Gold:Quality Review AC1-05
Ahmed body
Application Challenge 1-05 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Application Challenge (AC) Title: Ahmed Body
AC Author and Thematic Area: J-P Bonnet & R. Manceau TA01 External Aerodynamics
Reviewer (Name/Organisation) : A. G. Hutton/Qinetiq
1
TOP LEVEL CHECK
YES
NO
CO
1.1
Is this AC an Industrial test case for judging CFD competency?
3
1.2
Are the design/assessment parameters (DOAPs) defined?
3
1.3
Have these assessment parameters been measured?
3
1.4
Are CFD calculations available ?
3
H
M
L
1.5
Importance of AC to Industrial Sector (IS)?
3
Comments:
The Ahmed Body has long been used as a standard test case for automotive external aerodynamics. It has been studied within the Models for Vehicle Aerodyamics (MOVA) European collaborative project. It was one of the test cases of the FLOMANIA EC project, and the geometry was used in an ERCOFTAC/IAHR workshop.
Please identify Underlying Flow Regimes for this AC:
1)BL separation from smooth surface under apg. 2) laminar-turbulent transition 3) forward face stagnation, 4)separated counter rotating vortices. 5) wakes
DETAILED CHECK
2
GEOMETRY
YES
NO
CO
2.1
Is the geometry fully specified?
2.2
Are the locations of boundaries specified?
3
3
2.3
Are the boundary types specified?
3
2.4
Is the geometry clearly illustrated?
3
2.5
Is the geometry available in digital form?
3
Comments:
2.2 For completeness the distance of WT nozzle from model is required
3
FLOW PHYSICS AND FLUID DYNAMICS DATA
YES
NO
CO
3.1
Are the physics of key processes identified?
3
3.2
Are the properties of the fluid specified?
3
3.3
Are the governing non-dimensional parameters (GNDPs) identified?
3
Comments:
TEST DATA
4
OVERVIEW of test data
YES
NO
CO
4.1
Have all the experiments been adequately defined?
3
4.2
Are the measurement techniques used described?
3
4.3
Has a summary of test runs been provided (matrix)?
3
4.4
Are there any important scaling issues/simplifications/uncertainties associated with the test geometry?
3
H
M
L
4.5
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
5
EXP1 (Copy and complete this section for each set of test data)
YES
NO
CO
5.1
Is the experimental setup defined unambiguously?
3
5.2
Are the geometrical parameters defined?
3
5.3
Are the values of GNDPs specified?
3
5.4
Are the measured parameters (MPs) fully described?
3
3
5.5
Are measured data available in digital format?
3
5.6
Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?
3
3
5.7
Are any of the boundary data uncertain?
3
3
5.8
Is a realistic estimate of data accuracy given?
3
H
M
L
5.9
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
5.4 What is measured is fully described but not the exact locations. These will be provided when the datasets are inserted into the database
5.5 Availability of digital format not known
5.6 &5.7 Conditions at far field are somewhat uncertain. Model is contained within a 3-D wall jet. Sensitivity of DOAPS to assumptions at farfield should be checked with CFD or the full
3-D wall jet should be modelled. Conditions at inflow are well defined (shear free flow with low turbulence intensity)
5
EXP2 (Copy and complete this section for each set of test data)
YES
NO
CO
5.10
Is the experimental setup defined unambiguously?
3
5.11
Are the geometrical parameters defined?
3
5.12
Are the values of GNDPs specified?
3
5.13
Are the measured parameters (MPs) fully described?
3
3
5.14
Are measured data available in digital format?
3
5.15
Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?
3
3
5.16
Are any of the boundary data uncertain?
3
3
5.17
Is a realistic estimate of data accuracy given?
3
H
M
L
5.18
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
5.13 What is measured is fully described but not the exact locations. These will be provided when the datasets are inserted into the database
5.14 Availability of digital format not known
5.15&5.16 Conditions at far field are somewhat uncertain. Model is contained within a 3-D wall jet. Sensitivity of DOAPS to assumptions at farfield should be checked with CFD or the full 3-D wall jet should be modelled. Conditions at inflow are well defined (shear free flow with low turbulence intensity)
CFD SIMULATIONS
6
OVERVIEW of CFD simulations
YES
NO
CO
6.1
Have all the CFD runs been adequately defined?
3
3
6.2
Are the solution techniques used described?
3
3
6.3
Has a summary of runs been provided (matrix)?
3
6.4
Are there any important uncertainties associated with the computational domain geometry?
3
H
M
L
6.5
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
6.1 & 6.2. These details are omitted here but are provided in the descriptions of the CFD simulations which follow
6.4 These uncertainties vary across the set of CFD simulations considered and are therefore dealt with on a case-by-case basis below.
7
CFD1 – Fluent 4.2, RANS, EXP1
YES
NO
CO
7.1
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.2
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.3
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.4
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
3
7.5
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.6
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.7
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.8
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.9
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.10
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.11
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
Boundary Conditions
7.12
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.13
Are they appropriate?
3
7.14
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.15
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.16
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.17
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.18
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.19
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.20
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
7.4 to 7.6. These details not provided but are available in the code manual (FLUENT 4.2)
7.8 & 7.12 Far field conditions and inflow velocity not specified
7.9. Symmetry assumed about axial plane through centre of body. Domain cannot capture wall jet issuing from WT nozzle. Support legs & ground plate omitted.
7.11 No means of judging mesh quality.
7.13 Cannot judge until fully defined
7.14 Wall jet issuing from WT nozzle not simulated. Support legs and ground plate omitted
7.19 No information on sufficiency of iteration convergence
7.20 Difficult to assess impact particularly omission of ground plate although results are in reasonable agreement with experiment
7
CFD2, Fluent 5, RANS, EXP1
YES
NO
CO
7.21
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.22
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.23
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.24
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
3
7.25
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.26
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.27
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.28
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.29
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.30
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.31
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
Boundary Conditions
7.32
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.33
Are they appropriate?
3
7.34
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
7.35
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.36
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.37
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.38
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.39
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.40
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
7.24 to 7.26. General information provided but no details. These are available in the code manual (FLUENT 5)
7.28 & 7.32 No information on boundary conditions provided
7.29. Symmetry assumed about axial plane through centre of body. Stilts are included.
7.31 No means of judging mesh quality.
7.33 Cannot judge until fully defined
7.34 Hard to tell. However 0.5% WT blockage applied and support legs and ground plate modelled
7.36 No information provided by which to judge.
7.39 No information on sufficiency of iteration convergence
7.40 Difficult to assess impact with any confidence
7
CFD3, PRICELESS, LES
YES
NO
CO
7.41
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.42
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.43
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.44
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.45
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.46
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.47
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.48
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
7.49
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.50
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.51
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
Boundary Conditions
7.52
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.53
Are they appropriate?
3
7.54
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.55
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.56
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.57
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.58
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.59
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.60
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
3
Comments:
7.46 Some but not complete information given
7.49 Domain cannot capture wall jet issuing from WT nozzle. Also see 7.54.
7.50 Number of nodes given but no information on their distribution
7.51 No means of judging mesh quality.
7.54 Wall jet issuing from WT nozzle not simulated. Support legs and ground plate omitted
7.56 Yes for low Reynolds number simulation. No for high Reynolds number simulation (wall functions used with y+ = 104)
7.59 Calculation is a transient LES simulation with CFL No. = 1.
7
CFD4, Swift, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.61
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.62
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.63
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.64
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
3
7.65
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.66
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.67
Is the domain fully described?
3
3
7.68
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
7.69
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.70
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.71
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.72
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.73
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.74
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.75
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.76
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.77
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.78
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.79
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.80
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.64-7.66 Not provided, but probably available in code manual.
7.67 Not sufficient information provided
7.68 & 7.72 Not all boundary conditions given
7.69 & 7.74 Not clear whether ground plate and stilts were modeled
7.70 No means to judge mesh quality
7.73 use of experimental inlet profile appropriated
7
CFD5, Saturne, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.81
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.82
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.83
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.84
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.85
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.86
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.87
Is the domain fully described?
3
3
7.88
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.89
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.90
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.91
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.92
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.93
Are they appropriate?
7.94
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
7.95
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.96
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.97
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.98
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.99
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.100
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.84-7.86 Not provided
7.87 & 7.89 & 7.94 Whole body simulated, no information on computational domain and inclusion of ground plate and stilts
7.88 & 7.92 Only information on solid wall boundary given
7.90 & 7.91 No means to judge mesh quality
7
CFD6, Fluent, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.101
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.102
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.103
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.104
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
3
7.105
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.106
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.107
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.108
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
7.109
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.110
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.111
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
Boundary Conditions
7.112
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.113
Are they appropriate?
3
7.114
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
7.115
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.116
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.117
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.118
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.119
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.120
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.104-7.106 Not provided, available in user manual
7.107 & 7.109 & 7.114 No information provided, not clear whether ground plate and stilts were used
7.108 & 7.112 Only information on solid wall boundary given
7.110 & 7.111 No means to judge mesh quality
7
CFD7, Xstream, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.121
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.122
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.123
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.124
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.125
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.126
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.127
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.128
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.129
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.130
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.131
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.132
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.133
Are they appropriate?
7.134
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
7.135
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.136
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.137
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.138
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.139
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.140
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.129 & 7.134 Not clear whether stilts were used in the calculations
7.128 & 7.132 Only information on solid wall boundary and inlet turbulence intensity given
7.130 & 7.131 No means to judge mesh quality, however wall y+ values seem to be correct when using wall functions
7
CFD8, Stream, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.141
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.142
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.143
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.144
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.145
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.146
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.147
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.148
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.149
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.150
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.151
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.152
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.153
Are they appropriate?
3
7.154
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.155
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.156
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.157
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.158
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
3
7.159
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
3
H
M
L
7.160
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.149 & 7.154 Symmetry assumed about axial plane through centre of body, stilts were omitted
7.148 & 7.152 Only information on inlet and solid wall boundary condition given
7.150 & 7.151 No means to judge mesh quality, the mentioned y+ values between 55 and 550 are rather high for the correct use of wall functions
7.154 Inlet profile based on experimental data
7.158 & 7.159 Iteration convergence and mesh convergence were studied, but results not provided.
7
CFD9, LESOCC2, LES, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.161
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.162
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.163
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.164
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.165
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.166
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.167
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.168
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
7.169
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.170
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.171
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.172
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.173
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.174
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.175
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.176
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.177
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.178
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.179
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.180
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.170 & 7.171 No means to judge mesh quality, however number of grids points is high
7.173 & 7.174 Inlet profile does not match experimental conditions
7
CFD10, HEXANS, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.181
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.182
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.183
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.184
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.185
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.186
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.187
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.188
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.189
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.190
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.191
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.192
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.193
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.194
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.195
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.196
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.197
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.198
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
3
7.199
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.200
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.188 & 7.192 Outflow boundary conditions not provided
7.189 Stilts not included
7.190 & 7.191 No means to judge mesh quality, however, mesh adaptation was used to improve the mesh
7.193 & 7.194 Inlet profile does not match experimental conditions
7
CFD11, CFX5, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.201
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.202
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.203
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.204
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.205
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.206
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.207
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.208
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
7.209
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.210
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.211
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.212
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.213
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.214
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.215
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
3
Application of physical models
7.216
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.217
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
3
7.218
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
3
7.219
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
3
H
M
L
7.220
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.209 Only half domain considered, stilts not included
7.210 & 7.211 No means to judge mesh quality, however, mesh refinement studies were made
7.213 & 7.214 Not clear whether the inlet profile was based on the experimental conditions
7.215 Location of boundaries was studied
7.217 - 7.219 Information provided in a CFX report
7
CFD12, CFL3D, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.221
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.222
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.223
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.224
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.225
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.226
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.227
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.228
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.229
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.230
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.231
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.232
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.233
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.234
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.235
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.236
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.237
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.238
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.239
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.240
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.228, 7.232-7.234 No information on inlet boundary condition given
7.229 Only half domain considered, stilts not included
7.230 & 7.231 No means to judge mesh quality, grids were obtained from CFX
7
CFD13,STREAM, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.241
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.242
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.243
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.244
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
7.245
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
7.246
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
Computational Domain
7.247
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.248
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.249
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.250
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.251
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
Boundary Conditions
7.252
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.253
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.254
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.255
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.256
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.257
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.258
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.259
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.260
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.248, 7.252-7.254 No information on inlet boundary condition given
7.249 Only half domain considered, stilts not included
7.250 & 7.251 No means to judge mesh quality
7
CFD14, ISIS, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.261
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.262
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.263
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.264
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
3
7.265
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.266
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.267
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.268
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.269
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.270
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.271
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.272
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.273
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.274
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.275
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.276
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.277
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.278
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.279
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.280
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.264-7.266 No information provided
7.268, 7.272-7.274 No information on inlet and outflow boundary conditions given
7.269 Only half domain considered, stilts not included
7.270 & 7.271 No means to judge mesh quality
7
CFD15, StarCD, RANS, EXP2
YES
NO
CO
7.281
Is the modeling strategy defined?
3
7.282
Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
3
Solution strategy
7.283
Is the code (and version) specified?
3
7.284
Are the equations solved described adequately?
3
3
7.285
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.286
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.287
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.288
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.289
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.290
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
7.291
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
Boundary Conditions
7.292
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.293
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.294
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
3
7.295
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
3
Application of physical models
7.296
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
3
Numerical Accuracy
7.297
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
3
7.298
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
3
7.299
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
H
M
L
7.300
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
7.284-7.286 No information provided
7.288, 7.292-7.294 Experimental inlet velocity profile not used
7.289 Only half domain considered, stilts not included
7.290 & 7.291 No means to judge mesh quality
8
EVALUATION - Comparison of Test data and CFD
YES
NO
CO
8.1
Is the comparison of CFD and test data clearly presented?
3
8.2
Are the discussion, conclusions and recommendations adequately supported by the available experimental and CFD results?
3
Comments:
8.1 The D30 contains a discussion on the comparison of test data and CFD. More information is provided in the paper by Florian Menter, which also include a variety of figures
8.2 Some minor discussion on accuracy of CFD results provided. Need to consult the source publications to judge whether or not this is supported by the results.
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Contributors: Remi Manceau; Jean-Paul Bonnet - Université de Poitiers
Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS