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

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

5.5

Are measured data available in digital format?

3

5.6

Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?

3

5.7

Are any of the boundary data uncertain?

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

5.14

Are measured data available in digital format?

3

5.15

Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?

3

5.16

Are any of the boundary data uncertain?

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

6.2

Are the solution techniques used described?

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

7.5

Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?

3

7.6

Is the solution algorithm described?

3

Computational Domain

7.7

Is the domain fully described?

3

7.8

Boundary conditions fully detailed?

3

7.9

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

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

7.13

Are they appropriate?

3

7.14

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.25

Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?

3

7.26

Is the solution algorithm described?

3

Computational Domain

7.27

Is the domain fully described?

3

7.28

Boundary conditions fully detailed?

3

7.29

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

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

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

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

7.50

Is the mesh used fully described?

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

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

7.65

Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?

3

7.66

Is the solution algorithm described?

3

Computational Domain

7.67

Is the domain fully described?

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

Boundary Conditions

7.72

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.73

Are they appropriate?

3

7.74

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.88

Boundary conditions fully detailed?

3

7.89

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

3

7.90

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.91

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

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

7.105

Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?

3

7.106

Is the solution algorithm described?

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

7.129

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

3

7.130

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.131

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

3

Boundary Conditions

7.132

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

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

7.149

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

3

7.150

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.151

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

3

Boundary Conditions

7.152

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.153

Are they appropriate?

3

7.154

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.159

Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?

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

Boundary Conditions

7.172

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.173

Are they appropriate?

3

7.174

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.189

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

3

7.190

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.191

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

3

Boundary Conditions

7.192

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.193

Are they appropriate?

3

7.194

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

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

7.210

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.211

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

3

Boundary Conditions

7.212

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.213

Are they appropriate?

3

7.214

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

3

7.215

Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?

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

7.218

Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?

3

7.219

Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?

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

7.229

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

3

7.230

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.231

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

3

Boundary Conditions

7.232

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.233

Are they appropriate?

3

7.234

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.249

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

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

7.253

Are they appropriate?

3

7.254

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.265

Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?

3

7.266

Is the solution algorithm described?

3

Computational Domain

7.267

Is the domain fully described?

3

7.268

Boundary conditions fully detailed?

3

7.269

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

3

7.270

Is the mesh used fully described?

3

7.271

Is the mesh quality appropriate?

3

Boundary Conditions

7.272

Are the boundary conditions fully defined?

3

7.273

Are they appropriate?

3

7.274

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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

7.285

Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?

3

7.286

Is the solution algorithm described?

3

Computational Domain

7.287

Is the domain fully described?

3

7.288

Boundary conditions fully detailed?

3

7.289

Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?

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

7.294

Do these replicate conditions in test rig?

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.

Contributors: Remi Manceau; Jean-Paul Bonnet - Université de Poitiers

Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS

       Top        	      Next

Gold:Quality Review AC1-05

Ahmed body

Navigation menu

Gold:Quality Review AC1-05

Ahmed body

Navigation menu

Search