UFR 4-16 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
=== Underlying Flow Regime 4-16 === | === Underlying Flow Regime 4-16 === | ||
= Evaluation = | = Evaluation = | ||
==Evaluation of the results== | |||
Both 3D diffuser configurations have served as test cases of the 13th and | |||
14th ERCOFTAC SIG15 Workshops on refined turbulence modelling, Steiner et | |||
al. (2009) and Jakirlic et al. (2010b). In addition to different RANS | |||
models, the LES and LES-related methods (different seamless and zonal | |||
hybrid LES/RANS - HLR - models; DES - Detached Eddy Simulation) were | |||
comparatively assessed (visit www.ercoftac.org; under SIG15); the | |||
comparative analysis of selected results is presented in the section "Cross- | |||
Comparison of CFD calculations with experimental results" of the present | |||
contribution. Before starting with the latter, some key physical | |||
characteristics illustrated appropriately are discussed as follows. | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 18:17, 1 August 2012
Flow in a 3D diffuser
Confined flows
Underlying Flow Regime 4-16
Evaluation
Evaluation of the results
Both 3D diffuser configurations have served as test cases of the 13th and 14th ERCOFTAC SIG15 Workshops on refined turbulence modelling, Steiner et al. (2009) and Jakirlic et al. (2010b). In addition to different RANS models, the LES and LES-related methods (different seamless and zonal hybrid LES/RANS - HLR - models; DES - Detached Eddy Simulation) were comparatively assessed (visit www.ercoftac.org; under SIG15); the comparative analysis of selected results is presented in the section "Cross- Comparison of CFD calculations with experimental results" of the present contribution. Before starting with the latter, some key physical characteristics illustrated appropriately are discussed as follows.
Contributed by: Suad Jakirlić, Gisa John-Puthenveettil — Technische Universität Darmstadt
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024