UFR 3-36 Test Case: Difference between revisions
Erij.alaya (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Erij.alaya (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<!--{{LoremIpsum}}--> | <!--{{LoremIpsum}}--> | ||
== Brief Description of the Study Test Case == | == Brief Description of the Study Test Case == | ||
The geometry of this UFR alongside the mesh is shown in Figure 1. The geometry comprises three main sections: Constant-Width Forebody section L_F with the largest width Y_F, Contoured Boat-tail section L_B with the contoured width Y_B and Constant-Width-Aftbody section L_A with the smallest width Y_A. The width of the last section is modified to generate the desired APG. This modification is achieved through the variation of σ, which is the ratio of Y_A to Y_F. | |||
== Test Case Experiments == | == Test Case Experiments == | ||
{{Demo_UFR_Test_Expt}} | {{Demo_UFR_Test_Expt}} | ||
Revision as of 08:36, 2 November 2022
Lib:Create_Ercoftac_Article_Form
Underlying Flow Regime 3-36
Test Case Study
Brief Description of the Study Test Case
The geometry of this UFR alongside the mesh is shown in Figure 1. The geometry comprises three main sections: Constant-Width Forebody section L_F with the largest width Y_F, Contoured Boat-tail section L_B with the contoured width Y_B and Constant-Width-Aftbody section L_A with the smallest width Y_A. The width of the last section is modified to generate the desired APG. This modification is achieved through the variation of σ, which is the ratio of Y_A to Y_F.
Test Case Experiments
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
CFD Methods
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: Erij Alaya and Cornelia Grabe — Deutsches Luft-und Raumfahrt Zentrum (DLR)
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024