  Cavitation is a complex multiphase phenomenon characterised by vapour bubbles
forming due to a sudden pressure drop and is often accompanied by increased
hull vibrations, increased radiated noise and decrease in propeller and
impeller performance. Although the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
method coupled with a cavitation model is still considered a practical tool to
predict cavitating flows owing to its computational efficiency, it is unable to
predict the unsteadiness of vapor shedding and over-predicts the eddy
viscosity. To improve the prediction, an empirical eddy viscosity
correction,[Reboud et al. 1998] was proposed to consider the compressibility
effects produced by cavitation. Additionally, a new type of models termed as
hybrid RANS-Large Eddy Simulation (LES) models have also been recently
introduced in the community, having the ability to behave as a RANS or a LES
model in different regions of the flow in order to combine the computational
cost efficiency of RANS with the accuracy of LES modelling. However, there
exists a lack of a comprehensive review of various such turbulence models like
the k-{\omega} Shear Stress Transport Model (SST), k-{\omega} SST
Scale-adaptive Simulation (SAS), k-{\omega} SST Detached Eddy Simulation (DES),
k-{\omega} SST Delayed DES (DDES), Filter-Based Method (FBM) and
Partially-Averaged Navier Stokes Method (PANS) to predict cavitating flows. In
this work, we conduct such a review to compare their ability to predict cloud
cavitating flows by comparing them with x-ray experimental data in a venturi.
It is shown that with mesh refinement, standard models do show the vapor
unsteadiness as seen in the experiment similar to that seen when using the
Reboud correction. However, on local comparison of turbulence quantities, it is
observed both forms of models have huge discrepancies with experimental data
that does not improve downstream.
