
detected acoustic cavitation inception numbers for different foil chord lengths (variation between 0.0506 to 1.012m)
are depicted. Figure 3(d) shows the dependency of the calculated acoustic cavitation inception number on the chord
length. Again, the chord length is made dimensionless by the corresponding value of the baseline case. In general,
cavitation inception numbers detected by both criteria increase as the inflow velocity increases. This observed
dependency is also in line with the trend reported by Keller [2]. In fact, the acoustic cavitation inception number
increases with increasing the chord length. However, the increase of the acoustic cavitation inception number is getting
smaller with rising foil size. The curves of cavitation inception numbers detected by both criteria show a strong
similarity to the calculated minimum pressure (𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) coefficient on the foil. However, a nearly constant difference
between the curves of both criteria is visible (see Figure 3(d)). The difference becomes larger for ratios above 2.5.
Further investigations are needed to clarify the reasons for this small decrease in the cavitation inception number
estimated by the second criterion. It could be an effect of the statistical reliability of the simulations. The characteristic
increase of the cavitation inception number when increasing the foil size is reasonable due to the fact that the area
captured by low pressure regime becomes greater with larger object size. A doubling of the chord length results in
four times greater low-pressure regime and thus more bubbles are captured in this area. It is remarkable that there
seems to be a constant increase of the sigma by a value of 0.2 - 0.25 when the chord length is doubled.

Extrapolation Method
The aim of the developed extrapolation method is to predict the acoustic cavitation inception point for other flow
velocities and object sizes or any combinations of it, when it is known only for model-scale configurations. It is based
on the curves of the second criterion and the following assumption:
𝜎𝑖𝑛 = −𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 + ∆𝜎𝑐 + ∆𝜎𝑣 , (5)
where ∆𝜎𝑐 and ∆𝜎𝑣 are the deviations from −𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 with respect to the body size and the flow velocity, respectively.
The minimal pressure coefficient is used because cavitation mainly depends on the minimal pressure in a flow.
The minimal pressure along a foil depends on the Reynolds number and therefore on the thickness of the boundary
layer. With increasing the Reynolds number, the impact of the frictional part on the total resistance decreases and the
velocity in the boundary layer increases and thus the minimal pressure. It is found on the basis of the resulting friction
resistance coefficients 𝑐𝐷𝑓 based on the simulation results, that in the present case the following relationship between
𝑐𝐷𝑓 and 𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 exists (compare Figure 4(a)):
𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝐷𝑓 0 − 𝑐𝐷𝑓 𝑐𝐷𝑓 0 𝑐𝐷𝑓 𝑐𝐷𝑓
≅ 1+ =1+ − =2− . (6)
𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 0 𝑐𝐷𝑓 0 𝑐𝐷𝑓 0 𝑐𝐷𝑓 0 𝑐𝐷𝑓 0
Values with the index 0 refer to a known starting simulation condition and without the index 0 to the new condition.
However, this approach is only applicable if the friction part of the drag is less than ≈ 50% of the total resistance. The
friction resistance coefficient 𝑐𝐷𝑓 can be determined by known friction lines as a function of the Re number. In this
case, the 𝑐𝑓 value from ITTC 1978 friction line fits quite well, as can be seen in Figure 4(b). With this approach,
𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 of a known configuration can be converted to another one with the help of the Reynolds number and the ITTC
1978 friction line.
1.4 0.010
(a) (b) cD f simulation
1.3
0.009
1.2 cf ITTC 1978

1.1 0.008

1.0 0.007
0.9 cp min / cp min0
0.006
0.8 2 + cD f / cD f0

0.7 0.005
0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07 0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07
Re [-] Re [-]

Figure 4: Development of cpmin /cpmin 0 and 2 − 𝑐𝐷𝑓 /𝑐𝐷𝑓 0 (a) and frictional resistance coefficient (b) over Reynold number.
As it can be seen from Figure 3(d), sigma follows the minimal pressure coefficient −𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 quite well when the chord
length is changed. Thus, ∆𝜎𝑐 is a constant value that also depends on bubble diameter. The presented results in Figure
3(d) are obtained for a bubble diameter of 90µm.
For considering the influence of the variation of the inflow velocity, an additional increasing difference ∆𝜎𝑣 to
−𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 must be taken into account (see Figure 3(c)). Figure 5 shows that there is a linear relationship between ∆𝜎𝑣 =
𝜎𝑖𝑛 − (−𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) and the pressure difference of the bubble internal pressure 𝑝𝑔0 and the minimal pressure 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 in a
certain range, which corresponds to a velocity ratio 𝑣/𝑣0 from 1 to 4 and covers the common velocity ratios between
model and full scale. The linear relationship can be expressed by equation (7) and the term 𝑝𝑔0 − 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 by equation
(8). Herein 𝑆 is the surface tension and 𝑅0 the initial bubble radius. The variables 𝑎 and 𝑏 can be determined by
evaluating the results of from model tests or CFD calculations at two different inflow velocities, where all other
parameters are known. Then ∆𝜎𝑣 can be calculated for a different velocity.
(𝑝𝑔0 − 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
∆𝜎𝑣 = 𝑎 ∙ +𝑏 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 = 1.07 ∙ 10−3 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = 3.09 ∙ 10−3 (7)
𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛0
𝜌 2 2𝑆 (8)
𝑝𝑔0 − 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 = −𝑐𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∙ ∙ 𝑣 − 𝑝𝑣 +
2 𝑅0
0.5
0.4
0.3
Δσv = σin -(-cpmin)

0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1 delta sigma_v

-0.2 Linear (delta sigma_v)

-0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500
(pg0 - pmin)/pmin0 [-]

Figure 5: Development of ∆𝜎𝑣 .

In order to validate the extrapolation method, different combinations of inflow velocity and chord length are simulated
and the detected acoustic cavitation inception points are compared with the one predicted by the extrapolation method.
This is done for an angle of attack of 7° as before and additionally for 12°. The results are given in Table 1 and show
a good agreement for both cases with errors less than ±3%. Exceptions are the combinations with a velocity ratio of
0.5 at 7°. But this is not surprising because the method isn’t valid for this range.
sigma acoustic cavitation
cp min [-]
velocity size velocity chord inception for Error
Case
ratio [-] ratio [-] [m/s] length [m] from 50peaks/s [%]
estimated prediction
simulation over 40Pa
7deg - 1 0.5 0.5 2.75 0.10125 -2.321 -2.300 2.328 2.098 10.946
7deg - 2 2 0.5 11 0.10125 -2.757 -2.757 2.828 2.829 -0.041
7deg - 3 0.5 2 2.75 0.405 -2.757 -2.757 2.765 2.512 10.058
7deg - 4 2 2 11 0.405 -3.169 -3.191 3.250 3.252 -0.049
7deg - 5 3 3 16.5 0.6075 -3.409 -3.411 3.600 3.518 2.323
7deg - 6 4 5 22 1.0125 -3.630 -3.614 3.988 3.905 2.132
12deg - 1 2 3 11 0.6075 -7.335 -7.179 7.517 7.282 3.233
12deg - 2 4 5 22 1.0125 -8.058 -7.775 8.849 8.691 1.817
12deg - 3 3 1 16.5 0.2025 -6.900 -6.842 7.283 7.409 -1.707
12deg - 4 1 2 5.5 0.405 -6.654 -6.641 6.698 6.684 0.212

Table 1: Comparison of predicted and simulated acoustic cavitation inception point for different combinations of flow velocity and chord
length at AoA=7° and 12°.
Conclusion
The study and results presented in this paper show that with the Lagrange model and its ability to calculate the acoustic
pressure emitted by a bubble, cavitation scale effects can be calculated with the help of the acoustic cavitation
inception point. Two inception criteria are proposed that are based on an event rate and peak limits.
The results obtained with the chosen acoustic criteria for cavitation inception basically show a similar trend.
Many aspects that can have a significant influence on the cavitation inception are investigated. The results show a
linear relationship between the event rate and bubble concentration. By increasing the bubble diameter, the inception
cavitation number increases rapidly at very small bubble diameters and the increase continuously declines as bubble
diameters get larger. This trend can also be observed when the chord length and/or the inflow velocity is increased. In
general, the results of the numerical investigations show the known trends regarding scale effects, e.g. lower inception
cavitation numbers for lower flow velocities or object sizes.
Further, it becomes clear that different inception criteria can lead to different results, especially if a high
background noise level is present. Based on the results for velocity and size scale effects, an extrapolation method is
proposed to predict acoustic cavitation inception for any combinations of these two parameters. The validation on two
cases reveals a good agreement between the extrapolated results and the simulation. But it should be mentioned that
the described extrapolation method is only applied for a 2D case and the applicability to other flow objects and water
qualities is still to be investigated.
References
[1] Keller, A. P., Rott, H. K., Stoffel, B., Striedinger, R. (1999). Maßstabseffekte bei der Strömungskavitation. Forschung im
Ingenieurwesen 65. Springer-Verlag.
[2] Keller, A. P. (2001). Cavitation scale effects empirically found relations and the correlation of cavitation number and
hydrodynamic coefficients. CAV2001.
[3] Maquil, T., Yakubov, S., Cankurt, B., Schiller, P., Abdel-Maksoud, M., Rung, T. (2011) Simulation of Water-Quality Effects
for Cavitating Engineering Flows. WIMRC 3rd International Cavitation Forum. University of Warwick. UK.
[4] Schiller, P., Abdel-Maksoud, M., Rung, T., Cankurt, B., Maquil, T., Yakubov, S. (2012) Investigation on Cavitation Scales
Effects with different Cavitation Models. 8th International Symposium on Cavitation. Singapore.
[5] Rung, T., Wöckner, K., Manzke, M., Stück, A., Brunswig, J., Ulrich, C. (2009). Challenges and Perspectives for Maritime
CFD Applications. Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft (Vol. 103).
[6] Sauer, J. (2000). Instationär kavitierende Strömungen - Ein neues Modell, basierend auf Front Capturing (VoF) und
Blasendynamik. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe.
[7] Zwart, P.J., Gerber, A.G., Belamri, T. (2004). A two-phase flow model for predicting cavitation dynamics. In ICMF 2004
International Conference on Multiphase Flow. Number 152. Yokohama. Japan.
[8] Yakubov, S., Cankurt, B., Abdel-Maksoud, M., Rung, T. (2012). Hybrid MPI/OpenMP parallelization of an Euler-
Lagrange approach to cavitation modelling. Computers and Fluids. Doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.01.020.
[9] Ross, D. (1976). Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Pergamon Press. New York, Oxford, Frankfurt, Paris.
[10] Fitzpatrick, N., Strasberg, M. (1958). Hydrodynamic sources of sound. In: 2ndSymposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. pp.
201–205.