fluids

Article
Experimental Investigation of the Supercavitation and
Hydrodynamic Characteristics of High-Speed Projectiles
with Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Coatings
Huixia Jia 1, *,† , Rishan Xie 1,† and Yangjie Zhou 2

1 National-Provincial Joint Engineering Laboratory for Fluid Transmission System Technology,

Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2 Ningbo Sunny Instruments Co., Ltd., Ningbo 315400, China
* Correspondence: huixia.jia@zstu.edu.cn
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: Supercavitation technology has important application value in military and national
defence fields because of its huge potential in drag reduction, while the cavitation around underwater
moving objects may be affected by the surface properties of objects. In this paper, the supercavitation
characteristics and hydrodynamics of a projectile with hydrophobic and hydrophilic surface coatings
were experimentally studied using a high-speed camera. The supercavitation evolution, cavitation
size, velocity change, drag force coefficient, and ballistic deflection of projectiles in different water
depths are compared and analyzed. The results show that the length and diameter of the supercavity
increase with the decrease in water depth. At the same water depth and cavitation number, the length
and diameter of the supercavitation of the projectile with hydrophobic coating were greater than
those of the projectile with hydrophilic coating, and the drag force coefficient of the hydrophobic
projectile was obviously smaller than that of the hydrophilic projectile. Under the working conditions
Citation: Jia, H.; Xie, R.; Zhou, Y.
Experimental Investigation of the
of 6.67D, 16.7D, and 33.3D, the drag force coefficient of the hydrophobic projectile could be reduced
Supercavitation and Hydrodynamic by about 20–40% compared with that of the hydrophilic projectile. The maximal reduction in drag
Characteristics of High-Speed force coefficient was up to 40% at σ = 0.34 under a water depth of 33.3D. The velocity attenuation
Projectiles with Hydrophobic and of hydrophobic projectile was about 20% slower than that of hydrophilic projectile. In addition,
Hydrophilic Coatings. Fluids 2022, 7, the ballistic stability of hydrophobic coated projectiles was better than that of hydrophilic coated
363. https://doi.org/10.3390/ projectiles in the different water depths observed in the paper.
fluids7120363

Academic Editor: Mehrdad Keywords: supercavitation; hydrodynamics; hydrophobic; hydrophilic

Massoudi

Received: 7 October 2022

Accepted: 15 November 2022
1. Introduction
Published: 23 November 2022
Cavitation is a common phenomenon in nature. In industrial engineering, the phe-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral nomenon can also occur in propulsion systems such as pumps, hydrofoils, or marine
with regard to jurisdictional claims in propellers. When cavitation wraps around a body, the phenomenon is called supercav-
published maps and institutional affil-
itation. Supercavitation technology has important applications in national defence and
iations.
military fields, such as supercavitating torpedoes and projectiles.
Over the past few decades, the supercavitation flow has been studied by many re-
searchers. The research of Logvinovich [1] established the theoretical basis for supercavita-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
tion calculation, which can be used for high-speed torpedo design. Waugh and Stubstad [2]
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
collected detailed experimental data on the supercavitation flow and water ballistics of
This article is an open access article
missiles in and out of water carried out by the US Navy. Their experimental velocity
distributed under the terms and and cavitation number ranged from 16.15 to 19.20 m/s, and 0.045 to 0.567, respectively,
conditions of the Creative Commons covering various flow states from full wet to full supercavitation. Vlasenko [3] disclosed
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// some technical details of three sets of experimental equipment for realizing supercavitation
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ with velocities ranging from 50 to 1300 m/s.
4.0/).

Fluids 2022, 7, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids7120363 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/fluids

Fluids 2022, 7, 363 2 of 15

Hrubes [4] carried out a supercavitation experiment by using an underwater artillery

device. Velocity was approaching or exceeding the speed of sound in water by 1.5 km/s.
They found that ultrahigh-speed cavitation is prone to instability and may affect the
trajectory of a blunt body.
Shi et al. [5] experimentally observed the phenomenon of supercavitation flow when
high-speed projectiles vertically enter the water. They found that a shock wave forms and
then propagates when the projectile hits the water surface. With the downward movement
of the projectile, the tail of the supercavitation collapses, and at this time a secondary shock
wave appeared.
When an object moves underwater near a free surface, the influence of the free surface
on cavitation must be considered. On the basis of linearization theory, Franc and Michel [6]
studied the effect of immersion depth on supercavitation length. Using ideal fluid theory,
Amromin [7] performed supercavitation analysis in shallow water, taking into account the
effects of the free surface and the rigid boundary on supercavitation flow. The calculation
results show that the combination of effects leads to an increase in the cavitation number
for a fixed-length cavity, and causes the 3D deformation of the cavity in a cross-section and
the expansion of the lower cavity portion.
Faltinsen and Semenov [8] theoretically analyzed the steady cavitation flow of a
hydrofoil under the effect of free surface and gravity, and gave an analytical solution of the
cavitation flow field. Their results show that, as the hydrofoil approached the free surface,
the cavity and free surface shapes changed. Both the free surfaces and gravity can decrease
the cavity length.
Wang et al. [9] numerically investigated the natural cavitation around an axisymmetric
projectile near a free surface using LES and the VOF method. They found that the cavity
evolution on the upper side of the projectile was significantly different under the free
surface effect than that at the lower side. On the upper side, the cavity grew slowly, the
velocity of reinjection was higher, and the collapsed position of the cavity was closer to the
main cavity.
Shi et al. [10] experimentally studied the evolution of supercavitation of various pro-
jectiles with different aspect ratios at different water depths using high-speed photography.
They found that the size of the cavitation increased with a decrease in water depth, and
a vertical water fin appeared on the free surface when the projectile moved near the free
surface under a water depth of 3.33D.
In recent years, the effect of hydrophobic characteristics on the drag reduction was ex-
amined by many researchers [11–16]. However, in their studies, the cavitation phenomenon
was not considered. There are relatively few studies on the influence of surface properties
on cavitation flow.
Some studies about the hydrophobic effect on cavitation flow focus on the low-speed
flow of underwater objects. Leger and Ceccio [17] investigated noncavitating and cavitating
flows around hydrophilic and hydrophobic spheres and cylinders. They found that the
material properties strongly affected the shape of the cavity near the detachment.
A cavitating NACA0015 foil in three different tunnels was observed by
Kawakami et al. [18]. They revealed remarkably different cavity shedding appearances
and behaviors. They argued that surface effects could have a significant influence on the
fully wetted time during cavity shedding. However, the results of most current studies do
not agree, and the mechanism of cavitation is not completely understood.
Kim and Lee [19] numerically investigated the effect of the hydrophobic property on
the cloud cavitation. Their results show that, as slip strength grew, the cavity was elongated,
and the shedding frequency decreased. That means that cloud cavitation instability was
alleviated as the hydrophobicity increased.
Mineshima et al. [20] studied the effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic coatings
on the characteristics of cavitation and flow field around hydrofoils using high-speed
camera and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). Their results showed that the hydrophilic
coating inhibited the inception and growth of the cavitation. In addition, the downstream
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 3 of 15

pressure fluctuation of the hydrofoil with hydrophilic coating was restrained under a
certain cavitation number. The experimental investigation of Onishi et al. [21] also found
that the cavitation inception number of the hydrophilic coating was lower than that of a
hydrophobic coating.
Some studies regarding the effect of hydrophobic surfaces focused on the process of wa-
ter entry. Ueda et al. [22] experimentally studied the water-entry of superhydrophobic low-
density spheres. They found that the shape of the cavity pinch-off of low-density spheres
was inconsistent with the shape of high-density spheres observed by Duclaux et al. [23].
Aristoff and Bush [24] studied the water entry of hydrophobic spheres at a certain
contact angle with various impact velocities and sphere diameters. Their extensive dataset
showed that cavities formed at all impact velocities had four distinct shapes defined by
their collapse or pinch-off locations appearing at a specific location on the Bond–Weber
diagram. On this basis, Speirs et al. [25] studied the water entry of spheres with different
contact angles, and found that the shape of the cavitation during water entry was not only
related to the Bond and Weber number, but also depended on the contact angle.
Zhang et al. [26] experimentally investigated the development and shedding mode
of the cavitation for hydrophobic steel balls with different diameters and different impact
velocities of water entry. The dependence of the two shedding modes on the Weber and
Bond numbers was determined.
Li et al. [27] numerically investigated the cavity dynamics of a rotating hydrophobic
sphere during its entry into the water. In their numerical simulation, the wettability of the
sphere surface was realized with the dynamic contact angle, the boundary data immersion
method (BDIM) was used to simulate the solid/fluid interaction, and the interface between
liquid and gas was tracked with the volume-of-fluid (VOF) method.
Güzel and Korkmaz [28] experimentally studied the influence of hydrophobicity on
free surface elevation and impact load during water entry of wedges and cones with
different deadrise angles. They found that the jets, accumulations, and formation of
cavities changed when objects with constant deadrise angles entered the water under the
hydrophobic effect. The measured value of bumping load coefficient under hydrophobic
effect could be reduced by 10–25% compared with that of a hydrophilic surface. In addition,
Guzel and Korkmaz [29] experimentally investigated the water exit of partially and fully
immersed spheres and flat plates with or without hydrophobic coatings using a high-speed
camera and strain gauges. They found that the separation time of the water from the object
occurred earlier due to the hydrophobic effect, that is, the pinch-off time of the fluid was
earlier. The height of the water column behind the object was also smaller. In addition, they
found that, when the surface of the object was uncoated, the strain measurements were
repeatable under the same test conditions; however, when the surface was coated, the strain
characteristics under the same test conditions were different. Therefore, they thought that
similar experiments with different geometries such as cylinders are necessary to be carried
out before conclusions are drawn on the effect of hydrophobicity of the water-exit process.
In summary, most previous studies focused on drag reduction in hydrophobic coatings
without cavitation. Some researchers also studied the influence of surface coating properties
on the flow of water entry or exit, or the cavitation flow around the hydrofoil. All these
studies were aimed at low velocity flow. However, there is no relevant research about
the influence of surface coating on the supercavitation flow characteristics of high-speed
objects underwater and near a free surface.
In this paper, the supercavitation flow of high-speed projectiles with different surface
coatings is experimentally investigated under the conditions of different water depths.
The influence of surface coating on supercavitation flow and hydrodynamic characteristics
of the projectiles is analyzed.

2. Experimental Setup and Methods

Figure 1 is the schematic diagram of the experimental setup used in this paper. On this
experimental device, both supercavitation experiments of horizontally launched projectiles
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 4 of 15

at different water depths and water-entry/exit experiments at different angles could be

carried out. A self-designed one-stage light gas gun was used to accelerate projectiles.
The projectile was pushed by the high-pressure nitrogen in high-pressure chamber 3,
accelerated in launch tube 7 to a certain velocity, and entered observation water tank 9.
The maximal design launch speed of projectiles was 100 m/s. The projectile velocity
could be adjusted with the pressure in high-pressure chamber 3. When the projectile was
launched into the water tank, the projectile was surrounded by supercavitation due to the
high speed of the projectile.

KLJK SUHVVXUH QLWURJHQ F\OLQGHU WUROOH\ UDLO KLJK SUHVVXUH F\OLQGHU VROHQRLG YDOYH SLSHYDOYH FRQQHFWRU
WUROOH\ EUDFNHW ODXQFK WXEH SURMHFWLOH H[SHULPHQWDO ZDWHU WDQN REVHUYDWLRQ ZLQGRZV OLJKW VRXUFH
KLJKVSHHG FDPHUD ODSWRS

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the horizontal supercavitation experiment device.

The movement of the supercavitating projectile in the water tank was recorded with a
FASTCAM SA5 high-speed camera of Photron Company, Japan. The light source required
for photography was provided by three 1000 W lamps. The shooting rate of the camera
was 5000 frames per second. More detailed parameters and structure of the experimental
device can be found in the previously published literature [30].
The projectiles used in the experiment were all cylindrical with 6 mm diameter and
48 mm length. All of the projectiles were produced with an aluminum–magnesium alloy,
and the material density was 2.72 g/cm3 . Two different surface coatings were coated onto
the surface of projectiles: one hydrophobic and one hydrophilic coating. The hydrophobic
one was a water-based silicone coating with a contact angle of 100 ± 5◦ , and the hydrophilic
one was a gypsum coating with a contact angle of 36 ± 5◦ .
According to the photos taken with the high-speed camera, the contour of the super-
cavitation on the projectile at different times can be measured. Figure 2 shows a schematic
diagram of the measurement of the cavitation profile of the projectile. Since the taken pic-
tures were refracted by plexiglass air or plexiglass water, the accuracy of the measurements
had to be estimated. Relevant studies showed that the relative error caused by refraction in
measurement is about 0.3∼0.6% (Yuan et al. [31]).
The velocity of the projectile can be calculated according to the displacement difference
and the time difference between the positions of the projectile in two different frames.
In order to reduce the error, projectile velocities vi 0 and vi 00 were first calculated with the left
and right reference planes, respectively. Then, average value v̄i was taken as the velocity of
the projectile. The schematic diagram of displacement measurement is shown in Figure 3.
The formula for calculating the velocity of the projectile is as follows:

x i 0 − x i +1 0
vi 0 = − k (1)
∆t
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 5 of 15

xi 00 − xi+1 00
vi 00 = k (2)
∆t
vi 0 + vi 00
v̄i = (3)
2
where ∆t is the time interval between two adjacent photos, k is the ratio of the actual
displacement of the projectile to the displacement on the photo.

Figure 2. Measurement of cavitation profile.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of displacement measurements of the projectile.

In this paper, the supercavitation flow of the projectile is studied at four different
water depths: 3.33D, 6.67D, 16.7D, and 33.3D, where D is the diameter of the projectile.
All projectiles were horizontally fired into the water. In this paper, the cavitation number
was calculated as follows:
p∞ − pv
σ= 1 (4)
2
2 ρl v∞
where p∞ is the atmospheric pressure, pv is the saturated vapour pressure at 20 ◦ C, ρl is
the liquid water density, and v∞ is the initial speed of the projectile. The coefficient of the
drag force was calculated with the following expression:

FD
CD = 1
(5)
2
2 ρ l v A0

where FD is the drag force, v is the local velocity of the projectile, and A0 is the cross area of
the projectile.

3. Experimental Results and Discussions

3.1. Influence of Surface Coating on the Supercavitation Characteristics
In this paper, four cases of different water depth were studied: 3.33D, 6.67D, 16.7D,
and 33.3D. The photos taken in the experiment show that the horizontal motion of the
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 6 of 15

projectile did not affect the free surface under the three water depth conditions of 6.67D,
16.7D and 33.3D, that is, it did not deform the free surface, while the movement of the
projectile in the water depth of 3.33D deformed the free surface. Therefore, in this part,
only the supercavitation evolution under the two typical conditions of 3.33D and 16.7D
is given, which is defined as the near free surface condition (3.33D) and the deep-water
condition (16.7D).

3.1.1. Near Free Surface (3.33D Water Depth)

At this water depth, since the distance between the horizontal motion position of the
projectile and the free surface was small, the moving projectile affected the shape of the
free surface; correspondingly, the supercavitation around the projectile was also affected by
the free surface.
Figure 4 shows the supercavitation evolution of the projectile with hydrophobic
coating at the water depth 3.33D. The projectile was horizontally launched into the water
tank. The time interval between two adjacent photos was 1 ms.

D W  PV I W  PV
DLU

ZDWHU
E W  PV J W  PV

F W  PV K W  PV

G W  PV L W  PV

H W  PV M W  PV

Figure 4. Supercavitation evolution of the projectile with hydrophobic coating at 3.33D water depth
(∆t = 1 ms, V0 = 31.8 m/s).

Figure 4a shows the deformation of the free surface, and the deformation of the free
surface lagged the position of the head of the projectile. In the entire observed range,
the deformation of the free surface was wavy, and the vertical water fins observed by
Shi et al. [10] did not appear for this case.
In Figure 4a, the projectile was wrapped by the supercavitation. The contour of the
supercavitation was asymmetric along the axis of the projectile, and the lower contour of
the supercavitation was smaller than the upper contour. The reasons may have been as
follows: on the one hand, in the gravitational field, cavitation was affected by upward
buoyancy; on the other hand, because the projectile moved near the free surface, the upper
cavity could expand by changing the shape of the free surface.
In Figure 4d, the velocity of the projectile was reduced by 20%, relative to the initial
velocity; at that time, the cavitation collapsed at the tail, and the size of cavitation decreased.
Figure 4f shows that a scratch appeared on the wall of the cavitation, as indicated by the red
ellipse, which may have been caused by the contact between the tail of the projectile and
the wall of the cavitation. Figure 4d–h show that the tail of the supercavitation continually
collapsed. At the downstream flow field of the projectile, there were obvious shedding
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 7 of 15

cavity clusters and wake. Figure 4i shows that the entire cavitation around the projectile
became opaque and unstable, and the collapse of the entire cavitation could be predicted.
Figure 4j shows that the whole supercavitation around the projectile collapsed as predicted.
In addition, the projectile ran stably in the whole process. Figure 4a–d shows that
the projectile moved completely parallel to the free surface. In Figure 4f, the projectile
was slightly deflected. At that time, the tail of the projectile came into contact with the
cavitation boundary, as marked by the red circle in Figure 4f. After that moment, the tail of
the projectile stayed into contact with the cavitation wall, and the projectile continued to
deviate from the original trajectory. In Figure 4i, the deflection angle between the axis of
the projectile and the free surface is 2.5◦ .
Figure 5 shows the supercavitation evolution of the projectile with hydrophilic coating
near the free surface. The initial velocity of the projectile in Figure 5 (37.1 m/s) was
higher than that in Figure 4 (31.8 m/s). If the surface coating of the projectile was the
same, the cavitation profile in Figure 5 was larger than that in Figure 4 because of the
difference in velocity. However, comparing Figures 4 and 5 shows that the outline size of
the supercavitation around the hydrophilic coated projectile was smaller than that of the
hydrophobic coating.

D W  PV H W  PV
DLU

ZDWHU
E W  PV I W  PV

F W  PV J W  PV

G W  PV K W  PV

DLU
Figure 5. Supercavitation evolution of the projectile with hydrophilic coating at 3.33D water depth
(∆t = 1 ms, V0 = 37.1 m/s).

The influence of hydrophilic projectile on free surface is different from that of hy-
drophobic projectile. Figure 5c–f show the splash phenomenon on the left side of the
picture, but no obvious deformation can be observed on the free surface above the projec-
tile. In Figure 5g, the head of the projectile was close to the free surface, and at that time,
the free surface above the projectile rose. Figure 5h shows the projectile starting to come
out of the water.
Figure 5 shows that the hydrophilic coated projectile was unstable during the whole
movement process. When the projectile entered the observation window, it deflected
clockwise. Figure 5b–e shows that the deflection angle of the projectile is negative (Con-
vention: counterclockwise is positive, clockwise is negative). In Figure 5f the deflection
angle was approximately zero, that is, at that time, the projectile deflected counterclockwise.
In Figure 5g, the deflect angle was already positive and the head of the projectile came into
contact with the free surface. In Figure 5h, the projectile inclined out of the water. The ex-
periment for every condition was repeated 5 times in order to obtain reliable conclusions.
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 8 of 15

Repeated experiments showed that the stability of hydrophilic projectiles was worse than
that of hydrophobic ones.

3.1.2. Deep Water (16.7D Water Depth)

Figure 6 shows the evolution process of supercavitation of hydrophobic coated pro-
jectile in 16.7D water depth. The time interval between two adjacent photos is 1 ms, too.
The initial velocity of the projectile is 38.3 m/s. When the projectile completely appeared in
the observation window, it was wrapped by supercavitation (Figure 6b). The supercavita-
tion contour was basically symmetrical along the axis of the body.

ZDWHU
D W  PV I W  PV

E W  PV J W  PV

F W  PV K W  PV

G W  PV L W  PV

H W  PV M W  PV
ϭ

Figure 6. Supercavitation evolution of the projectile with hydrophobic coating under the water depth
of 16.7D (∆t = 1 ms, V0 = 38.3 m/s).

When the projectile moved forward, the velocity of the projectile decreased due to the
drag force in the water. The length and diameter of the cavitation also decreased when
comparing Figure 6d,e. In Figure 6g, the velocity of the projectile body dropped to 28 m/s.
At that time, the upper wall of the cavitation is already disturbed while the lower wall is
relatively stable, which may have been due to Reyleigh–Taylor instability. In Figure 6h, the
entire upper boundary began to fluctuate, which means that the entire supercavitation was
unstable. In Figure 6i, the cavitation on the projectile simultaneously collapsed from the
head and tail.
Figure 7 shows the evolution process of supercavitation of hydrophilic coated projectile
at the same water depth. The initial velocity of the projectile was almost the same as that in
Figure 6, which is 38.4 m/s.
Comparing Figure 7 and Figure 6, the supercavitation in Figure 6 was relatively smooth
and transparent, while the supercavitation interface in Figure 7 was opaque and rough.
In addition, the size of the supercavitation profile of the hydrophobic projectile was larger
than that of hydrophilic projectile, which is easier to see in Figures 8 and 9. In Figure 7g,
the entire cavitation interface around the projectile fluctuated and was unstable, and in
Figure 7h the entire cavitation collapsed.
In Figure 6, the projectile with hydrophobic coating almost moves parallel to the free
surface, while the deflection angle of the projectile with dydrophilic coating is larger than 8◦
counterclockwise in Figure 7j. That is, for this case, the ballistic stability of hydrophobic
projectile was better than that of hydrophilic projectile, too.
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 9 of 15

ZDWHU
D W  PV I W  PV

E W  PV J W  PV

F W  PV K W  PV

G W  PV L W  PV

H W  PV M W  PV
ϭ

Figure 7. Supercavitation evolution of the projectile with hydrophilic coating under the water depth
of 16.7D (∆t = 1 ms, V0 = 38.4 m/s).

3.1.3. Supercavitation Characteristics under Different Conditions

Figures 8 and 9 show the change in the length and diameter of the cavitation with cav-
itation numbers for four cases. The length and the diameter of the cavitation are measured
three times in order to reduce the uncertainty of the measurement. The length and diameter
of the cavitation are nondimensionalized by the diameter of the projectile. The abscissa
is the cavitation number, which was calculated with Equation (4). Figures 8 and 9 show
that both the length and diameter of the cavity decreased with the increase in cavitation
number, that is, the size of the cavity decreased with the increase in cavitation number.

24

Hydrophobic, 3.33D

Hydrophilic, 3.33D
22 Hydrophobic, 6.67D

Hydrophilic, 6.67D

Hydrophobic, 16.7D
20 Hydrophilic, 16.7D

Hydrophobic, 33.3D

Hydrophilic, 33.3D
18
-]
Lc/D [

16

14

12

10

0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

s [-]

Figure 8. Relationship between dimensionless cavitation length and cavitation number.

Figure 8 shows that the cavitation length of hydrophobic projectile was larger than
that of hydrophilic projectile for the case of the same water depth. At the same cavitation
number, the length of cavitation decreased with the increase in water depth (except the
case of 3.33D with the hydrophilic coating). Near the free surface (3.33D water depth),
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 10 of 15

the cavitation length on the hydrophobic projectile was much longer than that on the
hydrophilic one, which may have mainly been due to the fact that the position of the
projectile is close to the free surface, and the cavitation of the hydrophobic projectile could
expand towards the free surface. However, for the hydrophilic projectile, the expansion of
the cavity toward the free surface was not observed.

3.0

Hydrophobic, 3.33D

Hydrophilic, 3.33D

Hydrophobic, 6.67D

Hydrophilic, 6.67D
2.8
Hydrophobic, 16.7D

Hydrophilic, 16.7D

Hydrophobic, 33.3D

Hydrophilic, 33.3D
-]

2.6
Dc/D [

2.4

2.2

0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

s [-]

Figure 9. Relationship between dimensionless cavitation diameter and cavitation number.

Similarly, in Figure 9, for the same water depth, the cavitation diameter of the hy-
drophobic projectile was larger than that of the hydrophilic projectile. With the increase in
water depth, the diameter of the cavity also decreases like the change rule of the cavitation
length with water depth in Figure 8, which was consistent with the findings of Shi et al. [10].
Figure 10 shows the comparison of cavitation profile at water depths of 3.33D and
16.7D at a certain cavitation number. The abscissa and ordinate are the dimensionless
length and diameter of the cavity, respectively. Obviously, the cavitation contour inclined
upward, that is, to the free surface, in the 3.33D condition, while in the 16.7D condition, the
cavitation contour was basically axisymmetric.

Hydrophobic, 3.33D, s = 0.186

Hydrophilic, 3.33D, s = 0.251
Hydrophobic, 16.7D, s = 0.306
4

Hydrophilic, 16.7D, s = 0.250

3
D /D [ ]

2
- C

0 5 10 15 20 25

L /D [ ]
C

Figure 10. Comparison of cavitation profile.

Fluids 2022, 7, 363 11 of 15

In Figure 10, under the 16.7D condition, the cavitation number of the hydrophilic
body was less than that of the hydrophobic body, but the cavitation size of the hydrophilic
body was still smaller than that of the hydrophilic body. Cavitation size increases with the
decrease in cavitation number. This also shows that, at the same cavitation number, the
cavitation size of hydrophobic projectile must be larger than that of hydrophilic projectile.

3.2. Influence of Surface Coating on the Hydrodynamic Properties of the Projectile

The hydrodynamic characteristics of the projectile were closely related to the supercav-
itation flow field around the body. The influence of different coatings on the hydrodynamic
characteristics of the projectile is discussed below.
Figure 11 shows the change of the projectile velocity with time for both hydrophilic
and hydrophobic coatings at different water depths. The velocity was nondimensionalized
by the initial velocity of the projectile under different conditions.

1.0

0.9

0.8
-V/V0 [ ]

0.7

Hydrophobic, 3.33D

Hydrophilic, 3.33D
0.6
Hydrophobic, 6.67D

Hydrophilic, 6.67D

Hydrophobic, 16.7D
0.5 Hydrophilic, 16.7D

Hydrophobic, 33.3D

Hydrophilic, 33.3D

0.4

0 2 4 6 8 10

t [ms]

Figure 11. Variation in the dimensionless velocity of the projectile with time under different
water depths.

Figure 11 shows that the projectile velocity with the hydrophilic coating decreased
faster than that with the hydrophobic coating for four conditions with different water depth.
At the water depth of 3.33D, the decrease in the velocity of the hydrophilic-coated projectile
was about 56% after 8 ms, while the decrease in the hydrophobic-coated projectile was about
45%. At the water depth of 16.7D, after 8 ms, the decrease velocity for the hydrophilic- and
hydrophobic-coated projectile was about 54% and 43%, respectively. That is, the velocity
decay of hydrophobic projectiles is about 20% slower than that of hydrophilic ones. This
means that the drag force on the projectile with hydrophobic coating was smaller than that
on the hydrophilic-coated projectile, which could be verified with the figure of the drag
force coefficient versus cavitation number.
Figure 12 shows the relationship between the drag coefficient and the cavitation num-
ber for different conditions. The calculation of the cavitation number and drag coefficient is
given in Equations (4) and (5). Figure 12 shows that, for every condition, the drag coefficient
of the projectile increased with the increase in cavitation number, while the drag coefficient
of the hydrophobic-coated projectile was lower than that of the hydrophilic coating in
every water depth. For projectiles with different coatings, even though the cavitation
number was the same, the drag coefficient on the projectiles was also different. This was
due to the different shapes of the cavitation wrapped on different coated projectiles. Under
the working conditions of 6.67D, 16.7D, and 33.3D, the drag coefficient of hydrophobic
projectile could be reduced by 20–40% at a certain cavitation number compared with that
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 12 of 15

of hydrophilic projectile. Near the free surface, the reduction in the drag coefficient due
to the hydrophobic effect is slightly smaller compared with the other conditions of water
depths. In the studied working conditions, at the water depth of 33.3D and σ = 0.34, the
drag reduction in hydrophobic projectile reaches its maximum, about 40%, compared with
that of hydrophilic projectile.

0.7

0.6

0.5
[ ]
-

0.4
Cd

Hydrophobic, 3.33D

Hydrophilic, 3.33D

Hydrophobic, 6.67D
0.3
Hydrophilic, 6.67D

Hydrophobic, 16.7D

Hydrophilic, 16.7D
0.2
Hydrophobic, 33.3D

Hydrophilic, 33.3D

0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

s [-]

Figure 12. Relationship between drag coefficient and cavitation number for different conditions.

In order to study the effect of surface coating on the ballistic stability of the projectile,
Figures 13 and 14 show the relationship between the deflection angle of the projectile and
the deflection angular rate of the projectile with time under different working conditions.
The counterclockwise deflection was positive and the clockwise deflection was negative.
The error of the deflection angle was about 0.2◦ .

10
Hydrophobic, 3.33D

Hydrophilic, 3.33D
8
Hydrophobic, 6.67D

Hydrophilic, 6.67D
6
Hydrophobic, 16.7D

Hydrophilic, 16.7D

4 Hydrophobic, 33.3D
deflection angle [°]

Hydrophilic, 33.3D

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t [ms]

Figure 13. Variation in deflection angle of the projectile with time under different working conditions.
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 13 of 15

100
Hydrophobic, 3.33D

Hydrophilic, 3.33D
80
Hydrophobic, 6.67D

Hydrophilic, 6.67D

60 Hydrophobic, 16.7D

Hydrophilic, 16.7D

deflection rate [rad/s]

Hydrophobic, 33.3D
40
Hydrophilic, 33.3D

20

20

40

60

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t [ms]

Figure 14. Relationship between the deflection angular rate of the projectile and time under different
working conditions.

For the projectile with hydrophilic coating, at the water depth of 3.33D, the projectile
first deflected clockwise and then counterclockwise. At t = 6 ms, the deflection angle in
the reverse direction was about 4◦ . Although this deflection angle of the projectile was not
large, the deflection angular rate of the projectile at this time was very large, larger than
70 rad/s at t = 6 ms. That is, the ballistics of the projectile was not stable under this working
condition, which can also be seen in Figure 5. For the other two operating conditions
(6.67D and 16.7D), the deflection angle of the projectile was up to greater than 8◦ within
the observation range. At that time, the deflection angular rate of the projectile was also
relatively large, larger than 20 rad/s at t = 8 ms for both cases. That is, for these two cases,
the ballistics of the projectile was also not stable. For the case of 33.3D, the projectile first
deflected about 4◦ clockwise, and then deflected counterclockwise due to the interaction
between the tail of the projectile and upper boundary of the supercavitation (no figure).
Figure 14 shows that, from t = 2 to t = 8 ms, the deflection angular rate of the projectile
remained at a relatively stable lower value, and the projectile ran relatively stable.
For hydrophobic projectiles, in the cases of 3.33D, 16.7D, and 33.3D, the deflection
angles of the projectiles were all small, about 2◦ . For the case of 6.66D, the deflection angle
of the projectile reached about 6◦ at t = 8 ms. However, Figure 14 shows that the deflection
angular rate of the projectile decreased from t = 6 ms to t = 8 ms.
In summary, for the two surface coatings studied in this paper, the ballistic stability of
the hydrophobic projectile was better than that of the hydrophilic one for different water
depth conditions, which was confirmed with repeated measurements for each case.

4. Discussion
In this paper, the effects of two kinds of surface coatings (one hydrophilic, and the
other hydrophobic) on the supercavitation flow field and hydrodynamic characteristics of
projectiles were studied. The properties of coatings had obvious effects on cavitation size,
drag force on projectiles, and ballistic stability. Due to the limited research objects in this
paper, further research is needed on the quantitative influence of hydrophilic, hydrophobic,
and superhydrophobic coatings with more contact angles.
In addition, with the decrease in water depth, both the length and diameter of the
cavitation increased. This conclusion is consistent with the research results of Shi et al. [10].
However, the research of Faltinsen and Semenov [8] found that the length of the cavitation
decreased, and the diameter of the cavitation increased with the decrease in water depth,
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 14 of 15

which was inconsistent with the result in this paper. The cavitating flows in both this paper
and that of Shi et al. [10] were unsteady, while Faltinsen and Semenov [8] studied steady
cavitating flow. Moreover, Faltinsen and Semenov [8] did not consider the viscous effect
of the fluid. In addition, the head shape of the object affected the shape of the cavitation.
In the research of Faltinsen and Semenov [8], the cavitating flow around a hydrofoil was
considered, while in the research of Shi et al. [10] and this paper, the moving body was
a cylinder. However, the change in cavitation size with water depth should be further
studied in detail.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, the supercavitation characteristics and hydrodynamics of a projectile
with hydrophobic and hydrophilic coatings were studied experimentally. The experiments
were carried out under four water depths (3.33D, 6.67D, 16.7D, and 33.3D).
The experimental results show that the length and the diameter of the supercavitation
of the projectile with the hydrophobic coating were larger than those with the hydrophilic
coating, which was probably due to the difference of the contact angles under different
surface coatings. The length and the diameter of the supercavitation increased with the
decrease in the water depth for the projectile with hydrophobic coating. The drag force
coefficient of the hydrophobic projectile was obviously smaller than that of the hydrophilic
one at the same cavitation number and water depth. Under the working conditions of 6.67D,
16.7D, and 33.3D, the drag coefficient of hydrophobic projectile could be reduced by 20–40%
at a certain cavitation number compared with that of hydrophilic projectile. The velocity
decay of the hydrophobic projectile was obviously slower than that of hydrophilic projectile.
In addition, the ballistic stability of the projectile with the hydrophobic coating was
better than that with the hydrophilic coating. The hydrophobic projectile could basically
follow the original trajectory, while the hydrophilic projectile easily deviated from the
original path.
The effect on the free surface with different coatings was also different. In our experi-
ment, the formation of the free surface for the hydrophobic body showed smooth waves,
and no vertical water fin appeared.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.J.; Methodology, H.J.; Software, R.X.; Experiment, R.X.
and Y.Z.; Data processing, R.X. and Y.Z.; Writing—original draft, Y.Z.; Writing—review & editing, H.J.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. U21A20126) and Zhejiang Sci-Tech University (No. 0803609-Y).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of
China for the financial support. The authors would also like to thank Honghui Shi for his help
and guidance.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Logvinovich, G.V. Hydrodynamics of Free-Boundary Flows, 1st ed.; IPST Press: Jersualem, Israel, 1972.
2. Waugh, J.G.; Stubstad G.W. Hydroballistics Modeling, 1st ed.; US Government Printing House: Washington, DC, USA, 1975.
3. Vlasenko, Y.D. Experimental investigations of high-speed unsteady supercavitating flows. In Proceedings of the 2th International
Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France, 7–10 April 1998; pp. 39–44.
4. Hrubes, J.D. High-speed imaging of supercavitating underwater projectiles. Exp. Fluids 2001, 30, 57–64. [CrossRef]
5. Shi, H.H.; Kume, M. An experimental research on the flow field of water entry by pressure measurements. Phys. Fluids 2001,
13, 347–349. [CrossRef]
6. Franc, J.P.; Michel, J.M. Fundamentals of Cavitation, 1st ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005;
pp. 60–92.
Fluids 2022, 7, 363 15 of 15

7. Amromin, E. Analysis of body supercavitation in shallow water. Phys. Fluids 2007, 34, 1602–1606. [CrossRef]
8. Faltinsen, O.M., Semenov, Y.A. The effect of gravity and cavitation on a hydrofoil near the free surface. J. Fluid Mech. 2008,
597, 371–394. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, Y.; Wu, X.; Huang, C.; Wu, X. Unsteady characteristics of cloud cavitating flow near the free surface around an axisymmetric
projectile. J. Multiph. Flow 2016, 85, 48–56. [CrossRef]
10. Shi, H.-H.; Zhou, Y.-J.; Jia, H.-X.; Zhu, B.-B. The Effects of Water Depth and Length-to-diameter Ratio on Drag Coefficient and
Cavity Shape of Underwater Supercavitating Projectiles. Acta Armamentarii 2016, 37, 2029–3035.
11. Min, T.; Kim, J. Effects of hydrophobic surface on skin-friction drag. Phys. Fluids 2004, 16, L55–L58. [CrossRef]
12. Aljallis, E.; Sarshar, M.A.; Datla, R.; Sikka, V.; Jones, A.; Choi, C.H. Experimental study of skin friction drag reduction on
superhydrophobic flat plates in high Reynolds number boundary layer flow. Phys. Fluids 2013, 25, 025103. [CrossRef]
13. Park, H.; Sun, G. Superhydrophobic turbulent drag reduction as a function of surface grating parameters. J. Fluid Mech. 2014,
747, 722–734. [CrossRef]
14. Xu, M.; Grabowski, A.; Yu, N.; Kerezyte, G.; Lee, J.W.; Pfeifer, B.R. Superhydrophobic drag reduction for turbulent flows in open
water. Phys. Rev. Appl. 2020, 13, 034056. [CrossRef]
15. Xu, M.; Arihara, B.; Tong, H.; Yu, N.; Ujiie, Y.; Kim, C.J. A low-profile wall shear comparator to mount and test surface samples.
Exp. Fluids 2020, 61, 82. [CrossRef]
16. Xu, M.; Yu, N.; Kim, J. Superhydrophobic drag reduction in high-speed towing tank. J. Fluid Mech. 2021, 908, A6. [CrossRef]
17. Leger, A.T.; Ceccio, S.L. Examination of the flow near the leading edge of attached cavitation. Part 1. Detachment of two-
dimensional and axisymmetric cavities. J. Fluid Mech. 1998, 376, 61–90. [CrossRef]
18. Kawakami, D.T.; Fuji, A.; Tsujimoto, Y.; Arndt, R.E.A. An Assessment of the Influence of Environmental Factors on Cavitation
Instabilities. ASME J. Fluids Eng. 2008, 130, 031303. [CrossRef]
19. Kim, J.; Lee, J.S. Numerical study of cloud cavitation effects on hydrophobic hydrofoils. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2015, 83, 591–603.
[CrossRef]
20. Mineshima T.; Onishi K.; Miyagawa K. Flow field and cavitation characteristics of hydrofoils coated with hydrophilic and
hydrophobic polymers. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 240, 062055. [CrossRef]
21. Onishi K.; Matsuda K.; Miyagawa K. Influence of hydrophilic and hydrophobic coating on hydrofoil performance. In Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery (ISROMAC 2017), Maui, HI,
USA, 16–21 December 2017.
22. Ueda, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Uemura, T.; Iguchi, M. Water entry of a superhydrophobic low-density sphere. J. Vis. 2010, 13, 289–292.
[CrossRef]
23. Duclaux, V.; Caillé, F.; Duez, C.; Ybert, C.; Bocquet, L.; Clanet, C. Dynamics of transient cavities. J. Fluid Mech. 2007, 591, 1–19.
[CrossRef]
24. Aristoff, J.M.; Bush, J.W.M. Water entry of small hydrophobic spheres. J. Fluid Mech. 2009, 619, 45–78. [CrossRef]
25. Speirs, N.B.; Mansoor, M.M.; Belden, J.; Truscott, T.T. Water entry of spheres with various contact angles. J. Fluid Mech. 2019,
862, 45–78. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, Q.; Zong, Z.; Sun, T.Z.; Chen, Z.Y.; Li, H.T. Experimental study of the evolution of water-entry cavity bubbles behind a
hydrophobic sphere. Phys. Fluids 2020, 32, 062109. [CrossRef]
27. Li, D.; Zhao, X.; Kong, D.; Shentu, J.; Wang, G.; Huang, B. Numerical investigation of the water entry of a hydrophobic sphere
with spin. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 2020, 126, 103234. [CrossRef]
28. Güzel B.; Korkmaz F.C., Experimental investigation of water entry of bodies with constant deadrise angles under hydrophobic
effects. Exp. Fluids 2021, 62, 107. [CrossRef]
29. Guzel, B.; Korkmaz, F.C. Experimental investigation of water exit under hydrophobic effects. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016
35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Busan, Republic of Korea, 19–24 June 2016; pp. 1–6.
30. Zhou, S.Y. The Generation and Fluid Mechanics Mechnism of Horizontally Moving Supercavities. Master’s Thesis, Zhejiang
Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China, 2013.
31. Yuan, X.L.; Zhang, Y.W.; Liu, L.H. Research on measurement and analysis method of cavitation shape. Exp. Mech. 2006,
21, 215–219.