Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Axial flow pump model.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Computational domain.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Pulsating pressure sensor arrangement and cavitation experiment equipment.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The Grids on the surface (Top row) and in tip clearance (Bottom row).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Key parameters of the grid and time step.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Numerical simulation and experiment data of H with different NPSH.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Calculation results of UI and UGT.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Results of |E| and UV.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Comparison of H between simulation and experiment.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison of cavitation shape between numerical simulation (Left column) and experiment (Right column).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Root mean square (RMS10) of the blade frequency component (first 10 orders only) at different axial positions.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison of RMS10 in the tip clearance.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 8.

First 10 blade frequency components of pulsating pressure in the tip clearance with different NPSH.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Variation of RMS10 of tip clearance pulsating pressure with the intensification of cavitation.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Distribution of pressure coefficient on three cross sections and blade surfaces.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Pressure coefficient graph on cylindrical section at blade tip (expanding into plane).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 6.

Numerical simulation conditions of different scale pumps.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 12.

Variation of RMS10 of the pulsating pressure at the monitoring point near the leading edge.

More »

Fig 12 Expand