UFR 3-33 Evaluation: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 15: Line 15:
Fig. 1: Visualization of flow regions and characteristic flow features of the flow past the hemisphere: (1) horseshoe vortex system, (2) stagnation area, (3) acceleration of the flow, (4) separation point, (5) dividing streamline, (6) shear layer vorticity, (7) reattachment point.
Fig. 1: Visualization of flow regions and characteristic flow features of the flow past the hemisphere: (1) horseshoe vortex system, (2) stagnation area, (3) acceleration of the flow, (4) separation point, (5) dividing streamline, (6) shear layer vorticity, (7) reattachment point.


[[Image:UFR3-33_flow_regions.png|x600px]]
[[Image:UFR3-33_unsteady_vortical_structures.png|x600px]]
 
Fig. 2: Snapshot of unsteady vortical structures visualized by utilizing the iso-surfaces of the pressure fluctuations (<math>p'/(\rho_\text{air} U_\infty^2) = -2.47 \times 10^{-4}</math>) colored by the spanwise instantaneous velocity.


== Comparison between numerical and experimental time-averaged results ==
== Comparison between numerical and experimental time-averaged results ==

Revision as of 15:20, 20 January 2016

Turbulent flow past a smooth and rigid wall-mounted hemisphere

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Semi-confined flows

Underlying Flow Regime 3-33

Evaluation

Unsteady results

UFR3-33 flow regions.png

Fig. 1: Visualization of flow regions and characteristic flow features of the flow past the hemisphere: (1) horseshoe vortex system, (2) stagnation area, (3) acceleration of the flow, (4) separation point, (5) dividing streamline, (6) shear layer vorticity, (7) reattachment point.

UFR3-33 unsteady vortical structures.png

Fig. 2: Snapshot of unsteady vortical structures visualized by utilizing the iso-surfaces of the pressure fluctuations () colored by the spanwise instantaneous velocity.

Comparison between numerical and experimental time-averaged results




Contributed by: Jens Nikolas Wood, Guillaume De Nayer, Stephan Schmidt, Michael Breuer — Helmut-Schmidt Universität Hamburg

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024