Cover Image


View/Hide Left Panel

14. Keller A.P., “Scale effects at beginning cavitation applied to submerges bodies ”. International symposium on cavitation inception 1984.

15. McCormick, “On vortex produced by a vortex trailing edge form a lifting surface ”, Journal of Basic Engineering, sept 1962, pp 369–379 Inception, ASME FED Vol. 177.

16. Maines B.H., Arndt R.E.A., “The case of the singing vortex”, Cavitation and Multiphase Flow, ASME 1995, FED-vol. 21, pp69–74

17. Morozov V.P., “Theoretical analysis of the acoustic emission from cavitation line vortices”. Sov. Phys. Acoust., vol. 19, no 5, 1974 pp 468–471.




The authors have performed a very systematic investigation of tip vortex cavitation inception under various conditions of nuclei seeding. They propose a correction of the incipient cavitation number in order to collapse the data for two seeding conditions (small and large bubbles) in a now classical σc/Re0,4 versus Cp2 plot.

I have 2 types of questions

  1. Why has the VAG method not been used to try to correlate also the data for the “no bubbles” situation? Have the measurements of (pc-pu) been conducted? How do the authors explain the very large velocity effects in Figure g?

  2. It has been proposed, and used with good success, to obtain the “susceptibility” pressure directly from tip vortex tests (by plotting the difference between the free stream pressure for cavitation inception minus the vapor pressure as a function of the velocity to the power 2,4 for constant incidence angle). Why have the authors not performed these tests and why there is no comparison between theirs and previous methods?



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement