Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 166–172 | Cite as

Influence of Ramjets’ water inflow on supercavity shape and cavitator drag characteristic

  • Chuang Huang
  • Jianjun Dang
  • Kai Luo
  • Daijin Li
  • Zhiqiang Wang


Water ramjets using outer water as an oxidizer have been demonstrated as a potential propulsion mode for underwater High Speed Supercavitating Vehicles (HSSVs) because of their higher energy density, power density, and specific impulse, but water flux changes the shapes of supercavity. To uncover the cavitator drag characteristics and the supercavity shape of HSSVs with water inflow for ramjets, supercavitation flows around a disk cavitator with inlet hole are studied using the homogenous model. By changing the water inflow in the range of 0–10 L/s through cavitators having different water inlet areas, a series of numerical simulations of supercavitation flows was performed. The water inflow flux of ramjets significantly influences the drag features of disk cavitators and the supercavity shape, but it has little influence on the slender ratio of supercavitaty. Furthermore, as the water inlet area increases, the drag coefficient of the cavitators’ front face decreases, but this increase does not influence the diameter of the supercavity’s maximum cross section and the drag coefficient of the entire cavitator significantly. In addition, with increasing water flux of the ramjet, both the drag coefficient of cavitators and the maximum diameter of supercavities decrease stably. This research will be helpful for layout optimization and supercavitaty scheme design of HSSVs with water inflow for ramjets.


ramjet water inflow disk cavitator supercavitaty shape drag characteristic high speed supercavitating vehicles 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beckstead MW, 2004. A summary of Aluminum combustion. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, N00014-95-1-1338.Google Scholar
  2. Dominic B, Eric L, Paul W, 2011. Feasiblity of water-aluminum reactor powder (WARP) for long endurance UUVs. 9th Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 2011–5904.Google Scholar
  3. Euteneuer EA, 2003. Further studies into the dynamics of a supercavitating torpedo. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA, 15–35.Google Scholar
  4. Feng Xiping, Chen Xianhe, Li Jinxian, 2014. Effect analysis of water spray location and quantity on aluminum water ramjet combustion. Mechanical Science and Technology for Aerospace Engineeing, 33(9), 1423–1427. DOI: 10.13433 /j.cnki.1003-8728.2014.0929Google Scholar
  5. Grant A, Huang Y, 2006. Combustion of aluminum particles with steam and liquid water. 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2006-1154. DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-1154Google Scholar
  6. Hassouneh MA, Nguyen V, Balachandran B, 2013. Stability analysis and control of supercavitating vehicles with advection delay. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 8(2), 21003. DOI: 10.1115/1.4006835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayati AN, Hashemi SM, Shams M, 2013. Design and analysis of bubble-injected water ramjets with discrete injection configurations by computational fluid dynamics method. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C-Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 227(9), 1945–1955. DOI: 10.1177/0954406212469329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hu F, Zhang W, Xiang M, Huang L, 2013. Experiment of water injection for a metal/water reaction fuel ramjet. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 29(3), 686–691. DOI: 10.2514/1.B34456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang C, Luo K, Dang J, Li D, 2015. Influence of flow field’s radial dimension on natural supercavity. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University, 33(6), 936–941. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. Huang L, Xia Z, Zhang W, Hu J, Hu F, Zhao Y, 2010. Water/fuel ratio selection method in water ramjet engine test. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica, 31(9), 1740–1745. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. Huang H, Zou M, Guo X, Yang R, 2013. Analysis of the aluminum reaction efficiency in a hydro-reactive fuel propellant used for a water ramjet. Combustion Explosion and Shock Waves, 49(5), 541–547. DOI: 10.1134/S0010508213050055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirschner I, Uhlman J, Perkins J, 2006. Overview of high-speed supercavitating vehicle control. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Keystone, 6442-1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirschner IN, Fine NE, Uhlman US, 2001. Supercavitation research and development. Undersea Defense Technologies, Waikiki, 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Launder BE, Spalding DB, 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 3(2), 269–289.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Li D, Luo K, Huang C, Dang J, Zhang Y, 2014. Dynamics model and control of high-speed supercavitating vehicles incorporated with time-delay. International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, 15(3-4), 221–230. DOI: 10.1515/ijnsns-2013-0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li F, Zhang Y, Dang J, Zhang Y, 2014. Research on hydrodynamic characteristics of conical cavitator. Acta Armamentarii, 35(7), 1040–1044. (in Chinese) DOI: 1001-5965(2014) 06-0815-04Google Scholar
  17. Lin Mingdong, Hu Fan, Zhang Weihua, Ma Zhenyu, 2012. Design and analysis of injection tube system of water ramjet. Journal of Solid Rocket Technology, 35(6), 742–746. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Logvinovich GV, 1972. Hydrodynamics of free-boundary flows. US Department of Commerce, NASA-TT-F-658, 105-110.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Nguyen V, 2011. Dynamics and control of non-smooth systems with applications to supercavitating vehicles. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 5–10.Google Scholar
  20. Savchenko YN, 2002. Control of supercavitation flow and stability of supercavitating motion of bodies. Proceedings of RTO AVT Lecture Series on Supercavitating Flows, Brussels, 14, 1–29.Google Scholar
  21. Schnerr GH, Sauer J, 2001. Physical and numerical modeling of unsteady cavitation dynamics. Fourth International Conference on Multiphase Flow, New Orleans, 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. Semenenko VN, 2001. Artificial supercavitation. physics and calculation. VKI Special Course on Supercavitating Flows, Brussels, 1–34.Google Scholar
  23. Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, 1994. A new k-epsilon eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows: Model development and validation. NASA Sti/recon Technical Report N, 95, 1–30.Google Scholar
  24. Sun Z, Deng F, Zhang Y, 2011. Design of the matching pipeline intake of water ramjet with supercavitating vehicle. Mechanical Science and Technology for Aerospace Engineering, 30(7), 1159–1162. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. Timothy F, John D, 2004. Green rocket propulsion by reaction of Al and Mg powders and water. 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, AIAA 2004-4037.Google Scholar
  26. Vasin A, 2001. The principle of independence of the cavity sections expansion (Logvinovich’s principle) as the basis for investigation on cavitation flows. VKI Special Course on Supercavitating Flows, Brussels, 1-27.Google Scholar
  27. Yang Yajing, He Maogang, Xu Houda, 2009. Thermodynamic calculation and analysis for water ramjet. Journal of Propulsion Technology, 30(2), 240–245. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  28. Yu K, Zhang G, Zhou J, Zou W, Li Z, 2012. Numerical study of the pitching motions of supercavitating vehicles. Journal of Hydrodynamics, 24(6), 951–958. DOI: 10.1016/S1001-6058(11)60323-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chuang Huang
    • 1
  • Jianjun Dang
    • 1
  • Kai Luo
    • 1
  • Daijin Li
    • 1
  • Zhiqiang Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Marine Science and TechnologyNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Xi’an Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics of CASXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations