Evaluation AC2-09: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
organized as follows: | organized as follows: | ||
*Comparisons of two different approaches for modeling the turbulence/combustion interaction, namely: steady flamelet model and simplified Conditional Moment Closure (designated as CMC -model in the figures from here on) obtained with the classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model | *Comparisons of two different approaches for modeling the turbulence/combustion interaction, namely: steady flamelet model and simplified Conditional Moment Closure (designated as CMC -model in the figures from here on) obtained with the classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model, | ||
*Comparisons of two subgrid-scale models, namely: classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model and dynamic Smagorinsky one using the steady flamelet model of turbulence/combustion interaction. | *Comparisons of two subgrid-scale models, namely: classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model and dynamic Smagorinsky one using the steady flamelet model of turbulence/combustion interaction. | ||
Revision as of 09:52, 30 April 2011
SANDIA Flame D
Application Challenge AC2-09 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2024
Comparison of Test Data and CFD
In this section comparisons of the CFD results and test data are organized as follows:
- Comparisons of two different approaches for modeling the turbulence/combustion interaction, namely: steady flamelet model and simplified Conditional Moment Closure (designated as CMC -model in the figures from here on) obtained with the classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model,
- Comparisons of two subgrid-scale models, namely: classical Smagorinsky subgrid scale model and dynamic Smagorinsky one using the steady flamelet model of turbulence/combustion interaction.
Contributed by: Andrzej Boguslawski — Technical University of Częstochowa
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024