UFR 3-30 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=='''Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments'''== | =='''Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments'''== | ||
The experimental data at Reynolds number 10,600 are compared with LES results by LESOCC [Breuer et al. (2009)]. The following figures show averaged velocity profiles for <u>/u<sub>b</sub> at four streamwise positions. | The experimental data at Reynolds number 10,600 are compared with LES results by LESOCC [Breuer et al. (2009)]. The following figures show averaged velocity profiles for <u>/u<sub>b</sub> at four streamwise positions. | ||
Revision as of 14:53, 25 November 2009
2D Periodic Hill
Underlying Flow Regime 3-30
Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments
The experimental data at Reynolds number 10,600 are compared with LES results by LESOCC [Breuer et al. (2009)]. The following figures show averaged velocity profiles for <u>/ub at four streamwise positions.
The agreement between predicted and measured mean streamwise velocity component in the x-direction is very good. Minor deviations can be found in the shear layer (slightly higher velocities in the experiment) and in the post-reattachment. The vertical velocity component <v>/ub is about one order of magnitude smaller than the streamwise component and yet more sensitive. However, the measurements comply with the simulation results in a fully satisfactory manner. The largest deviations are found at x/h=2.
The measured and the predicted Reynolds shear stress show a close agreement at the different x/h-positions. The location of the experimental peak values and their distributions are in close accordance with the predictions. Solely at x/h=6 a slightly higher stress was found in the experimental data.
However, the agreement between the PIV measurement and the LES prediction is highly satisfactory.
Contributed by: Christoph Rapp — Technische Universitat Munchen
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2009