UFR 2-15 Test Case: Difference between revisions
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The following common requirements are set for both wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations: | The following common requirements are set for both wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations: | ||
*the depth-based Reynolds number <math>{\left.\text{Re}_D=UD/\nu\right.}</math> has to be in the range of <math>{2 \times 10^4}</math> to <math>{6 \times 10^4}</math>; | *the depth-based Reynolds number <math>{\left.\text{Re}_D=UD/\nu\right.}</math> has to be in the range of <math>{2 \times 10^4}</math> to <math>{6 \times 10^4}</math>; | ||
*the incoming flow has to be set parallel to the breadth of the rectangle, i.e. <math>{\left.\alpha = 0\right.}</math>, <math>{\left.\alpha\right.}</math> being the angle of attack; | *the incoming flow has to be set parallel to the breadth of the rectangle, i.e. <math>{\left.\alpha = 0\right.}</math>, <math>{\left.\alpha\right.}</math> being the angle of attack; | ||
*the maximum intensity of the longitudinal component of the freestream turbulence is set to <math>{\left.I_x = 0.01\right.}</math>; | *the maximum intensity of the longitudinal component of the freestream turbulence is set to <math>{\left.I_x = 0.01\right.}</math>; | ||
*the minimum spanwise length of the cylinder for wind tunnel tests and 3D numerical simulations is set to <math>{\left.L/D = 3\right.}</math> | *the minimum spanwise length of the cylinder for wind tunnel tests and 3D numerical simulations is set to <math>{\left.L/D = 3\right.}</math>. | ||
== Test Case Experiments == | == Test Case Experiments == |
Revision as of 14:38, 13 March 2014
Benchmark on the Aerodynamics of a Rectangular 5:1 Cylinder (BARC)
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 [5, 7, 54, 56, 57] and computational simulations from six different teams [1, 8, 10, 11, 17, 26–28, 46, 71]; the UFR is mainly based on these contributions.
The following common requirements are set for both wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations:
- the depth-based Reynolds number has to be in the range of to ;
- the incoming flow has to be set parallel to the breadth of the rectangle, i.e. , being the angle of attack;
- the maximum intensity of the longitudinal component of the freestream turbulence is set to ;
- the minimum spanwise length of the cylinder for wind tunnel tests and 3D numerical simulations is set to .
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
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024