UFR 2-15 Test Case: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
[‌[[UFR_2-15_References#5|5]], [[UFR_2-15_References#7|7]], [[UFR_2-15_References#54|54]], [[UFR_2-15_References#56|56]], [[UFR_2-15_References#57|57]]]
[‌[[UFR_2-15_References#5|5]], [[UFR_2-15_References#7|7]], [[UFR_2-15_References#54|54]], [[UFR_2-15_References#56|56]], [[UFR_2-15_References#57|57]]]
and computational simulations from six different teams
and computational simulations from six different teams
[‌[[UFR_2-15_References#1|1]], [[UFR_2-15_References#8|8]], [[UFR_2-15_References#10|10]], [[UFR_2-15_References#11|11]], [[UFR_2-15_References#17|17]], [[UFR_2-15_References#26|26–28]], [[UFR_2-15_References#46|46]], [[UFR_2-15_References#71|71]]]
[‌[[UFR_2-15_References#1|1]], [[UFR_2-15_References#8|8]], [[UFR_2-15_References#10|10]], [[UFR_2-15_References#11|11]], [[UFR_2-15_References#17|17]], [[UFR_2-15_References#26|26–28]], [[UFR_2-15_References#46|46]], [[UFR_2-15_References#71|71]]];
\citep{arslan2011,Bruno2011,Grozescu2011a,mannini_sch_2011,ribeiro2011,wei,bruno,mannini2010,mannini2011,Bruno2012};
the UFR is mainly based on these contributions.
the UFR is mainly based on these contributions.



Revision as of 14:16, 13 March 2014

Benchmark on the Aerodynamics of a Rectangular 5:1 Cylinder (BARC)

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Flows Around Bodies

Underlying Flow Regime 2-15

Test Case Study

Brief Description of the Study Test Case

As previously mentioned, BARC addresses the high Reynolds number, external, unsteady flow over a stationary, sharp-edged smooth rectangular cylinder, and the associated aerodynamic loads [‌2]. The breadth to depth ratio is set equal to 5. A sketch of the configuration is shown in Fig. 2. The BARC test case gathered new wind tunnel tests in four different facilities [‌57545657] and computational simulations from six different teams [‌1810111726–284671]; the UFR is mainly based on these contributions.

The following common requirements are set for both wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations:

Test Case Experiments

Provide a brief description of the test facility, together with the measurement techniques used. Indicate what quantities were measured and where.

Discuss the quality of the data and the accuracy of the measurements. It is recognized that the depth and extent of this discussion is dependent upon the amount and quality of information provided in the source documents. However, it should seek to address:

  • How close is the flow to the target/design flow (e.g. if the flow is supposed to be two-dimensional, how well is this condition satisfied)?
  • Estimation of the accuracy of measured quantities arising from given measurement technique
  • Checks on global conservation of physically conserved quantities, momentum, energy etc.
  • Consistency in the measurements of different quantities.

Discuss how well conditions at boundaries of the flow such as inflow, outflow, walls, far fields, free surface are provided or could be reasonably estimated in order to facilitate CFD calculations

CFD Methods

Provide an overview of the methods used to analyze the test case. This should describe the codes employed together with the turbulence/physical models examined; the models need not be described in detail if good references are available but the treatment used at the walls should explained. Comment on how well the boundary conditions used replicate the conditions in the test rig, e.g. inflow conditions based on measured data at the rig measurement station or reconstructed based on well-defined estimates and assumptions.

Discuss the quality and accuracy of the CFD calculations. As before, it is recognized that the depth and extent of this discussion is dependent upon the amount and quality of information provided in the source documents. However the following points should be addressed:

  • What numerical procedures were used (discretisation scheme and solver)?
  • What grid resolution was used? Were grid sensitivity studies carried out?
  • Did any of the analyses check or demonstrate numerical accuracy?
  • Were sensitivity tests carried out to explore the effect of uncertainties in boundary conditions?
  • If separate calculations of the assessment parameters using the same physical model have been performed and reported, do they agree with one another?




Contributed by: Luca Bruno, Maria Vittoria Salvetti — Politecnico di Torino, Università di Pisa

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024