Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Wall Wettability Control of Cavitation Patterns and Stability

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Raising the wall contact angle from 0° to 160° consistently advances cavitation inception, thickens the vapor cavity, and increases unsteadiness, while at low cavitation numbers a high contact angle stabilizes the wall-attached cavity by…

desk verdict A systematic WCA sweep with an interesting regime-dependent reversal at low sigma, buried under an internally contradictory abstract; deserves revision, not rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15135 v1 pith:VCCNRA5S submitted 2025-07-20 physics.flu-dyn math-phmath.MP

Parisa Tayerani , Mahmood Mousavi , Mahmoud Pasandidehfard , Ehsan Roohi This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynmath-phmath.MP
keywords CavitationFlowWallContactAngleNumberRegimeLargeEddySimulationHydrofoilWettabilityRe-entrantJet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that wall wettability—the contact angle between the liquid and the solid—can be used as a passive control parameter for cavitation around a Clark Y hydrofoil. Using large-eddy simulations with a dynamic contact angle model across three cavitation numbers, a dimensionless measure of how close the local pressure is to the vapor pressure, it finds a consistent ordering: as the wall contact angle rises from hydrophilic 0° to superhydrophobic 160°, cavitation starts earlier along the chord and the vapor cavity becomes thicker and more unsteady in the cloud-cavitation regime at σ=0.8. At σ=1.6 the higher contact angle produces small detached bubbles and localized wall-pressure fluctuations, while the hydrophilic wall keeps vapor attached and the pressure field smooth. At σ=0.4 the superhydrophobic wall suppresses the re-entrant jet and holds a stable, wall-adhered vapor layer, reducing unsteady loading. The authors conclude that contact angle is an effective passive mechanism for tailoring cavitation behavior and optimizing flow stability.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the dynamic wall contact angle model embedded in the interface-capturing solver: instead of fixing the interface-wall intersection, the model lets the contact angle follow the contact-line velocity, and the resulting capillary force enters the momentum equation through the surface-tension term. This is the mechanism that lets the contact angle alter near-wall pressure, cavitation inception, vapor attachment, and re-entrant-jet formation in the simulations.

What would settle it

Repeat the contact-angle comparison in a spanwise-resolved three-dimensional simulation or a coated-hydrofoil experiment at cavitation number 0.8; if the 160° case no longer shows earlier inception, thicker cavities, and stronger pressure fluctuations relative to 0°, the two-dimensional assumption is the reason.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that wall contact angle is a first-order control on cavitation behavior: increasing it lowers the pressure needed for vapor formation, shifting inception upstream, enlarging vapor structures, and intensifying unsteadiness. The same increase has regime-dependent consequences—at σ=1.6 it yields smaller, mobile, detached bubbles with local pressure fluctuations; at σ=0.8 it produces thicker cavities, stronger shedding, and delayed wake recovery; at σ=0.4 it creates a stable attached supercavity that suppresses the re-entrant jet, the liquid jet that slices back through the cavity and drives shedding, and thereby reduces unsteady loading. The authors present these results as evidence that surface wettability can serve as a passive flow-control mechanism for cavitation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-dimensional simulation geometry—the hydrofoil spans the full channel width, with the flow treated as two-dimensional—captures the same cavitation physics that would appear in a three-dimensional flow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hydrophilic wall treatments can delay incipient cavitation and keep pressure fluctuations low at moderate cavitation numbers.
  • Superhydrophobic wall treatments can stabilize an attached supercavity at low cavitation numbers, reducing cyclic loading from re-entrant-jet shedding.
  • Because wettability acts passively, contact-angle selection offers a no-moving-parts complement to active cavitation control.
  • The wake response—deeper velocity deficit and slower recovery at high contact angles—should be factored into predictions of drag and unsteady loads for hydrofoil-like bodies.
  • The same ordering of earlier inception and thicker cavities holds across regimes, so surface treatment can be chosen locally on a blade rather than globally.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the monotonic trend suggests a practical design rule—choose a hydrophilic surface to suppress cavitation onset and a superhydrophobic surface when a stable supercavity is wanted, though the sharp transitions between regimes, as between 120° and 160°, remain to be mapped.
  • Inference: the two-dimensional assumption probably weakens quantitative magnitudes such as shedding frequency and breakup scales more than it changes the ordering of contact-angle effects; a spanwise-resolved three-dimensional test would show how much of the reported stabilization survives spanwise instability.
  • Inference: combining wettability patterning with surface texture could provide a second knob for positioning cavity closure and mitigating erosion damage without changing the global geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports large-eddy simulations of cavitating flow around a Clark-Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees angle of attack, with wall contact angle varied from 0 to 160 degrees at three cavitation numbers, sigma = 1.6, 0.8, and 0.4. The central claim is that increasing WCA consistently promotes earlier cavitation inception, thicker cavity development, and greater flow unsteadiness, while the sigma = 0.4 results show a regime-dependent stabilization of an attached supercavity on superhydrophobic surfaces. The paper validates the solver against experimental lift/drag and cavity thickness data, reports a mesh independence study, and presents qualitative and semi-quantitative comparisons of pressure distributions, vapor volume fraction fields, velocity profiles, and pressure fluctuation histories across the WCA range.

Significance. If the reported trends are robust, the study would provide a useful demonstration that surface wettability can act as a passive control parameter for cavitation, with potential engineering relevance for marine and turbomachinery applications. The parametric LES dataset covering three cavitation regimes is a contribution, and the regime-dependent reversal at sigma = 0.4 is the most interesting finding. However, the significance as currently stated is not established because the abstract's monotonic 'greater flow unsteadiness' claim is contradicted by the paper's own sigma = 0.4 results, the grid independence evidence is non-convergent, and the dynamic contact angle model is not specified. The potential value of the work lies in a qualified, regime-dependent statement rather than the current universal claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 6.2; Fig. 13] The abstract and Section 7 claim that increasing WCA 'consistently promotes ... greater flow unsteadiness' and that unsteadiness increases 'across all cavitation regimes.' This is contradicted by Section 6.2, where WCA = 160 maintains a stable, wall-adhered vapor layer and suppresses re-entrant jet activity, while WCA = 0 shows strong temporal fluctuations in liquid volume fraction (Fig. 12) and more intense pressure fluctuations (Fig. 13). The conclusion itself states that superhydrophobic surfaces 'reduced unsteady loading.' Because a monotonic increase in unsteadiness cannot also reverse at low sigma, the paper must either define a single quantitative unsteadiness metric and report it for all cases, or explicitly restrict the monotonic claim to sigma = 1.6 and 0.8 and present the sigma = 0.4 behavior as a regime-dependent reversal.
  2. [Section 4, Table 1] The grid independence table reports Cl values of 0.11, 0.46, 0.28, and 0.286 and cavity thickness values of 0.250, 0.100, 0.122, and 0.121 for very coarse to fine meshes. The sequence is non-monotonic, with a large outlier at the coarse mesh, and does not support the statement of 'clear convergence' or the claim that medium-to-fine differences are negligible as evidence of mesh independence. Since all production runs use the fine mesh, the quantitative results for cavity thickness and pressure fluctuations need either a properly converged grid study, a convergence curve with an uncertainty estimate, or a clear justification for why the non-monotonic coarse-mesh behavior does not affect the conclusions.
  3. [Section 2; Section 5] The dynamic wall contact angle model is mentioned in Section 2 as varying with contact line velocity, but no equation, model name, or parameter values are provided. Because WCA is the central control parameter, the simulation cannot be reproduced or fully assessed without specifying the contact angle model (e.g., Kistler, Shikhmurzaev, or a prescribed-angle variant), the static or advancing/receding angle inputs, and any relaxation or hysteresis parameters. In addition, the validation in Section 5 does not include any case with varying WCA, so there is no evidence that the model reproduces wettability-dependent behavior beyond the default hydrophilic setting.
  4. [Section 3] The manuscript states that 'the hydrofoil spans the entire domain width, assuming a two-dimensional approximation.' Cloud cavitation shedding and re-entrant jet formation are strongly three-dimensional mechanisms involving spanwise vorticity and vortex stretching. The paper does not validate the 2D assumption against a 3D simulation or experimental spanwise measurements, and it does not discuss how this approximation might affect the reported WCA effects on shedding and re-entrant jet suppression. The central claims about cavity stability at sigma = 0.4 and intensified shedding at sigma = 0.8 could be numerical artifacts of suppressing spanwise degrees of freedom; the authors should either provide a 3D comparison for at least one regime or explicitly present all conclusions as conditional on the 2D approximation.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3] Section 3 states that simulations are performed for cavitation numbers of 0.8 and 0.4, but the abstract and Section 6.3 also include sigma = 1.6; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 15 caption] The caption for Fig. 15 says 'The hydrophilic surface exhibits larger pressure fluctuation ranges due to unsteady cavity shedding and re-entrant jet activity,' while the text in Section 6.3 attributes localized pressure fluctuations to the superhydrophobic WCA = 160 case; the caption should be reconciled with the text.
  3. [Eqs. (10) and (11)] The sign conventions in the vaporization and condensation source terms should be checked against the liquid volume fraction transport equation, since alpha is the liquid fraction and the source term appears on the right-hand side with a positive sign.
  4. [Fig. 7] The horizontal axis of Fig. 7 is labeled 'Time (s)' but the text discusses low- and high-frequency content; if the plotted quantity is a temporal signal, the axis label is correct, but if it is a spectrum, the axis should be frequency.
  5. [Fig. 5] The x-axis label in Fig. 5 reads 'Normalized Position (C)' but the axis variable is x/C; please correct the label for clarity.
  6. [Table 1] Table 1 lists cavity thickness without units; specify whether delta_0.6C is normalized by chord length, and include the dimensional or normalized value consistently.
  7. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract describes sigma = 1.6 as producing 'smaller, detached vapor bubbles and localized pressure fluctuations,' while Section 7 states that hydrophilic surfaces at this sigma produce 'smoother pressure distributions and minimal pressure fluctuations'; these statements should be made consistent with respect to which WCA generates the fluctuations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central WCA-related claims are simulation outputs, not reductions to inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a simulation study, not a derivation. The central claims (earlier inception, thicker cavities, regime-dependent unsteadiness changes with WCA) are outputs of LES runs under prescribed wall-contact-angle boundary conditions; no claim is obtained by fitting a parameter to the quantity being predicted. The only inputs inherited from prior work are the Kunz model constants Cv=Cc=1000 and characteristic time tinf=0.005 s, cited to [2] (Roohi et al., with overlapping authorship). These are empirical model constants, not fitted to the WCA data, and they do not encode the WCA dependence that the paper reports; the WCA enters through a separate dynamic contact-angle boundary condition. The validation against experimental Clark-Y data [46] is a genuine external check using the same solver, which is standard practice and does not make the later production runs circular. Note that the abstract's blanket statement that increasing WCA 'consistently promotes ... greater flow unsteadiness' is contradicted by the sigma=0.4 result where WCA=160 suppresses re-entrant jets and reduces unsteady loading; however, that is an internal-consistency or presentation flaw, not a circularity. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the Kunz cavitation model with fixed empirical constants, a 2D LES approximation, and a dynamic contact angle model whose details are omitted. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Kunz vaporization coefficient Cv = 1000
    Empirical constant from the Kunz cavitation model controlling vaporization rate; set to 1000 following prior work, not independently calibrated here.
  • Kunz condensation coefficient Cc = 1000
    Empirical constant controlling condensation rate; set to 1000, no sensitivity study reported.
  • Characteristic time tinf = 0.005 s
    Characteristic time in the Kunz mass transfer terms, taken as 0.005 s from ref [2]; affects phase-change rates and thus cavity growth.
  • Free-stream velocity Uinf = 10 m/s
    Inlet velocity chosen as 10 m/s; sets the cavitation number together with the outlet pressure and influences all reported dynamics.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Kunz cavitation mass transfer model with Cv=Cc=1000 adequately represents phase change for the simulated flow regimes.
    Section 2.2 adopts an empirical barotropic model with fixed coefficients; the central WCA trends depend on this model being valid across sigma=0.4, 0.8, and 1.6.
  • domain assumption A 2D LES resolves the relevant cavitation shedding and re-entrant jet physics.
    Section 3 states a two-dimensional approximation; cloud cavitation and re-entrant jet dynamics are known to be three-dimensional, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The dynamic wall contact angle model captures real wettability effects in cavitating flows.
    Section 2 states that a dynamic contact angle model is used, but its formulation and parameters are not given; the comparisons across WCA assume this model is predictive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wall Wettability Control of Cavitation Patterns and Stability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCCNRA5S

@misc{pith2026250715135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wall Wettability Control of Cavitation Patterns and Stability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCCNRA5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15135}
}
abstract

This study investigates the role of wall wettability, characterized by the wall contact angle (WCA), in controlling cavitation dynamics and stability around a Clark Y hydrofoil. High-fidelity Large Eddy Simulations (LES) coupled with a dynamic contact angle model were employed within the OpenFOAM framework to explore WCAs ranging from hydrophilic ($0^\circ$) to superhydrophobic ($160^\circ$) under distinct cavitation numbers ($\sigma = 1.6$, $0.8$, and $0.4$), representing incipient, cloud, and supercavitation regimes, respectively. The results show that increasing WCA consistently promotes earlier cavitation inception, thicker cavity development, and greater flow unsteadiness. For $\sigma = 1.6$, higher WCAs led to smaller, detached vapor bubbles and localized pressure fluctuations. At $\sigma = 0.8$, superhydrophobic surfaces caused more extensive vapor structures, intensified shedding dynamics, and stronger pressure fluctuations. For $\sigma = 0.4$, high WCAs facilitated stable, wall-adhered cavities that suppressed re-entrant jet activity and reduced unsteady loading. These findings demonstrate that surface wettability serves as an effective passive control mechanism for tailoring cavitation behavior and optimizing flow stability in engineering applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the computational domain for cavitation simulation over a Clark-Y hydrofoil. The hydrofoil is placed at an angle of attack of 8 degrees, with inflow applied from the left boundary and outlet conditions at the right boundary. The domain size is 15C × 3C, where C is the chord length. As presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of wall Y + values around the Clark Y hydrofoil at a cavitation number of 0.4 and angle of attack of 8 degrees. The results show that Y + remains below 1 across the hydrofoil surface, confirming that the near-wall resolution is adequate for LES and capable of capturing boundary layer dynamics without additional wall functions. 5. Validation of Numerical Method To assess the accuracy of the present numer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Validation of the present numerical approach against experimental data [46] for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack. (a) Lift (Cl) and drag (Cd) coefficients at two cavitation numbers, showing excellent agreement with experimental results. (b) Cavity thickness distribution along the normalized chordwise direction (X/C) for a cavitation number of 0.4, demonstrating the capability of the nu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: b displays the most extensive and intense vapor formation. Persistent vapor structures with peak values exceeding 0.7 are distributed over a broad region from the leading edge to approximately x/C = 0.3. Furthermore, a secondary region of vapor reappears further downst…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized cavity thickness as a function of chordwise position for different contact angles, for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack and cavitation number of 0.8. The relationship between WCA and cavitation inception location is shown in […
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of cavitation onset location with WCA for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack nd cavitation number of 0.8. Higher WCAs result in upstream shift of vapor formation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Log-log plots of pressure fluctuations versus time at three downstream locations: x = C, x = 1.5C, and x = 2C, for various WCAs. The angle of attack is 8 degrees and nd cavitation number of 0.8. Increased WCA intensifies early unsteadiness and high-frequency fluctuatio…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snapshots of water volume fraction (αwater) contours at five flow times: t = 0.80, 0.85, 0.90, 0.95, and 1.00 s (top to bottom) for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack and cavitation number of 0.8. Columns represent WCA of 0◦ , 80◦ , and 160…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Snapshots of axial velocity (Ux) contours at five flow times: t = 0.80, 0.85, 0.90, 0.95, and 1.00 s (top to bottom) for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack and cavitation number of 0.8. Columns represent WCA of 0◦ , 80◦ , and 160◦ , respect…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized streamwise velocity (U/U∞) profiles at transverse sections: (a) x/C = 0.6, (b) x/C = 0.8, (c) x/C = 1.0, and (d) x/C = 1.2, for different WCAs and flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack and cavitation number of 0.8. 6.2. Hydrodynami…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Instantaneous contours of water volume fraction (αwater) at five flow times (t = 0.80 to 1.00 s, top to bottom) for σ = 0.4 for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack. Left: WCA = 0◦ ; Right: WCA = 160◦ . Higher WCA results in closer wall-adhe…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time evolution of liquid volume fraction for σ = 0.4 from t = 1.5 to 3.0 s. (a) WCA = 0◦ : strong temporal fluctuations in vapor structure and wall reattachment. (b) WCA = 160◦ : consistent vapor coverage with minimal changes in layer thickness. The corresponding mean…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mean pressure distribution along the chord for WCA = 0◦ and 160◦ at σ = 0.4 for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack. The hydrophilic surface exhibits larger pressure fluctuation ranges due to unsteady cavity shedding and re-entrant jet acti…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time-resolved snapshots of liquid volume fraction (αwater) for σ = 1.6 over the interval t = 1.00 to 1.25 s (10 time steps) for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack. Left column: WCA = 0◦ ; Right column: WCA = 160◦ . The superhydrophobic sur…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mean pressure distribution along the chord for WCA = 0◦ and 160◦ at σ = 1.6 for flow around a Clark Y hydrofoil at 8 degrees of angle of attack. The hydrophilic surface exhibits larger pressure fluctuation ranges due to unsteady cavity shedding and re-entrant jet acti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Franc, J.-M

    J.-P. Franc, J.-M. Michel, Introduction the main features of cav itating flows, Fundamentals of Cavitation (2005) 1–14

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Roohi, A

    E. Roohi, A. P. Zahiri, M. Passandideh-Fard, Numerical simulation of cavitation around a two-dimensional hydrofoil using vof method and les turbulence model, Applied Mathem atical Modelling 37 (9) (2013) 6469– 6488

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    E. C. Tupper, Introduction to naval architecture, Butterwo rth-Heinemann, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    F. L. Brandao, M. Bhatt, K. Mahesh, Numerical study of cavita tion regimes in flow over a circular cylinder, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 885 (2020) A19

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A. Sou, B. Bi¸ cer, A. Tomiyama, Numerical simulation of incipient ca vitation flow in a nozzle of fuel injector, Computers & Fluids 103 (2014) 42–48

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    P. Pelz, T. Groß, The transition from sheet to cloud cavitation, J ournal of Fluid Mechanics 817 (2017) 439–454

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    M. Ge, P. Manikkam, J. Ghossein, R. K. Subramanian, O. Coutier- Delgosha, G. Zhang, Dynamic mode decomposition to classify cavitating flow regimes induced by thermod ynamic effects, Energy 254 (2022) 124426

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    X. Li, G. Wang, M. Zhang, W. Shyy, Structures of supercavitat ing multiphase flows, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 47 (10) (2008) 1263–1275

    work page 2008

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Omelyanyuk, A

    M. Omelyanyuk, A. Ukolov, I. Pakhlyan, N. Bukharin, M. El Hassa n, Experimental and numerical study of cavitation number limitations for hydrodynamic cavitation inceptio n prediction, Fluids 7 (6) (2022) 198

    2022

  2. [10]

    C. Xu, J. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Wu, C. Huang, X. Wu, Supercavita ting flow around high-speed underwater projectile near free surface induced by air entrainment, AIP Adva nces 8 (3) (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Khare, V

    R. Khare, V. Prasad, et al., Prediction of cavitation and its mitiga tion techniques in hydraulic turbines-a review, Ocean Engineering 221 (2021) 108512. 25

    2021

  4. [12]

    Zaresharif, F

    M. Zaresharif, F. Ravelet, D. J. Kinahan, Y. Delaure, Cavitatio n control using passive flow control techniques, Physics of Fluids 33 (12) (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Z. Li, W. Wang, X. Ji, Y. Wang, X. Wang, Active flow control on un steady cloud cavitation: Insights into jet dynamics, Applied Ocean Research 151 (2024) 104152

    2024

  6. [14]

    Kamali, S

    R. Kamali, S. M. Mousavi, D. Khojasteh, Three-dimensional pas sive and active control methods of shock wave train physics in a duct, International Journal of Applied Mech anics 8 (04) (2016) 1650047

    2016

  7. [15]

    N. Qiu, P. Xu, H. Zhu, Y. Gong, B. Che, W. Zhou, Effect of micro v ortex generators on cavitation collapse and pressure pulsation: An experimental investigation, Ocean Eng ineering 288 (2023) 116060

    2023

  8. [16]

    B. Che, N. Chu, L. Cao, S. J. Schmidt, D. Likhachev, D. Wu, Con trol effect of micro vortex generators on attached cavitation instability, Physics of Fluids 31 (6) (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Ghasemnezhad, E

    M. Ghasemnezhad, E. Roohi, Large eddy simulation of cavitating flow around a pitching hydrofoil, Ocean Engineering 292 (2024) 116547

    2024

  10. [18]

    Tavakoli, E

    A. Tavakoli, E. Roohi, M. S. Namaghi, Numerical simulation of free surface water waves around wavy hydrofoils: Prediction of hydrodynamic coefficients using machine lea rning, Journal of Fluids Engineering 146 (2) (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Pendar, E

    M.-R. Pendar, E. Esmaeilifar, E. Roohi, Les study of unsteady c avitation characteristics of a 3-d hydrofoil with wavy leading edge, International Journal of Multiphase Flow 13 2 (2020) 103415

    2020

  12. [20]

    Yu, Y.-g

    F.-p. Yu, Y.-g. Zhang, H.-k. Li, Z.-h. Qu, H.-p. Liu, An investigatio n of cavitation control using a porous material on a hemispherical cylinder at various cavitation numbers, Journal of Hydrodynamics (2024) 1–13

    2024

  13. [21]

    B. O. el Moctar, Cavitation control using mesoscale surface s tructuring in marine engineering and hy- draulic systems, Ph.D. thesis (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Kadivar, M

    E. Kadivar, M. Dawoodian, Y. Lin, O. el Moctar, Experiments on cavitation control around a cylinder using biomimetic riblets, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12 (2) (2024) 293

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sotoudeh, S

    F. Sotoudeh, S. M. Mousavi, N. Karimi, B. J. Lee, J. Abolfazli-Es fahani, M. K. Manshadi, Natural and synthetic superhydrophobic surfaces: A review of the funda mentals, structures, and applications, Alexandria Engineering Journal 68 (2023) 587–609

    2023

  16. [24]

    S. M. Mousavi, F. Sotoudeh, B. Chun, B. J. Lee, N. Karimi, S. A. Faroughi, The potential for anti-icing wing and aircraft applications of mixed-wettability surfaces-a comp rehensive review, Cold Regions Science and Technology 217 (2024) 104042

    2024

  17. [25]

    Zhang, K

    X. Zhang, K. Li, X. Liu, X. Wu, Q. Song, J. Min, B. Ji, S. Wang, J. Z hao, Droplet impact dynamics on different wettable surfaces at moderate weber numbers, Colloid s and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 695 (2024) 134250. 26

    2024

  18. [26]

    Mousavi, S

    M. Mousavi, S. A. Faroughi, Spreading and rebound of viscoelas tic droplets on surfaces with hybrid wettability, Physics of Fluids 37 (1) (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Zhang, J

    M. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Jiang, N. Wang, H. Liu, Prediction of contact time of a droplet impact on a hybrid- wettability surface, International Communications in Heat and Mas s Transfer 159 (2024) 107918

    2024

  20. [28]

    H. Ma, H. Hu, P. Guo, M. Zhang, J. Wen, L. Xie, L. Ren, Drag red uction performance of grooved superhydrophobic surfaces, Physics of Fluids 37 (5) (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    S. M. Mousavi, J. Lee, B. J. Lee, D. Jarrahbashi, N. Karimi, S. A . Faroughi, Bubble generation mechanisms in microchannel under microgravity and heterogeneous wettability , Physics of Fluids 36 (2) (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    S. M. Mousavi, D. Jarrahbashi, B. J. Lee, N. Karimi, S. A. Farou ghi, Impact of hybrid surfaces on the droplet breakup dynamics in microgravity slug flow: A dynamic contac t angle analysis, Physics of Fluids 35 (7) (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    J. P. Rothstein, Slip on superhydrophobic surfaces, Annual R eview of Fluid Mechanics 42 (2010) 89–109

    2010

  24. [32]

    Bhushan, Y

    B. Bhushan, Y. C. Jung, Natural and biomimetic artificial surfa ces for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction, Progress in Materials Science 56 ( 1) (2011) 1–108

    2011

  25. [33]

    J. Ou, B. Perot, J. P. Rothstein, Laminar drag reduction in micr ochannels using ultrahydrophobic surfaces, Physics of Fluids 16 (12) (2004) 4635–4643

    2004

  26. [34]

    H. Rezaei, Investigating aerodynamics of a 3d blade in rainy cond itions: Application of hy- brid superhydrophobic-hydrophilic surfaces, Aerospace Science and Technology 142 (2023) 108677. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2023.108677

    2023

  27. [35]

    C. Lv, X. Chen, J. Yang, J. Feng, X. Zhang, A novel drag redu ction technique inspired by fish scales, Journal of Bionic Engineering 11 (3) (2014) 400–407

    2014

  28. [36]

    S. M. Mousavi, E. Roohi, On the effects of hybrid surface wetta bility on the structure of cavitating flow using implicit large eddy simulation, Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 148 (2023) 104828

    2023

  29. [37]

    Z. Yuan, H. Li, M. Yang, Y. Bian, L. Chen, Fluctuation of near-w all pressure during the cavitation bubble collapse, in: International Conference on Advances in Construct ion Machinery and Vehicle Engineering, Springer, 2023, pp. 449–460

    2023

  30. [38]

    Huang, J

    J. Huang, J. Wang, J. Huang, P. Lv, H. Li, Y. Wang, Effects of w all wettability on vortex flows induced by collapses of cavitation bubbles: A numerical study, Physics of Flu ids 35 (8) (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Saini, E

    M. Saini, E. Tanne, M. Arrigoni, S. Zaleski, D. Fuster, On the dyn amics of a collapsing bubble in contact with a rigid wall, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 948 (2022) A45

    2022

  32. [40]

    H. Yuan, J. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Tan, Z. Wang, W. Gan, Study of wall wettability effects on cavitation bubble collapse using lattice boltzmann method, AIP Advances 11 (6) (2021). 27

    2021

  33. [41]

    Emadi, S

    Z. Emadi, S. A. A. Mirjalily, Passive control methods for cavitat ing flow control: A large eddy simulation study, International Journal of Modern Physics C (2025) 25500 27

    2025

  34. [42]

    LarKermani, E

    E. LarKermani, E. Roohi, F. Port´ e-Agel, Evaluating the modula ted gradient model in large eddy simula- tion of channel flow with openfoam, Journal of Turbulence 19 (7) ( 2018) 600–620

    2018

  35. [43]

    W.-W. Kim, S. Menon, A new dynamic one-equation subgrid-scale m odel for large eddy simulations, in: 33rd aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, 1995, p. 356

    1995

  36. [44]

    C. W. Hirt, B. D. Nichols, Volume of fluid (vof) method for the dyn amics of free boundaries, Journal of computational physics 39 (1) (1981) 201–225

    1981

  37. [45]

    R. F. Kunz, D. A. Boger, D. R. Stinebring, T. S. Chyczewski, J. W. Lindau, H. J. Gibeling, S. Venkateswaran, T. Govindan, A preconditioned navier–stokes method for two-phase flows with ap- plication to cavitation prediction, Computers & Fluids 29 (8) (2000) 8 49–875

    2000

  38. [46]

    G. Wang, I. Senocak, W. Shyy, T. Ikohagi, S. Cao, Dynamics of attached turbulent cavitating flows, Progress in Aerospace sciences 37 (6) (2001) 551–581. 28

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.