Evaluation AC2-09: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
'''Application Challenge AC2-09''' © copyright ERCOFTAC {{CURRENTYEAR}} | '''Application Challenge AC2-09''' © copyright ERCOFTAC {{CURRENTYEAR}} | ||
=Comparison of Test Data and CFD= | =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. | |||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
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