• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Numerical simulation unsteady cloud cavitating flow with a filter-based density correction model*

    2014-06-01 12:29:59HUANGBiao黃彪WANGGuoyu王國玉ZHAOYu趙宇
    關(guān)鍵詞:趙宇王國

    HUANG Biao (黃彪), WANG Guo-yu (王國玉), ZHAO Yu (趙宇)

    School of Mechanics and Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China, E-mail: huangbiao@bit.edu.cn

    Numerical simulation unsteady cloud cavitating flow with a filter-based density correction model*

    HUANG Biao (黃彪), WANG Guo-yu (王國玉), ZHAO Yu (趙宇)

    School of Mechanics and Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China, E-mail: huangbiao@bit.edu.cn

    (Received September 19, 2012, Revised November 20, 2012)

    In this paper, various turbulence closure models for unsteady cavitating flows are investigated. The filter-based model (FBM) and the density correction model (DCM) were proposed to reduce the turbulent eddy viscosities in a turbulent cavitating flow based on the local meshing resolution and the local fluid density, respectively. The effects of the resolution control parameters in the FBM and DCM models are discussed. It is shown that the eddy viscosity near the cavity closure region can significantly influence the cavity shapes and the unsteady shedding pattern of the cavitating flows. To improve the predictions, a Filter-Based Density Correction model (FBDCM) is proposed, which blends the FBM and DCM models according to the local fluid density. The new FBDCM model can effectively represent the eddy viscosity, according to the multi-phase characteristics of the unsteady cavitating flows. The experimental validations regarding the force analysis and the unsteady cavity visualization show that good agreements with experimental visualizations and measurements are obtained by the FBDCM model. For the FBDCM model, the attached cavity length and the resulting hydrodynamic characteristics are subsequently affected by the detail turbulence modeling parameters, and the model is shown to be effective in improving the overall predictive capability.

    CFD, cavitating flows, resolution control parameter, turbulence model

    Introduction

    The cavitation plays an important role in the design and operation of fluid machinery and devices because it causes performance degradation, noise, vibration, and erosion. The cavitation involves complex phase-change dynamics, large density ratio between phases, and multiple time scales. The homogeneous two-phase Navier-Stokes equations were successfully applied for the simulations of cavitating flows[1]. The accuracy, stability, efficiency and robustness of the modeling strategies are a big challenge because of the complex interactions associated with unsteady turbulent cavitating flows.

    The turbulence closure model plays a very significant role in the simulations of the cavitating flows, with typically a high Reynolds number and with mass transfer between a two phase medium. The Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence models, such as the originalkε- model, were initially developed for fully incompressible fluids. Hence, they are not suitable for highly compressible two-phase mixture flows, which is why they were found to be unsatisfactory for predicting cavitating flows with high compressibility in the vapor region. The re-entrant jet instability is often attributed to the cavity destabilization and the transition to the unsteady cavitation. In experiments, it was demonstrated that the re-entrant jet in the closure region is the basic mechanism that triggers the break up and shedding of unsteady cavity clouds[2,3]. To account for the large density jump caused by cavitation and re-entrant jet near the closure region, Coutier-Delgosha et al.[4]modified the turbulent viscosity to simulate the cloud cavity shedding in a Venturi-type duct. They found that the influence of the compressibility of the two-phase medium was significant in simulating the turbulence effects on the cavitating flow. The modified turbulent viscosity model could predict the unsteady re-entrant jet and the shedding of the vapor cloud, but the length and the shedding frequency were not accurately predicted for cases with high cavitation numbers. This is due to thefact that the Coutier-Delgosha’s turbulence modification can not completely account for all complex flow features present in the cavity closure region. Recently, to capture the unsteady characteristics between the quasi-periodic large-scale and turbulent small-scale features of the flow field, a large eddy simulation (LES) model was used to simulate the sheet/cloud cavitation on a NACA0015 hydrofoil[5]. However, it is fundamentally difficult to find a grid independent LES solution unless one explicitly assigns a filter scale. Moreover, the computational cost of the LES is very high. The very large eddy simulation (VLES) attempts to strike a compromise between the RANS and the LES. The detached eddy simulation (DES) was widely used as a modified hybrid RANS-LES approach. Huang et al.[6]evaluated an enhanced turbulence modeling scheme based on the DES, the results showed that a standard RANS model fails to predict marginally the stable cavities whereas the DES model appeared to provide more accurate flow modeling, possibly because the DES can better handle the large scale closure dynamics. Johansen et al.[7]formulated a filterbased model (FBM) to avoid some of the known deficiencies of the RANS approaches, and the difficulties in the application of the LES. Wu et al.[8]assessed the validity of FBM turbulence models through unsteady simulations of different geometries, including a square cylinder, a convergent-divergent nozzle, a Clark-Y hydrofoil, and a hollow-jet valve. They found that the FBM can better capture the unsteady features, and yield a stronger time-dependency in the cavitating flows, than the originalkε- model. Kim and Brewton[9]compared the numerical predictions with RANS, LES, and RANS/LES hybrid approaches for the sheet/cloud cavitation, the LES and the RANS/ LES hybrid results closely reproduced the salient features such as the breakup of the sheet cavity by a reentrant jet, and the formation and collapse of the cloud cavity.

    Previous researches showed that the adopted turbulence model has a strong effect on the predicted cavity shape and stabilities[4,9]. The physical mechanisms are not well understood due to the complex cavitating flow structures. Hence, better modeling approaches are highly in demand. In the following sections, differentkε- based turbulence models from the literature are summarized followed by an introduction of a filter-based density corrected model (FBDCM) based on the unsteady characteristics of the cavitating flow. The objective of this paper is to present a new FBDCM for improving the numerical predictions of turbulent cavitating flows, and to investigate the accuracy and stability of various turbulent closure models for the unsteady cavitating flows by comparing the numerical predictions with experimental measurements.

    1. Numerical model in cavitation computation

    1.1Continuity and momentum equations

    The Navier-Stokes equations for a Newtonian fluid without body forces and heat transfers, in their conservative form, in the Cartesian coordinates, are as follows: whereρmis the mixture density,ρlis the liquid density,ρvis the vapor density,αvis the vapor fraction,αlis the liquid fraction,uis the velocity,pis the pressure,μmis the mixture laminar viscosity,μlandμvare the liquid and vapor laminar viscosities,μTis the turbulent viscosity. The subscripts (i,j,k) denote the components related to the appropriate Cartesian coordinates. The source termm˙+, and the sink termm˙-, in Eq.(3) represent the condensation and evaporation rates, respectively. In the present study, the phenomenological Kubota cavity transport model is used:

    wherenuc.αis the nucleation volume fraction,BRis the bubble diameter,vpis the saturated liquid vapor pressure, andpis the local fluid pressure.destCis the rate constant for the vapor generated from the liquid ina region where the local pressure is less than the vapor pressure. Conversely,Cprodis the rate constant for reconversion of the vapor back into the liquid in the regions where the local pressure exceeds the vapor pressure. As shown in Eqs.(6) and (7), both the evaporation and condensation terms are assumed to be proportional to the square root of the difference between the local pressure and the vapor pressure. In this work, the assumed values for the model constants areαnuc.=5× 10–4,RB=1×10–6m,Cdest=50 andCprod=0.01.

    1.2Summary ofkε--based turbulence model

    Thekε- andkω- turbulence models are the most commonly used of all two-equation turbulence models. The primary disadvantage of thekω- model, in its original form, is that boundary layer computations are very sensitive to the values of the vorticityωin the free stream. In the case of unsteady cavitating flows, this sensitivity might cause inaccurate predictions of the fluid physics.

    1.2.1 Model-1: Originalkε- turbulence model

    The originalkε- turbulence model falls within this class of turbulence models and has been the workhorse of practical engineering flow calculations since it was proposed by Launder and Spalding. The benefit of thekε- model is that it is not as sensitive to the free streamω,s in thekω- model. Thekεmodel includes two partial differential equations for the transport of the turbulent kinetic energykand the dissipation rateε:

    The originalkε- model was originally developed for fully incompressible single phase flows, and was not intended for flow problems involving highly compressible multiphase mixtures. Previous researches[4]show that the two-equation model over-predicts the turbulence kinetic energy, and hence the turbulent viscosity, which results in an over-prediction of the turbulent stresses, causing the reentrant jet in the cavitating flows to lose momentum. Thus, the re-entrant jet can not cut across the cavity sheet, which significantly modifies the cavity shedding behavior.

    Hence, a systematic method to lower the turbulent viscosity in the vapor region is necessary to improve the prediction of the reentrant jet and the vapor dynamics in unsteady cavitating flows.

    1.2.2 Model-2: Filter-based turbulence model (FBM)

    (from Refs.[7])

    Johansen et al.[7]proposed a special filter to help reduceTμ, if the turbulent scales are smaller than a set filter size, they will not be resolved. Specifically, the level of the turbulent viscosity is corrected by comparing the turbulence length scale and the filter sizeλ, which is selected based on the local meshing spacing

    1.2.3 Model-3: Density corrected model (DCM) (from Refs.[4])

    To improve numerical simulations by taking into account the influence of the compressibility of the two-phase mediums on the turbulence, Coutier-Delgosha et al.[4]proposed to reduce the mixture turbulent viscosity based on the local liquid volume fractionlα:

    In the above equations, all the parameters, except for the functionDCMf, are set to the values originally proposed by Launder and Spalding.

    Fig.1 Boundary conditions for Clark-Y hydrofoil

    The capabilities for simulating unsteady cavitating flows of the different models are further investigated. The computational domain with 42 000 cells and boundary conditions are considered according to the experimental setup in Ref.[10], as shown in Fig.1. A no-slip boundary condition is imposed on the hydrofoil surface, and no-slip symmetry conditions are imposed on the top and bottom boundaries of the tunnel. The foil has a uniform cross-section with an Clark-Y thickness distribution with a maximum thickness-to-chord ratio of 12%, the Clark-Y foil is located at the center of the test section with the angle of attack of 8o, and the chord length of the hydrofoil is =c0.07 m, and the span length is =s0.07 m. The two important dimensionless parameters are the Reynolds numberReand the cavitation numberσ, the saturated vapor pressurevp, and the inlet velocityU∞are expressed as in Eq.(15). Computations are made for the cloud cavitation condition (σ=0.8), and the outlet pressure is set to vary according to the cavitation number. A constant velocity is imposed at the inlet,U∞=10 m/s, with the corresponding Reynolds number ofRe=7×105. The density and the dynamic viscosity of the liquid are taken to beρl=999.19 kg/m3andμl=ρlvl=1.139× 10–3Pa·s, respectively, for fresh water at 25oC. The vapor density isρv=0.02308 kg/m3and the vapor viscosity isμv=9.8626×10–6Pa·s. The vapor pressure of water at 25oC ispv=3 169 Pa.

    Based on the eddy-to-laminar viscosity ratio at the inlet,μT/μL|inlet, the inlet turbulent quantities can be computed as follows

    whereIis the inlet turbulence intensity, which is set to 0.02, according to the experiment[1].

    2. Results and discussions

    2.1Effect of FBM resolution control parameter (the filter size λ)

    The general strategy of the FBM model is to limit the influence of the eddy viscosity based on the local numerical resolution. In the FBM model, the level of the turbulent viscosity is corrected by comparing the turbulence scalek3/2/εand the filter sizeλ, based on the local meshing spacing. The filter size Δ can be considered as the resolution control parameter. The value of this parameter depends on the desire physical resolution and the numerical cost associated with it.

    To investigate the sensitivity of the solution to the value of the filter size, four filter sizes are examined here: 10Δgrid,maxo, 3.23Δgrid,maxo, 1.61Δgrid,maxo, and 1.05Δgrid,maxo. Here, Δgrid,maxois the largest grid size of theOshape grid around the hydrofoil in the computation domain, which is around 0.012c.

    Fig.2 Time-averaged_FBMTμ contours for different filter sizes λ for the FBM model

    It is immediately evident from Eq.(13) that reducing Δ leads to a linear decrease ofμT. For a largerλ,fFBMis limited to 1 because the simulation is expected to filter out most of the excessive eddy viscosity, resulting in a reduced unsteadiness of the computed flow field. However, the FBM strongly relies on the DNS on the grid resolution, as shown in Figs.2(a) and 2(d), due to the intrinsic dependence ofμTFBMon the grid size.

    Fig.3 Time-averaged streamlines and vapor fraction for different filter sizes λ for the FBM model (=σ0.8, =Re 7×105, =α8o)

    Figure 3 shows the time-averaged streamlines and vapor fraction contours. It is clear that the filter size Δ has a significant impact on the time-averaged cavity patterns.

    (1) The visualizations of the time-averaged cavity show very similar pictures when the filter sizes are large (such as 10Δgrid,maxo, 3.23Δgrid,maxo), where the numerical predictions fail to simulate the detached cavity near the trailing edge.

    (2) As the filter size decreases, the time-averaged cavity size increases. For Δ=1.61Δgrid,maxoand Δ= 1.05Δgrid,maxo, the cavitation structures consist of two parts, an attached cavity at the leading edge and a detached cavity near the trailing edge, which is formed because the re-entrant jet is not impeded by the excessively highμT.

    In order to compare the space-time evolution of the cavity shapes predicted by different schemes, the vapor volume fractions of the cavity are plotted against the time and space. Figure 4 shows comparisons between the shedding processes predicted by the FBM model of different filter sizes. In Fig.4,TrefandLrefare defined as

    wherecis the chord length andU∞is the free stream velocity.ref/=x L0 corresponds to the foil leading edge, andref/=x L1.0 corresponds to the foil trailing edge. The Strouhal numbercStcharacterizing the shedding frequency can be defined as

    As seen from Fig.4, the transient evolutions are almost all periodic. One may focus on details of the fluctuation period for different filter sizes in the case of the cloud cavitation:

    Fig.4 Time evolution of the water vapor fraction in various sections for different filter sizes λ for the FBM Model (=σ0.8, =Re7×105, =α8o)

    (1) Forλ=10Δgrid,maxoandλ=3.23Δgrid,maxoas shown in Figs.4(a) and 4(b), respectively, the mean fluctuation periods are approximately 7.0Trefand 6.2Tref, respectively. The correspondingStcare 0.14 and 0.16, respectively, which are low compared to the experimentally measured value ofStc=0.18[10].

    (2) Forλ=1.61Δgrid,maxoandλ=1.05Δgrid,maxo, the maximum attached cavity reaches a slightly large length of more than 1.1c, which is substantially greater than that predicted for the highλvalues. With the smaller filter size, the FBM model gradually weakens the turbulent dissipation so that the detached cavities are well captured. The Strouhal numbers predicted for the cases ofλ=1.61Δgrid,maxoandλ=1.05Δgrid,maxoseem almost the same, they are both approximately 0.185, as in good agreement with the experimental measurements.

    2.2Effect of DCM resolution control parameter (the

    parameter n)

    The originalk-εmodel was intended for fully incompressible flows. To simulate a multiphase flow where the local compressibility near the cavity collapse region is important, the turbulent viscosity can be corrected using the DCM model as shown in Eq.(14).

    In the general scheme of the DCM model, the mixture density can be corrected byρm1=ρv+(αl)n· (ρl-ρv).The time-averaged modified density contours for different values of the parameternin the DCM model are shown in Fig.5. For the DCM model, generally speaking, the density correction function has a significant impact onμTin the cavitation region near the wall, and it has no influence in the region away from the cavity because there is no phase change. The DCM directly makes an aggressive nonlinear reduction ofμT, while the FBM makes a minor linear reduction of the eddy viscosity in the detached cavity region.

    For the DCM model, the value ofnhas a significant influence on the time-averaged cavity shapes. Forn=10 andn=20, the smaller eddy viscosity, which covers entire cavity region in Figs.5(b) and 5(c) will lead to an easier cavitation.

    Fig.5 Time-averaged modified variable contours for different n values for the DCM model (=σ0.8, =Re7×105, =α 8o)

    Figure 6 compares the shedding processes predicted by the DCM model for different values ofn, with focus on the details of fluctuation periods of cavity shapes and re-entrant flows.

    (1) As shown in Fig.6, for the case ofn=2, the mean fluctuation period is about 6.8Tref, and the corresponding Strouhal number is equal to 0.145, which is lower than the measured value of 0.18. On the other hand, the Strouhal numbers predicted whenn=10 andn=20 are about 0.185, in agreement with the measured value.

    2.3Introduction of a filter-based density correct

    model (FBDCM) for cavitating flows

    The mathematical differences in the FBM and DCM approaches lead to a major difference in the modeling results. The FBM does not correct the eddy viscosity directly near the near-wall region. As for thedensity correction function, generally speaking, it has no influence in the region away from the cavity since there is no phase change, an excessiveTμis still possible in the region surrounding the cavity.

    Fig.6 Time evolution of the water vapor in various sections with different values of n for the DCM model (=σ 0.8, =Re7×105, =α8o)

    Considering the unsteady flow characteristics of the cavitation around the hydrofoil, the cavitation area around the hydrofoil can be divided into two sub-areas, those with attached and detached cavity, respectively[12]. The attached cavity is located in the leading edge of the hydrofoil with a relatively higher vapor volume fraction. In this region, the compressibility of the two-phase flow must be considered. While, the detached cavity contains the large-scale unsteady motion of the liquid-vapor mixture, and the local turbulent structures should be taken into account in this region.

    It is clear that different models should be applied to amend the turbulent viscosity in different regions. Here, a hybrid turbulence model that combines the strengths of the FBM and DCM models is proposed below:

    whereχ(ρm/ρl) is the hybrid function which continuously blends the FBM and DCM approaches.C1is chosen to be 4. An analysis of the hybrid model can indentify a favorable value ofC2, which regulates the affected region between the FBM model and the DCM model. Figure 7 shows the distribution of the hybrid function for the cases whenC2is equal to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, respectively. In the FBDCM model, the filter sizeλin Eq.(9) is chosen to be 1.05Δgrid,maxo., and the parameternis chosen to be 10.

    Fig.7 Distribution of hybrid function χ with different values of2C for the new hybrid FBDCM model

    In order to study the differences and similarities of the resolution between different turbulence models, the time evolutions of the eddy viscosity distributions are compared. The temporal snapshots ofμTcounters are shown in Fig.8. Among the CFD results, theμTd istribu tions a re pl aced s ide by sid e according to 20%,50%,70%,and90%ofeachcorrespondingcycle. As is well known, the originalkε- model fails to reproduce the unsteady cavity development because this model yields a consistently higher eddy viscosity, resulting in a reduced unsteadiness of the computed flow field. For the FBM in Fig.8(b), based on an imposed filter, the conditional averaging is adopted for the Navies-Stokes equation to introduce one more parameter into the definition of the eddy viscosity. For the DCM in Fig.8(c), the eddy viscosity decreases intensively in the high vapor fraction areas. Although the calculated results take account of the interaction between the vapor and the mixtures, the inadequacy of the DCM under-predicts the turbulent viscosity of the tail. Compared with the simulated results with the DCM, it is clear that the FBM yields consistently a higher eddy viscosity in the recirculation region. But this model does not take into account the density fluctuations and compressibility effects in the attached cavity. As shown in FigS.8 (d)-8(e), the new FBDCM model combines the advantages of the DCM and the FBM. This new model can effectively modulate the eddy viscosity, around the leading edge of the hydrofoil, where the eddy viscosity of the DCM is used, to obtain a relatively lower density. The FBM is chosen around the rear of the hydrofoil, and produces much better resolution in capturing the unsteady features. In the FBDCM model, the value of2Ccan adjust the proportion between the FBM and DCM models in the flow field calculations.

    Fig.8 Time evolution ofTμ contours for different turbulence models (=σ0.8, =Re7×105, =α8o)

    The differentTμdistributions will lead to diffe- rent cavity shapes, particularly, in the cavity closure region. The temporal evolutions of the cavity shapes around the hydrofoil under the cloud cavitation condition are shown in Fig.9 along with experimental observations. In experiments, the development of the cavitation can be divided into two stages: the first stage is the growth of the attached cavity immediately after a vortex shedding event, and the second stage is the detachment of the cavity due to the re-entrant flow and it overlapswith the recirculation zone near the trailing edge. The cloud cavitation predicted shows a self-oscillatory behavior characterized by sheddings of large vapor clouds, and the cavity exhibits a pronounced periodic size variation.

    As the results, the originalkε- model can not capture the detached cavity during 90% of the cycle. As for the attached cavity, the maximum cavity length is no more than 50%c. For the other models, the features of every stage in experiments can be well-captured, including the detached cavity in the trailing edge, which is more consistent to the experimental observations. Although all the turbulence models predict an unstable cavity expanding and shrinking, some differences are noticeable: a bigger cavity size and a longer attached cavity length are predicted with the DCM, especially, after the cavity length reaches its maximum. The general trends for differentC2values for the FBDCM model are summarized below:

    (1) Bigger cavity sizes are predicted forC2=0.3, especially, after the cavity length reaches its maximum. This is because the hybrid function of the FBDCM tends to use more portion from the DCM model forC2=0.3.

    (2) During 70% and 90% of the cycle, the largescale detached cavity shedding on the rear part of the sheet cavity is captured asC2=0.1 and 0.2, but notC2=0.3.

    Fig.9 Time evolution of cloud cavitation for different turbulence models (=σ0.8, =Re7×105, =α8o)

    Time evolutions of the attached cavity length predicted by the hybrid model with different2Cvalues and experimental data are shown in Fig.10(a). In the numerical simulations,αl=0.9 is defined as the attached cavity boundary. The cavity lengthlis made non-dimensional by the chord lengthc. In the first stage, the length of the attached cavity increases linearly with the time. Although the comparisons of the numerical results with experimental data show that the trend is captured reasonably well for all threeC2values, the case ofC2=0.2 is compared best with the experimental data. At beginning of the second stage, a recirculation zone will include a re-entrant flow in the lower part, and the front of the re-entrant jet can be used to determine the cavity detachment point. The development of the re-entrant flow in Fig.10(b) also shows a noticeable agreement between the numerical and experimental results forC2=0.2.

    Fig.10 Time evolutions of the attached cavity length and the development of the reverse flow for different values of C2for the FBDCM model (σ=0.8, Re=7×105, α=8o)

    From the above discussions, the features of cavity shapes and the dynamic behaviors are highly inter-related. The agreements between the CFD and the experimental data in terms of frequency are good except the originalkε- model, as shown in Table 1. One can see clearly in the case of thekε- model, there is a clear dominant frequency according to the lift history, while a lower frequency as compared with the experimental data is obtained. The frequencies are almost the same for the FBM and FBDCM models, which is because the re-entrant jet, which triggers the shedding and unsteady motion, basically consists of a high liquid volume fraction, and the FBM is more influential than the DCM model in this area.

    3. Conclusions

    This paper establishes a predictive tool for turbulent cavitating flows, the modeling framework consists of a transport-based cavitation model with ensemble-averaged fluid dynamics equation and turbulence closures. As for the turbulence closures, a FBM, a DCM and a FBDCM that blends the previous two models are used along with the originalkε- model. The following conclusions can be made:

    (1) Traditional RANS turbulence closure models tend to over-predict the turbulent eddy viscosity in the cavitating region, which will lead to very different cavity dynamic processes, as compared to the experimental visualization results. The FBM and DCM models are utilized to reduce the eddy viscosity systematically based on the meshing resolution and density, respectively in comparison to the originalkε- model. There is noticeable effect of the resolution control parameters in the FBM and DCM models on the cavity shapes and flow structures, and the choice of the control parameters can significantly affect the dynamic behavior of the detached cavity.

    (2) The FBM can reduce the eddy viscosity due to the lower filter function in the rear region of the hydrofoil, as for the DCM model, the smaller eddy viscosity, which covers the entire cavity region, will create a strong cavitation phenomenon, while it has little effect in the region away from the near-wall region. With the reduction of the turbulent viscosity with the FBM and DCM models, the re-entrant jet is allowed to develop underneath the cavity and move upstream to the leading edge of hydrofoil. Consequently, the cavities tend to be slightly longer and more unsteady with the modifications of the eddy viscosities.

    (3) The FBDCM model blends the FBM and the DCM according to the density, the hybrid function regulates the affected region between the FBM model and the DCM model. The detail parameter in the FBDCM model affects the resulting hydrodynamic outcome, such as the attached cavity length and the unsteady cavity shapes. In general, the predicted cavity dynamics results obtained using the FBDCM model with appropriate parameters compare well with experimental measurements and observations. This new model can effectively modulate the eddy viscosity, and improve the overall capabilities. Results from the numerical simulations suggest the reduction of the turbulent eddy viscosity based on the local meshing resolution and the local fluid density tends to promotethe unsteady shedding of the cavities of the turbulent cavitating flows.

    In summary, our current study provides some insight for further modeling modifications. Furthermore, as investigated by Shyy et al.[13], the uncertainties associated with the overall turbulence characteristics can be better addressed by using a global sensitivity evaluation of the model parameter based on surrogate modeling techniques[14,15]. These are great opportunities to improve the fundamental understanding, and predictive capabilities of the unsteady cavitating flows.

    Table 1 Comparisons of predicted and measured lift coefficient (lC) and cavity shedding frequencyf

    [1] WANG G., SENOCAK, I. and SHYY W. Dynamics of attached turbulent cavitating flows[J]. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2001, 37(6): 551-581.

    [2] KUNZ R. F., BOGER D. A. and STINEBRING D. R. et al. A preconditioned Navier-stokes method for two phase flows with application to cavitation prediction[J]. Computers and Fluids, 2000, 29(8): 849-875.

    [3] LACALLENAERE M., FRANC J. P. and MICHEL J. M. et al. The cavitation instability induced by the development of a re-entrant jet[J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2001, 444: 223-256.

    [4] COUTIER-DELGOSHA O., FORTES-PATELLA R. and REBOUD J. L. Evaluation of the turbulence model influence on the numerical simulations of unsteady cavitation[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2003, 125(1): 38-45.

    [5] WANG G., OSTOJA-STARZEWSKI M. Large eddy simulation of a sheet/cloud cavitation on a NACA0015 hydrofoil[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2007, 31(3): 417-447.

    [6] HUANG Biao, WANG Guo-yu and YU Zhi-yi et al. Detached-eddy simulation for time-dependent turbulent cavitating flows[J]. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2012, 25(3): 484-490.

    [7] JOHANSEN S. T., WU J. and SHYY W. Filter-based unsteady RANS computations[J]. International Journal of Heat and fluid flow, 2004, 25(1): 10-21.

    [8] WU J., WANG G. and SHYY W. Time-dependent turbulent cavitating flow computations with interfacial transport and filter based models[J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods for Fluids, 2005, 49(7): 739-761.

    [9] KIM S., BREWTON S. A multiphase approach to turbulent cavitating flows[C]. Proceedings of 27th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics.Seoul, Korea,2008.

    [10] WANG G., ZHANG B. and HUANG B. et al. Unsteady dynamics of cloudy cavitating flows around a hydrofoil[C]. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Cavitation. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 2009.

    [11] LEROUX J. B., ASTOLFI J. A. and BILLARD J. Y. An experimental study of unsteady partial cavitation[J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2004, 126(1): 94-101.

    [12] GOPALAN S., KATE J. Flow structure and modeling issues in the closure region of attached cavitation[J]. Physics of Fluids, 2000, 12(4): 895-911.

    [13] SHYY W., CHO Y.-C. and DU W. et al. Surrogatebased modeling and dimension reduction techniques for multi-scale mechanics problems[J]. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 2011, 27(6): 845-865.

    [14] GOEL T., HAFTKA R. T. and SHYY W. et al. Ensemble of surrogates[J]. Journal of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2007, 33(3): 199-216.

    [15] GOEL T., VAIDYANATHAN R. and HAFTKA R. T. et al. Response surface approximation of pareto optimal front in multi-objective optimization[J]. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(4): 879-893.

    10.1016/S1001-6058(14)60004-4

    * Project support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11172040, 51306020).

    Biography: HUANG Biao (1985-), Male, Ph. D., Lecturer

    WANG guo-yu,

    E-mail: wangguoyu@bit.edu.cn

    猜你喜歡
    趙宇王國
    一滴水中的王國
    趣味(語文)(2020年5期)2020-11-16 01:34:54
    地下王國
    她的2000億打工王國
    逃離鼠王國
    伴你闖蕩是愛,放你獨處也是愛
    37°女人(2019年12期)2019-12-19 06:09:11
    伴你闖蕩是愛,放你獨處也是愛
    分憂(2019年10期)2019-09-20 03:00:06
    伴你闖蕩是愛,放你獨處也是愛
    建立新王國
    NBA特刊(2018年21期)2018-11-24 02:47:48
    你了解大氣壓嗎
    動 靜(短篇小說)
    99热6这里只有精品| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 尾随美女入室| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 国产探花极品一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 国产亚洲最大av| av福利片在线| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 亚洲成人手机| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 熟女av电影| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看 | 午夜视频国产福利| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 有码 亚洲区| 熟女av电影| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产成人精品福利久久| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 色5月婷婷丁香| 欧美bdsm另类| 99久久人妻综合| av免费在线看不卡| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产精品.久久久| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 高清欧美精品videossex| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 在线观看人妻少妇| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 成人免费观看视频高清| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频 | 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 久久久精品94久久精品| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 亚洲国产精品999| 老女人水多毛片| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 午夜av观看不卡| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| h视频一区二区三区| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲精品一二三| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 免费观看性生交大片5| 午夜福利,免费看| 另类精品久久| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 在线观看www视频免费| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 亚洲四区av| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 精品国产国语对白av| 久久97久久精品| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 午夜日本视频在线| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 午夜免费观看性视频| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 99久久综合免费| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 一区在线观看完整版| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 成年av动漫网址| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 中国三级夫妇交换| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 在线天堂最新版资源| 日本免费在线观看一区| 黄色日韩在线| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 老熟女久久久| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 有码 亚洲区| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 中国国产av一级| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 一区在线观看完整版| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 | 永久网站在线| 尾随美女入室| 国产在线男女| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频 | 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 97超视频在线观看视频| 热re99久久国产66热| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 97在线视频观看| 一级a做视频免费观看| 桃花免费在线播放| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 亚洲av男天堂| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 精品久久久久久电影网| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 日本色播在线视频| 日本av免费视频播放| 国产极品天堂在线| 国产成人freesex在线| 久热这里只有精品99| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产视频内射| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 亚洲图色成人| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国产高清三级在线| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 亚洲性久久影院| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 黄色配什么色好看| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 色94色欧美一区二区| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 在线观看国产h片| 午夜久久久在线观看| 少妇的逼好多水| 亚洲内射少妇av| 多毛熟女@视频| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 人人澡人人妻人| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 观看美女的网站| 美女福利国产在线| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 一级黄片播放器| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 在线播放无遮挡| 久久狼人影院| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 99九九在线精品视频 | 香蕉精品网在线| 国产在线一区二区三区精| av视频免费观看在线观看| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 亚洲国产av新网站| 丰满乱子伦码专区| av国产精品久久久久影院| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 超碰97精品在线观看| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 一区在线观看完整版| 少妇高潮的动态图| 国产毛片在线视频| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 99久久综合免费| 在线观看三级黄色| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 多毛熟女@视频| 六月丁香七月| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 色哟哟·www| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 亚洲国产精品999| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 男女边摸边吃奶| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 黑人高潮一二区| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 中文资源天堂在线| 插逼视频在线观看| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 亚洲第一av免费看| 国产av精品麻豆| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 国产精品免费大片| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 极品教师在线视频| 一个人免费看片子| 亚洲性久久影院| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 久久久久视频综合| 免费观看性生交大片5| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 99热这里只有是精品50| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 亚洲av男天堂| 在线观看国产h片| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 久久热精品热| 亚洲国产av新网站| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频 | 各种免费的搞黄视频| 精品国产国语对白av| 99热6这里只有精品| videos熟女内射| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 99热这里只有精品一区| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 日韩成人伦理影院| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 只有这里有精品99| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 精品久久久噜噜| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 观看av在线不卡| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 午夜免费观看性视频| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 免费av中文字幕在线| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产精品.久久久| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 六月丁香七月| 国产91av在线免费观看| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚州av有码| 成人无遮挡网站| 免费看日本二区| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 一级黄片播放器| 日韩成人伦理影院| 午夜日本视频在线| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 蜜桃在线观看..| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 在线观看三级黄色| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 久久久久久久久久成人| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 一级a做视频免费观看| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 欧美人与善性xxx| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 9色porny在线观看| 欧美3d第一页| 黄色日韩在线| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 97在线人人人人妻| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 日本午夜av视频| 综合色丁香网| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 两个人免费观看高清视频 | 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 在线播放无遮挡| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 亚洲不卡免费看| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 国产精品三级大全| 日本黄色片子视频| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 日日啪夜夜撸| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 在线播放无遮挡| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 六月丁香七月| 丝袜喷水一区| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 久久久久精品性色| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 免费看不卡的av| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| av国产精品久久久久影院| 老熟女久久久| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 精品久久久久久久久av| 一级黄片播放器| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| av播播在线观看一区| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 三级国产精品片| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 97超视频在线观看视频| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 亚洲无线观看免费| 视频区图区小说| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 亚洲av福利一区| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 蜜桃在线观看..| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 成人免费观看视频高清| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 99久久精品热视频| 国产在视频线精品| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲av男天堂| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| av在线老鸭窝| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 免费观看性生交大片5| 精品亚洲成国产av| 亚洲精品视频女| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站 | 日韩中字成人| 婷婷色综合www| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 观看av在线不卡| 亚洲综合精品二区| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 精品国产一区二区久久| 久久影院123| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 尾随美女入室| 精品国产一区二区久久| 国产乱来视频区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 在现免费观看毛片| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 夫妻午夜视频| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 免费观看av网站的网址| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 国产淫语在线视频| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| www.av在线官网国产| 有码 亚洲区| 99久久人妻综合| 久久99精品国语久久久| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 草草在线视频免费看| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 国产成人一区二区在线| 精品午夜福利在线看| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 少妇的逼水好多| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 乱人伦中国视频| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 免费黄色在线免费观看| av有码第一页| 免费观看性生交大片5| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 日韩av免费高清视频| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲 | 国产精品一区www在线观看| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 尾随美女入室| 免费av中文字幕在线| 日本欧美视频一区| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 国产在视频线精品| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 国产av一区二区精品久久| av免费在线看不卡| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| kizo精华| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 日本欧美视频一区| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 亚洲中文av在线| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 亚洲无线观看免费| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 97超视频在线观看视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃 | 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 国产av精品麻豆| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 欧美日韩av久久| 中文天堂在线官网| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 天堂8中文在线网| 免费看不卡的av| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 精品午夜福利在线看| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| av免费在线看不卡| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国产成人91sexporn| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 高清毛片免费看| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 性色av一级| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃|