Experimental studies of the influence of fluid–structure interaction on cloud cavitation about a stiff stainless steel (SS) and a flexible composite (CF) hydrofoil have been presented in Parts I (Smith et al., J. Fluid Mech., vol. 896, 2020a, p. A1) and II (Smith et al., J. Fluid Mech., vol. 897, 2020b, p. A28). This work further analyses the data and complements the measurements with reduced-order model predictions to explain the complex response. A two degrees-of-freedom steady-state model is used to explain why the tip bending and twisting deformations are much higher for the CF hydrofoil, while the hydrodynamic load coefficients are very similar. A one degree-of-freedom dynamic model, which considers the spanwise bending deflection only, is used to capture the dynamic response of both hydrofoils. Peaks in the frequency response spectrum are observed at the re-entrant jet-driven and shock-wave-driven cavity shedding frequencies, system bending frequency and heterodyne frequencies caused by the mixing of the two cavity shedding frequencies. The predictions capture the increase of the mean system bending frequency and wider bandwidth of frequency modulation with decreasing cavitation number. The results show that, in general, the amplitude of the deformation fluctuation is higher, but the amplitude of the load fluctuation is lower for the CF hydrofoil compared with the SS hydrofoil. Significant dynamic load amplification is observed at subharmonic lock-in when the shock-wave-driven cavity shedding frequency matches with the nearest subharmonic of the system bending frequency of the CF hydrofoil. Both measurements and predictions show an absence of dynamic load amplification at primary lock-in because of the low intensity of cavity load fluctuations with high cavitation number.
The influence of fluid–structure interaction on cloud cavitation about a rigid and a flexible hydrofoil. Part 3
