Difference between revisions of "Gold:Quality Review AC102"
Line 345:  Line 345:  
 align="center"  <span style='color:green'>✔</span>   align="center"  <span style='color:green'>✔</span>  
    
+    
+    
+    
+  ! H  
+  ! M  
+  ! L  
+    
+   6.5  
+   Impact of uncertainties on [[DOAPs#DOAPs:_Deterministic_or_Assessment_ParametersDOAPs]] ?  
+    
+    
+   align="center"  <span style='color:green'>✔</span>  
}  }  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
Revision as of 17:35, 24 February 2009
RAE M2155 Wing
Application Challenge 102 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Application Challenge (AC) Title: RAE M2155 Wing 

AC Author and Thematic Area: P. Catalano (CIRA) and A. Hutton (DERA), TA1 
Reviewer (Name/Organisation) : J.B. Vos/CFS Engineering 
1  TOP LEVEL CHECK  YES  NO  CO 

1.1  Is this AC an Industrial test case for judging CFD competency?  ✔  
1.2  Are the design/assessment parameters (DOAPs) defined?  ✔  ✔  
1.3  Have these assessment parameters been measured?  ✔  
1.4  Are CFD calculations available ?  ✔  
H  M  L  
1.5  Importance of AC to Industrial Sector (IS)?  ✔  
Comments:
Only the aerodynamic coefficients are mentioned as DOAP’s, which can be considered as somewhat limited, in particular for turbulent flows. Remark that the RAE M2155 wing has been used in different European funded projects, as for example AVTAC and FLOWNET. 
Please identify Underlying Flow Regimes for this AC:  

3.1  Reattaching shear layers/pressure recovery 
3.1  Shockboundary layer interaction 
3.1  Boundary layer under adverse pressure gradient causing separation 
3.2  3D Skewed boundary layer 
3.4  Wing – body (ground plate) junction 
DETAILED CHECK
2  GEOMETRY  YES  NO  CO 

2.1  Is the geometry fully specified?  ✔  ✔  
2.2  Are the locations of boundaries specified?  ✔  
2.3  Are the boundary types specified?  ✔  
2.4  Is the geometry clearly illustrated?  ✔  
2.5  Is the geometry available in digital form?  ✔  
Comments:
The geometry is available as an ASCII file in the format of 33 sections of 145 points each. Transition is fixed at 5% local chord, and a geometric definition of this line is available. 
3  FLOW PHYSICS AND FLUID DYNAMICS DATA  YES  NO  CO 

3.1  Are the physics of key processes identified?  ✔  
3.2  Are the properties of the fluid specified?  ✔  
3.3  Are the governing nondimensional parameters (GNDPs) identified?  ✔  
Comments:

TEST DATA
4  OVERVIEW of Test Data  YES  NO  CO 

4.1  Have all the experiments been adequately defined?  ✔  
4.2  Are the measurement techniques used described?  ✔  
4.3  Has a summary of test runs been provided (matrix)?  
4.4  Are there any important scaling issues/simplifications/uncertainties associated with the test geometry?  ✔  
H  M  L  
4.5  Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?  ✔  
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?  ✔  
5.2  Are the geometrical parameters defined?  ✔  
5.3  Are the values of GNDPs specified?  ✔  
5.4  Are the measured parameters (MPs) fully described?  ✔  
5.5  Are measured data available in digital format?  ✔  
5.6  Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?  ✔  
5.7  Are any of the boundary data uncertain?  ✔  
5.8  Is a realistic estimate of data accuracy given?  ✔  
H  M  L  
5.9  Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?  ✔  
Comments:

CFD SIMULATIONS
6  OVERVIEW of CFD Simulations  YES  NO  CO 

6.1  Have all the CFD runs been adequately defined?  ✔  
6.2  Are the solution techniques used described?  ✔  
6.3  Has a summary of runs been provided (matrix)?  ✔  ✔  
6.4  Are there any important uncertainties associated with the computational domain geometry?  ✔  
H  M  L  
6.5  Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?  ✔ 
Comments:
The provided test matrix does not follow the standard lay out.
7
CFD1 (Copy and complete this section for each set of CFD data)
YES
NO
CO
7.1
Is the modelling strategy defined?
7.2
Is the modelling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
Solution strategy
7.3
Is the code (and version) specified?
7.4
Are the equations solved described adequately?
7.5
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
7.6
Is the solution algorithm described?
Computational Domain
7.7
Is the domain fully described?
7.8
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
7.9
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
7.10
Is the mesh used fully described?
7.11
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
Boundary Conditions
7.12
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
7.13
Are they appropriate?
7.14
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
7.15
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
Application of physical models
7.16
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
Numerical Accuracy
7.17
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
7.18
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
7.19
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
H
M
L
7.20
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
It was indicated that one of the meshes used had the inflow boundary too far from the model,
resulting in poor results.
No results of the DOAP’s are given. No information on the free stream values of the turbulent
variables is given.
No information is available on the numerical dissipation used.
7
CFD2 (Copy and complete this section for each set of CFD data)
YES
NO
CO
7.21
Is the modelling strategy defined?
7.22
Is the modelling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?
Solution strategy
7.23
Is the code (and version) specified?
7.24
Are the equations solved described adequately?
7.25
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
7.26
Is the solution algorithm described?
Computational Domain
7.27
Is the domain fully described?
7.28
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
7.29
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
7.30
Is the mesh used fully described?
7.31
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
Boundary Conditions
7.32
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
7.33
Are they appropriate?
7.34
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
7.35
Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?
Application of physical models
7.36
Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?
Numerical Accuracy
7.37
Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?
7.38
Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?
7.39
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
H
M
L
7.40
Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?
Comments:
The influence of the mesh was studied, and had a considerable impact on the Cd. No grid
convergence was demonstrated for this parameter (the CL was grid converged).
8
EVALUATION  Comparison of Test data and CFD
YES
NO
CO
8.1
Is the comparison of CFD and test data clearly presented?
8.2
Are the discussion, conclusions and recommendations adequately supported by the available experimental and CFD results?
Comments:
No comparisons CFD and test data given in this section, CFD DOAP results are given in
Section 3.3 and experimental values of the normal force coefficient are provided in Section
2.2.4, but no direct comparison between CFD and experimental results is given.
Also surface pressure data, skin friction coefficients, boundary layer and wake velocity
profiles have been measured, but no comparison with CFD data has been made.
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004
Contributors: Pietro Catalano  CIRA; QinetiQ
Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS
Top Next