A finite element framework for fluid–structure interaction of turbulent cavitating flows with flexible structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a finite element framework for the numerical prediction of cavitating turbulent flows interacting with flexible structures. The vapor-fluid phases are captured through a homogeneous mixture model, with a scalar transport equation governing the spatio-temporal evolution of cavitation dynamics. High-density gradients in the two-phase cavitating flow motivate the use of a positivity-preserving Petrov–Galerkin stabilization method in the variational framework. A mass transfer source term introduces local compressibility effects arising as a consequence of phase change. The turbulent fluid flow is modeled through a dynamic subgrid-scale method for large eddy simulations. The flexible structure is represented by a set of eigenmodes, obtained through a modal decomposition of the linear elasticity equations. While a partitioned iterative approach is adopted to couple the structural dynamics and cavitating fluid flow, the deforming flow domain is described by an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian frame of reference. We establish the fidelity of the proposed framework by comparing it against experimental and numerical studies for both rigid and flexible hydrofoils in cavitating flows. Under unstable partial cavitating conditions, we identify specific vortical structures leading to cloud cavity collapse. We further explore features of cavitating flow past a rigid body such as re-entrant jet and turbulence-cavity interactions during cloud cavity collapse. Based on the validation study conducted over a flexible NACA66 rectangular hydrofoil, we elucidate the role of cavity and vortex shedding in governing the structural dynamics. Subsequently, we identify a broad spectrum frequency band whose central peak does not correlate to the frequency content of the cavitation dynamics or the natural frequencies of the structure, indicating the induction of unsteady flow patterns around the hydrofoil. Finally, we discuss the coupled fluid–structure dynamics during a cavitation cycle and the underlying mechanism associated with the promotion and mitigation of cavitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".