Difference between revisions of "Gold:Quality Review AC1-05"

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: ='''Ahmed body'''= '''Application Challenge 1-05''' © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004 Application Challenge (AC) Title: Ahmed Body AC Author and Thematic Area: J-P Bonnet & R....)
 
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{AC|front=AC 1-05|description=Description_AC1-05|testdata=Test Data_AC1-05|cfdsimulations=CFD Simulations_AC1-05|evaluation=Evaluation_AC1-05|qualityreview=Quality Review_AC1-05|bestpractice=Best Practice Advice_AC1-05|relatedUFRs=Related UFRs_AC1-05}}


='''Ahmed body'''=


'''Application Challenge 1-05'''              © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004


'''[{{filepath:A1-05d29.pdf}} Click here to view the Quality Review]'''


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
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
3
5.5           
Are measured data available in digital format?
3
5.6           
Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?
3
3
5.7           
Are any of the boundary data uncertain?
3
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
3
5.14       
Are measured data available in digital format?
3
5.15       
Have conditions at all boundaries been specified?
3
3
5.16       
Are any of the boundary data uncertain?
3
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
3
6.2           
Are the solution techniques used described?
3
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
3
7.5           
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.6           
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.7           
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.8           
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.9           
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
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
3
7.13       
Are they appropriate?
3
7.14       
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
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
3
7.25       
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.26       
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.27       
Is the domain fully described?
3
7.28       
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.29       
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
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
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
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
3
7.50       
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
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
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
3
7.65       
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.66       
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
3
Computational Domain
7.67       
Is the domain fully described?
3
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
3
Boundary Conditions
7.72       
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.73       
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.74       
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
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
3
7.88       
Boundary conditions fully detailed?
3
3
7.89       
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.90       
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.91       
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
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
3
7.105   
Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?
3
3
7.106   
Is the solution algorithm described?
3
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
3
7.129   
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
7.130   
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.131   
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.132   
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
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
3
7.149   
Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?
3
3
7.150   
Is the mesh used fully described?
3
3
7.151   
Is the mesh quality appropriate?
3
3
Boundary Conditions
7.152   
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
3
7.153   
Are they appropriate?
3
7.154   
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
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
3
7.159   
Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?
3
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
3
Boundary Conditions
7.172   
Are the boundary conditions fully defined?
3
7.173   
Are they appropriate?
3
3
7.174   
Do these replicate conditions in test rig?
3
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