Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = κ-ε realizable

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
31 pages, 6718 KB  
Article
CFD Turbulence Models Assessment for the Cavitation Phenomenon in a Rectangular Profile Venturi Tube
by Mauricio De la Cruz-Ávila, Jorge E. De León-Ruiz, Ignacio Carvajal-Mariscal and Jaime Klapp
Fluids 2024, 9(3), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids9030071 - 7 Mar 2024
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3733
Abstract
This study investigates cavitation in a rectangular-profile Venturi tube using numerical simulations and four turbulence models. The unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes technique is employed to simulate vapor cloud formation and compared against experimental data. κ-ε realizable, κ-ε RNG, κ-ω SST, and κ-ω GEKO models [...] Read more.
This study investigates cavitation in a rectangular-profile Venturi tube using numerical simulations and four turbulence models. The unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes technique is employed to simulate vapor cloud formation and compared against experimental data. κ-ε realizable, κ-ε RNG, κ-ω SST, and κ-ω GEKO models are evaluated. The simulation results are analyzed for pressure, turbulence, and vapor cloud formation. Discrepancies in cavitation cloud formation among turbulence models are attributed to turbulence and vapor cloud interactions. RNG and SST models exhibit closer alignment with the experimental data, with RNG showing a superior performance. Key findings include significant vapor cloud shape differences across turbulence models. The RNG model best predicts velocity at the throat exit with an error of 4.145%. Static pressure predictions include an error of 4.47%. The vapor cloud length predictions show variation among models, with the RNG model having a 0.386% error for the minimum length and 4.9845% for the maximum length. The SST model exhibits 4.907% and 13.33% errors for minimum and maximum lengths, respectively. Analysis of the cavitation number reveals agreement with the experimental data and sensitivity to cavitation onset. Different turbulence models yield diverse cloud shapes and detachment points. Weber number contours illustrate the variation in the cavitation cloud behavior under different turbulence models. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pipe Flow: Research and Applications)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop