Numerical Investigation of Hydrofoil Cavitation Using OpenFOAM: Effect of Thickness and Camber

Abstract

Cavitation is a critical phenomenon in hydrodynamic applications, significantly influencing the performance and durability of hydrofoils. This study presents a numerical investigation of cavitation over hydrofoils, focusing on the effects of thickness and camber, using the interPhaseChangeFoam solver within the OpenFOAM framework. The numerical setup was validated against experimental data for the NACA66(mod) hydrofoil. Simulations were performed at a fixed angle of attack of 4° under two cavitation numbers, σ = 0.84 and σ = 0.91 using the Schnerr–Sauer cavitation model with a vapor pressure of 2420 Pa. To assess thickness effects, symmetric hydrofoils NACA0012, NACA0016, and NACA0020 were analyzed, while camber effects were examined using hydrofoils of identical thickness but varying camber, NACA0012, NACA2412, and NACA4412. Results show that cambered and thicker hydrofoils develop more extensive cavitation regions. Increasing the cavitation number generally leads to higher lift coefficients, with the effect more pronounced for cambered profiles. Greater camber promotes earlier cavitation inception, a larger cavity extent, and higher lift, with NACA4412 achieving the highest lift coefficients of approximately CL = 0.74 and 0.79 at σ = 0.84 and 0.91, respectively. Increased thickness also enlarges the cavitation region but generally results in lower lift, as observed for NACA0020, which exhibited lift coefficients of approximately CL = 0.31 and 0.34 at σ = 0.84 and 0.91, respectively. Increasing the cavitation number from σ = 0.84 to 0.91 reduced drag for all profiles by up to about 23% while preserving lift in cambered foils.

Keywords

• Cavitation
• Hydrofoil
• Thickness
• Camber
• CFD
• OpenFOAM

References

1. Adil S, Hussien HA, Othman SA. 2025. Detect cavitation in centrifugal hydraulic pumps: A Review. Iraqi J Oil Gas Res, 5(1): 1–19.
2. Arndt REA. 2012. Some remarks on hydrofoil cavitation. J Hydrodyn, 24(3): 305–314.
3. Canlı E, Ates A, Bilir Ş. 2020. Derivation of Dimensionless Governing Equations for Axisymmetric Incompressible Turbulent Flow Heat Transfer Based on Standard k-ϵ Model. Afyon Kocatepe Univ J Sci Eng, 20(6): 1096–1111.
4. Chen J, Escaler X. 2024. Numerical investigation of the cavitation effects on the wake dynamics behind a blunt trailing edge hydrofoil. Ocean Eng, 302: 117599.
5. Gallegos DP, Luo X. 2024. 3D Study of Cloud Cavitation on a Circular Leading-Edge Hydrofoil Using RANS Approaches. ASME Fluids Eng Div Summer Conf Proc, pp:45-64.
6. Guo M, Liu C, Ke Z, Yan Q, Zuo Z, Khoo BC. 2023. Effects of flow conditions on the cavitation characteristics of viscous oil around a hydrofoil. Phys Fluids, 35: 1-15.
7. Huang B, Zhao Y, Wang G. 2014. Large Eddy Simulation of turbulent vortex-cavitation interactions in transient sheet/cloud cavitating flows. Comput Fluids, 92: 113-124.
8. Kang T, Park W, Jung C. 2014. Cavitation flow analysis of hydrofoil with change of angle of attack. J Comput Fluids Eng, 19: 17-23.

9. Karim M, Rahman M, Hai MA, Shimul MM, Sudhi SH. 2018. Numerical investigation of flow around cavitating hydrofoil using finite volume method. AIP Conf Proc, 1980: 40018.
10. Kaya MN, Satcunanathan S, Meinke M, Schröder W. 2025. Leading-Edge Noise Mitigation on a Rod–Airfoil Configuration Using Regular and Irregular Leading-Edge Serrations. Appl Sci, 15(14): 7822.
11. Kim SE, Schroeder S, Jasak H. 2010. A multi-phase CFD framework for predicting performance of marine propulsors. Proc 13th Int Symp Transport Phenomena Dyn Rotating Mach: 4–7.
12. Kubota A, Kato H, Yamaguchi H. 1992. A new modelling of cavitating flows: a numerical study of unsteady cavitation on a hydrofoil section. J Fluid Mech, 240: 59–96.
13. Kumar P, Sharma N, Pattanayek SK, Garg A. 2024. Computational comparison of passive control for cavitation suppression on cambered hydrofoils in sheet, cloud, and supercavitation regimes. Phys Fluids, 36: 1-18.
14. Manolesos M, Celik Y, Ramsay H, Karande R, Wood B, Dinwoodie I, Masters I, Harrold M, Papadakis G. 2024. Performance improvement of a Vestas V52 850kW wind turbine by retrofitting passive flow control devices. J Phys Conf Ser, 2767(2): 022027.
15. Mostafa N, Karim M, Sarker M. 2016. Numerical Prediction of Unsteady Behavior of Cavitating Flow on Hydrofoils using Bubble Dynamics Cavitation Model. J Appl Fluid Mech, 9: 1829-1837.
16. Peng XX, Ji B, Cao Y, Xu L, Zhang G, Luo X, Long X. 2016. Combined experimental observation and numerical simulation of the cloud cavitation with U-type flow structures on hydrofoils. Int J Multiph Flow, 79: 10-22.
17. Qiu Q, Gu Y, Ren Y, Mou C, Hu C, Ding H, Wu D, Wu Z, Mou J. 2025. Research progress in hydrofoil cavitation prediction and suppression methods. Phys Fluids, 37: 011301.
18. Schnerr GH, Sauer J. 2001. Physical and numerical modeling of unsteady cavitation dynamics. Proc 4th Int Conf Multiph Flow, New Orleans, USA, 1–12.
19. Shen Y, Dimotakis P. 1989. Viscous and Nuclei Effects on Hydrodynamic Loadings and Cavitation of a NACA 66 (MOD) Foil Section. J Fluids Eng Trans ASME, 111: 306–316.
20. Usta O, Öksüz S, Çelik F. 2025. Effect of leading-edge tubercles and surface corrugations on the performance and cavitation characteristics of twisted hydrofoils. Ocean Eng, 335: 121663.
21. Wang F, Zhu B, Zhang W, Zhang H. 2025. Cylinder wake effect on cavitation flow field around a downstream hydrofoil. Phys Fluids, 37: 1-15.
22. Zhou L, Wan Z. 2008. Numerical simulation of cavitation around a hydrofoil and evaluation of a RNG κ-ε model. J Fluids Eng Trans ASME, 130(1): 011302.