UFR 4-16 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Confined flows == | == Confined flows == | ||
=== Underlying Flow Regime 4-16 === | === Underlying Flow Regime 4-16 === | ||
=Evaluation of the results= | |||
Both 3D diffuser configurations have served as test cases of the 13th and | Both 3D diffuser configurations have served as test cases of the 13th and | ||
14th ERCOFTAC SIG15 Workshops on refined turbulence modelling, Steiner et | 14th ERCOFTAC SIG15 Workshops on refined turbulence modelling, Steiner et | ||
| Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
characteristics illustrated appropriately are discussed as follows. | characteristics illustrated appropriately are discussed as follows. | ||
==Physical issues/characteristics of the flow in a 3D diffuser== | |||
Here an overview of the most important flow features posing a special | Here an overview of the most important flow features posing a special | ||
challenge to the turbulence modeling is given. Their correct capturing is | challenge to the turbulence modeling is given. Their correct capturing is | ||
| Line 29: | Line 28: | ||
methods by the groups participating at the SIG15 workshop. | methods by the groups participating at the SIG15 workshop. | ||
===Developed ("equilibrium") flow in the inflow duct / secondary currents=== | |||
Fig. 20 depicts the linear plot of the axial velocity component across the | Fig. 20 depicts the linear plot of the axial velocity component across the | ||
central plane (z/B=0.5) of the inflow duct at x/h=-2 obtained | central plane (z/B=0.5) of the inflow duct at x/h=-2 obtained | ||
Revision as of 18:22, 1 August 2012
Flow in a 3D diffuser
Confined flows
Underlying Flow Regime 4-16
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.
Physical issues/characteristics of the flow in a 3D diffuser
Here an overview of the most important flow features posing a special challenge to the turbulence modeling is given. Their correct capturing is of decisive importance with respect to the quality of the final results. In order to illustrate these phenomena the experimental and DNS results are used along with some results obtained by LES, hybrid LES/RANS and RANS methods by the groups participating at the SIG15 workshop.
Developed ("equilibrium") flow in the inflow duct / secondary currents
Fig. 20 depicts the linear plot of the axial velocity component across the central plane (z/B=0.5) of the inflow duct at x/h=-2 obtained experimentally indicating a symmetric profile. The inflow conditions correspond clearly to those typical for a fully-developed, equilibrium flow. This is provided by a long inflow duct whose length corresponds to 62.9 channel heights. Fig. 21 shows the semi-log plot of the axial velocity component across the central plane (z/B=0.5) of the inflow duct at x/h=-2. The velocity profile shape obtained by DNS follows closely the logarithmic law, despite a certain departure from it. This departure, expressed in terms of a slight underprediction of the coefficient B in the log-law ([pic] with B=5.2), can also be regarded as a consequence of the back- influence of the adverse pressure gradient evoked by the flow expansion. The pressure coefficient evolution, displayed in Fig. 24, reveals a related pressure increase already in the inflow duct ([pic]). The LES and HLR results (Jakirlic et al., 2010a) exhibit a certain overprediction of the velocity in the logarithmic region. This seems to indicate that the grid may not have been fine enough. On the other hand, the corresponding underprediction of the friction velocity U?, serving here for the normalization - [pic], contributed also to such an outcome (the quantitative information about the U? velocity can be extracted from the friction factor evolution, Fig. 14 in the chapter "Test case studied").
Contributed by: Suad Jakirlić, Gisa John-Puthenveettil — Technische Universität Darmstadt
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024