To understand the effect of cavitation on the tip leakage vortex (TLV), turbulent cavitating flows were numerically investigated using the shear-stress transport (SST) k–ω turbulence model and the Zwart–Gerber–Belamri cavitation model. In this work, two computations were performed—one without cavitation and the other with cavitation—by changing the inlet pressure of the pump. The results showed that cavitation had little effect on the pressure difference between the blade surfaces for a certain cavitation number. Instead, it changed the clearance flow and TLV vortex structure. Cavitation caused the TLV core trajectory to be farther from the suction surface and closer to the endwall upstream of the blade. Cavitation also changed the vortex strength distribution, making the vortex more dispersed. The vortex flow velocity and turbulent kinetic energy were lower, and the pressure pulsation was more intense in the cavitating case. The vorticity transport equation was used to further analyze the influence of cavitation on the evolution of vortices. Cavitation could change the vortex stretching term and delay the vortex bending term. In addition, the vortex dilation term was drastically changed at the vapor–liquid interface.

To understand the formation mechanism and evolution process of the perpendicular cavitation vortex (PCV) of an axial flow pump for off-design conditions, turbulent cavitating flows were numerically investigated using the rotation curvature-corrected shear stress transport (SST-CC) turbulence model and the Zwart–Gerber–Belamri cavitation model. In this work, the origin and evolution of a PCV were analyzed through a high-speed photography experiment and numerical simulation. The results showed that the PCV came from a secondary tip leakage vortex (S-TLV) and was aggregated by the action of the re-entrant jet, combined with the cavitation bubbles driven by the radial flow to form the cavitation vortex (CV). With the joint action of leakage jet lifting and TLV entrainment, the PCV was reoriented and gradually became perpendicular to the chord direction. Then, the PCV and TLV collided, mixed, and entrained, which formed a strong pressure pulsation. The PCV was gradually divided into upper and lower parts. One part was combined with the residual part of the TLV and flowed to the next blade, and the other part flowed out of the impeller area along the axial direction. At the same time, the generation, evolution, and dissipation of the PCV formed high pulsation amplitudes and frequencies in the middle and rear above the blade suction.

Studies on the tip leakage vortex (TLV) are extensive, while studies on the secondary tip leakage vortex (S-TLV) are rare. To advance the understanding of the formation mechanism of the S-TLV, turbulent cavitating flows were numerically investigated using the shear stress transport (SST) turbulence model and the Zwart–Gerber–Belamri cavitation model. The morphology and physical quantity distribution of the S-TLV under two cavitation conditions were compared, and its formation mechanism was analyzed. The results reveal that in the lower cavitation number case, there is a low-velocity zone of circumferential flow near the tip in the back half of the blade. The shear vortices formed by the leakage jet gradually accumulate and concentrate in the low-velocity area, which is one of the main sources of the S-TLV. Meanwhile, the radial jet pushes the vortices on the suction surface to the tip, which mixes with the S-TLV. The flow path formed by the radial jet and the leakage jet is in accordance with the rotation direction of the S-TLV, which promotes the S-TLV’s further development. Under the conditions of a small cavitation number and low flow rate, the circumferential velocity and radial velocity of the fluid near the gap have altered significantly, which is conducive to the formation of the S-TLV.

In order to understand the mechanism of cavity shedding and evolution, turbulent cavitating flows of the twisted hydrofoil were numerically investigated using the k-? turbulence model and the ZGB cavitation model. The results of the numerical calculation and the experimental method are basically consistent, which confirms the feasibility of the numerical calculation model. This study has obtained the following conclusions. Firstly, the cavity shedding can be summarized into six stages, and the cavity shape, pressure and velocity field at different stages are displayed, analyzed and compared in detail. Secondly, the shedding of cavity and its evolution are mainly caused by the re-entrant jet and side-entrant jet, in which the former provides the kinetic energy and the latter plays the role of guiding the direction. Thirdly, under the convective shearing action of the re-entrant jet and the main flow, a strong vortex located in the mid-back edge of the hydrofoil is formed, which promotes the transformation of the cavity shape into a U-shaped structure.

To investigate the differences and similarities in vortex and cavity characteristics between translational and rotational domain hydraulic machines, the NACA0009 hydrofoil and a self-designed impeller blade were selected as representative cases in the translational and rotational domains. The STAR-CCM+ software was utilized to simulate the multi-phase flow, and the experimental results of NACA0009 hydrofoil from EPFL were employed to validate the accuracy of the simulation. The following conclusions were drawn from the analysis of the simulation results: Firstly, both types of hydraulic machinery generate similar vortex types, including the tip leakage vortex, tip separation vortex, and secondary tip leakage vortex. However, each type also exhibits unique vortices, such as the perpendicular vortex in the translational domain and the trailing edge vortex in the rotational domain. Secondly, the tip leakage vortex is initially weak but continuously absorbs other vortices, thereby strengthening itself as it develops. Additionally, the blades in the rotational domain must achieve a higher speed to produce the same level of cavitation as those in the translational domain. Finally, the attached cavitation on the blade surface is repelled by the spin of the tip leakage vortex, which cannot promote the generation of tip leakage vortex cavitation. The primary source of tip leakage vortex cavitation is the tip separation vortex cavitation. The strengths of cavitation and vortices differ between the rotational and translational domains, leading to varying effects on the equipment.