UFR 3-33 Test Case: Difference between revisions
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Fig. 1: Wind tunnel applied for the experimental investigations. | Fig. 1: Wind tunnel applied for the experimental investigations. | ||
[[Image:UFR3-33_wind_channel_specifications.png| | [[Image:UFR3-33_wind_channel_specifications.png|x250px]] | ||
== Flow parameters == | == Flow parameters == | ||
Revision as of 09:44, 20 January 2016
Turbulent flow past a smooth and rigid wall-mounted hemisphere
Semi-confined flows
Underlying Flow Regime 3-33
Test Case Study
Brief Description of the geometrical model and the test section
Fig. 1: Geometrical configuration of the wall-mounted hemisphere.
Description of the wind channel
Provide a brief description of the test facility, together with the measurement techniques used. Indicate what quantities were measured and where.
Discuss the quality of the data and the accuracy of the measurements. It is recognized that the depth and extent of this discussion is dependent upon the amount and quality of information provided in the source documents. However, it should seek to address:
- How close is the flow to the target/design flow (e.g. if the flow is supposed to be two-dimensional, how well is this condition satisfied)?
- Estimation of the accuracy of measured quantities arising from given measurement technique
- Checks on global conservation of physically conserved quantities, momentum, energy etc.
- Consistency in the measurements of different quantities.
Discuss how well conditions at boundaries of the flow such as inflow, outflow, walls, far fields, free surface are provided or could be reasonably estimated in order to facilitate CFD calculations
Fig. 1: Wind tunnel applied for the experimental investigations.
Flow parameters
Measuring Techniques
Laser-Doppler anemometer
Constant temperatur anemometer
Numerical Simulation Methodology
Synthetic turbulent inflow generator
Provide an overview of the methods used to analyze the test case. This should describe the codes employed together with the turbulence/physical models examined; the models need not be described in detail if good references are available but the treatment used at the walls should explained. Comment on how well the boundary conditions used replicate the conditions in the test rig, e.g. inflow conditions based on measured data at the rig measurement station or reconstructed based on well-defined estimates and assumptions.
Discuss the quality and accuracy of the CFD calculations. As before, it is recognized that the depth and extent of this discussion is dependent upon the amount and quality of information provided in the source documents. However the following points should be addressed:
- What numerical procedures were used (discretisation scheme and solver)?
- What grid resolution was used? Were grid sensitivity studies carried out?
- Did any of the analyses check or demonstrate numerical accuracy?
- Were sensitivity tests carried out to explore the effect of uncertainties in boundary conditions?
- If separate calculations of the assessment parameters using the same physical model have been performed and reported, do they agree with one another?
Contributed by: Jens Nikolas Wood, Guillaume De Nayer, Stephan Schmidt, Michael Breuer — Helmut-Schmidt Universität Hamburg
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024