UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
David.Fowler (talk | contribs) (New page: {{UFR|front=UFR 3-18|description=UFR 3-18 Description|references=UFR 3-18 References|testcase=UFR 3-18 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 3-18 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 3-18 Quality Review|bestp...) |
m (Dave.Ellacott moved page Silver:UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice to UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice over redirect) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{UFR|front=UFR 3-18|description=UFR 3-18 Description|references=UFR 3-18 References|testcase=UFR 3-18 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 3-18 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 3-18 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 3-18 Related ACs}} | {{UFR|front=UFR 3-18|description=UFR 3-18 Description|references=UFR 3-18 References|testcase=UFR 3-18 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 3-18 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 3-18 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 3-18 Related ACs}} | ||
| Line 19: | Line 18: | ||
The case studies associated with this UFR all demonstrate good practices, which for fully turbulent 2D boundary-layer separation in an adverse pressure gradient may be summarized as follows; | The case studies associated with this UFR all demonstrate good practices, which for fully turbulent 2D boundary-layer separation in an adverse pressure gradient may be summarized as follows; | ||
* perform grid dependency studies to eliminate sensitivities due to mesh | |||
* assess the effect of sensitivity to boundary conditions by varying the critical inputs | |||
* use higher order discretisation, especially on momentum | |||
* use low-Reynolds non-linear models to capture the effect of near-wall non-isotropy and flow curvature in adverse pressure gradients. k-ω models predict separation better than the equivalent k-ε models | |||
* LES modeling is to be recommended where ever possible | |||
* The V2F turbulence model demonstrates good near-wall flow predictions, and should be investigated for a wider class of problems to boost confidence in its performance. | |||
<font size="-2" color="#888888">© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004</font><br /> | <font size="-2" color="#888888">© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004</font><br /> | ||
| Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
{{UFR|front=UFR 3-18|description=UFR 3-18 Description|references=UFR 3-18 References|testcase=UFR 3-18 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 3-18 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 3-18 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 3-18 Related ACs}} | {{UFR|front=UFR 3-18|description=UFR 3-18 Description|references=UFR 3-18 References|testcase=UFR 3-18 Test Case|evaluation=UFR 3-18 Evaluation|qualityreview=UFR 3-18 Quality Review|bestpractice=UFR 3-18 Best Practice Advice|relatedACs=UFR 3-18 Related ACs}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:33, 12 February 2017
2D Boundary layers with pressure gradients (B)
Underlying Flow Regime 3-18 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Best Practice Advice
Best Practice Advice for the UFR
The case studies associated with this UFR all demonstrate good practices, which for fully turbulent 2D boundary-layer separation in an adverse pressure gradient may be summarized as follows;
- perform grid dependency studies to eliminate sensitivities due to mesh
- assess the effect of sensitivity to boundary conditions by varying the critical inputs
- use higher order discretisation, especially on momentum
- use low-Reynolds non-linear models to capture the effect of near-wall non-isotropy and flow curvature in adverse pressure gradients. k-ω models predict separation better than the equivalent k-ε models
- LES modeling is to be recommended where ever possible
- The V2F turbulence model demonstrates good near-wall flow predictions, and should be investigated for a wider class of problems to boost confidence in its performance.
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Contributors: Fred Mendonca - Computational Dynamics Ltd