Abstr:UFR 2-14: Difference between revisions
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
with significantly '''larger deformations''' of the flexible structure in the '''second swiveling mode'''. | with significantly '''larger deformations''' of the flexible structure in the '''second swiveling mode'''. | ||
In order to achieve this more challenging features of the flow and the structure | |||
the previous test case (FSI-PfS-1a) is slightly modified: | |||
A 2 mm thick flexible plate is clamped behind the fixed cylinder. However, this time a rear mass | |||
is added at the extremity of the flexible structure. Moreover, the material (para-rubber) is less stiff than in FSI-PfS-1a. | |||
Consequently, the flexible structure deforms in the second swiveling mode and the structure | |||
deflections are larger than for the first case. The Reynolds | |||
number is again Re = 30,470. | |||
The three-dimensional fluid velocity results show shedding vortices behind the structure, which reaches the second | |||
shedding vortices behind the structure, which reaches the second | |||
swiveling mode with a frequency of about 11.2 Hz | swiveling mode with a frequency of about 11.2 Hz | ||
corresponding to a Strouhal number of St = 0.177. Providing | corresponding to a Strouhal number of St = 0.177. Providing |
Revision as of 09:09, 3 May 2014
Fluid-structure interaction in turbulent flow past cylinder/plate configuration II
Flows Around Bodies
Underlying Flow Regime 2-14
Abstract
- You are looking for an interesting test case for fluid-structure interaction in turbulent flow?
- You already had a look at the test case UFR 2-13 and think that this case is not challenging enough?
Then the following description might be of interest for you!
The objective of the present contribution is provide a second well-defined benchmark case for fluid-structure interaction as a growing branch of research in science and industry. Similar to the previous case UFR 2-13 the entire study relies on a complementary experimental and numerical investigation. The same measuring techniques (planar particle image velocimetry (PIV), volumetric three-component velocimetry (V3V),multiple-point laser triangulation sensor) and the same numerical methodology (partitioned FSI coupling scheme based on large-eddy simulation) is applied and will thus only partially repeated here for the sake of brevity (However, all details are available at UFR 2-13).
- What are the differences between the previous case and the present one?
For the previous configuration (FSI-PfS-1a) the flexible structure deforms in the first swiveling mode inducing only moderate structural displacements by an instability-induced excitation. On the contrary, the new case denoted FSI-PfS-2a is a movement-induced excitation with significantly larger deformations of the flexible structure in the second swiveling mode.
In order to achieve this more challenging features of the flow and the structure the previous test case (FSI-PfS-1a) is slightly modified: A 2 mm thick flexible plate is clamped behind the fixed cylinder. However, this time a rear mass is added at the extremity of the flexible structure. Moreover, the material (para-rubber) is less stiff than in FSI-PfS-1a. Consequently, the flexible structure deforms in the second swiveling mode and the structure deflections are larger than for the first case. The Reynolds number is again Re = 30,470.
The three-dimensional fluid velocity results show shedding vortices behind the structure, which reaches the second swiveling mode with a frequency of about 11.2 Hz corresponding to a Strouhal number of St = 0.177. Providing phase-averaged flow and structure measurements precise experimental data for coupled computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and computational structure dynamics (CSD) validations are available for this new benchmark case denoted FSI-PfS-2a. The test case possesses four main advantages:
- (i) The geometry is rather simple;
- (ii) Kinematically, the rotation of the front cylinder is avoided;
- (iii) The boundary conditions are well defined;
- (iv) Nevertheless, the resulting flow features and structure displacements are challenging from the computational point of view.
Contributed by: Andreas Kalmbach, Guillaume De Nayer, Michael Breuer — Helmut-Schmidt Universität Hamburg
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024