            ! "  #$% %  &% ’% ( 1    )  *$+ ,)  )           % -.% (  ! /          % -.% ( 0-1- A boundary element method (BEM) model is applied for the prediction of cavitating flow around 3D straight/swept hydrofoils between slip (zero shear) walls. The governing equation and boundary conditions are formulated and solved by assuming piecewise constant distribution of sources and dipoles on the hydrofoil and cavity surfaces, and piecewise constant distribution of dipoles on the trailing wake sheet. Cavity shape determination is initiated with a guessed cavity planform, and the cavity extent and thickness are determined iteratively until the dynamic and kinematic boundary conditions are satisfied on the cavity surface. To account for nonormal flow through the side walls, the method of images is used. For the fullywetted case, the attached flow results obtained are compared with results from a fullfledged ReynoldsAveraged NavierStokes (RANS) solver. The cavitating results for a straight wing between slip walls are compared with results from an existing 2D BEM solver for cavitating flow around hydrofoils. The RANS solver is also used to study separated flow characteristics around 2D/3D hydrofoils at high loading. 2’34-(13 C: Chord length of the 2D hydrofoil section : Pressure coefficient, = ( −  )/(   ) : Vapor pressure : Farfield pressure Re: Reynolds Number : Mean flow velocity in the i th coordinate direction : Fluctuating flow velocity in the i th coordinate direction : Friction velocity, =   / : Nondimensional wall normal coordinate, = ( )/ α: Inflow angle of attack !: Sweep angle of the 3D wing/hydrofoil ν: Kinematic viscosity of the fluid ρ: Density of the fluid σ: Cavitation number, " = ( −  )/(   )  : Wall shear stress #: Perturbation potential -12+(-2 A number of techniques have been developed in recent years to treat wetted and cavitating flow around 2D/3D hydrofoils. Boundary Element Method (BEM) has been found to be a computationally efficient, robust and versatile tool for analysis of such flows. Kinnas and Fine (1991, 1993b); Fine and Kinnas (1993) have developed nonlinear potential based boundaryelement method for analysis of partially or supercavitating flows around 2D/3D hydrofoils. Their method was extended to predict face cavitation and search for cavity detachment on threedimensional hydrofoils and propellers by Kinnas (1998). In the present work, a BEM model has been developed to study wetted/cavitating flow around 3D straight/swept hydrofoils between slip walls. The BEM model is built over an existing robust numerical tool PROPCAV [PROPeller CAVitation, Kinnas and Fine (1992)]. PROPCAV is capable of analyzing 3D unsteady flow around cavitating propellers and is based on a loworder (piecewise constant dipole and source distribution) potential boundary element method. In the current work, to account for nonormal flow through side walls, an image model has been incorporated into PROPCAV. Figure 1 shows the top view of a swept hydrofoil spanning between walls that are parallel to the xy plane. For a straight wing between parallel walls, the sweep angle λ = 0 o (refer Fig. 3). The two side walls are treated as noshear or slip walls. Since the main emphasis is on predicting the influence of sweep on the hydrofoil pressure distribution, by treating the side walls as slip walls, comparisons between the inviscid 3D BEM model and a RANS solver (Fluent 1 ) are made in the absence of any tip effects that might have otherwise arisen. Furthermore, by choosing this simplistic, controlled environment, RANS calculations can be performed with a relatively lesser number of cells/elements. 1 Version 6.3.26, Website – http://www.fluent.com/