Gold:Quality Review AC1-05

From KBwiki
Revision as of 16:37, 18 March 2009 by David.Fowler (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

Ahmed body

Application Challenge 1-05 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004



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



7.188


Boundary conditions fully detailed?



3


3

7.189


Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?


3



3

7.190


Is the mesh used fully described?



3


3

7.191


Is the mesh quality appropriate?



3


3










Boundary Conditions






7.192


Are the boundary conditions fully defined?



3


3

7.193


Are they appropriate?



3


3

7.194


Do these replicate conditions in test rig?



3


3

7.195


Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?



3










Application of physical models






7.196


Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?


3











Numerical Accuracy






7.197


Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?



3


7.198


Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?


3



3

7.199


Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?



3












H


M


L

7.200


Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?











Comments:

7.188 & 7.192 Outflow boundary conditions not provided

7.189 Stilts not included

7.190 & 7.191 No means to judge mesh quality, however, mesh adaptation was used to improve the mesh

7.193 & 7.194 Inlet profile does not match experimental conditions


7


CFD11, CFX5, EXP2



YES



NO



CO


7.201


Is the modeling strategy defined?


3



7.202


Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?


3











Solution strategy






7.203


Is the code (and version) specified?


3



7.204


Are the equations solved described adequately?


3



7.205


Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?


3



7.206


Is the solution algorithm described?


3











Computational Domain






7.207


Is the domain fully described?


3



7.208


Boundary conditions fully detailed?


3



7.209


Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?


3



3

7.210


Is the mesh used fully described?



3


3

7.211


Is the mesh quality appropriate?



3


3










Boundary Conditions






7.212


Are the boundary conditions fully defined?


3



7.213


Are they appropriate?



3


3

7.214


Do these replicate conditions in test rig?



3


3

7.215


Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?


3



3










Application of physical models






7.216


Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?


3











Numerical Accuracy






7.217


Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?


3



3

7.218


Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?


3



3

7.219


Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?


3



3











H


M


L

7.220


Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?











Comments:

7.209 Only half domain considered, stilts not included

7.210 & 7.211 No means to judge mesh quality, however, mesh refinement studies were made

7.213 & 7.214 Not clear whether the inlet profile was based on the experimental conditions

7.215 Location of boundaries was studied

7.217 - 7.219 Information provided in a CFX report


7


CFD12, CFL3D, RANS, EXP2



YES



NO



CO


7.221


Is the modeling strategy defined?


3



7.222


Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?


3











Solution strategy






7.223


Is the code (and version) specified?


3



7.224


Are the equations solved described adequately?


3



7.225


Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?


3



7.226


Is the solution algorithm described?


3











Computational Domain






7.227


Is the domain fully described?


3



7.228


Boundary conditions fully detailed?



3


3

7.229


Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?


3



3

7.230


Is the mesh used fully described?



3


3

7.231


Is the mesh quality appropriate?



3


3










Boundary Conditions






7.232


Are the boundary conditions fully defined?



3


3

7.233


Are they appropriate?



3


3

7.234


Do these replicate conditions in test rig?



3


3

7.235


Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?



3










Application of physical models






7.236


Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?


3











Numerical Accuracy






7.237


Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?



3


7.238


Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?



3


7.239


Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?



3












H


M


L

7.240


Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?











Comments:

7.228, 7.232-7.234 No information on inlet boundary condition given

7.229 Only half domain considered, stilts not included

7.230 & 7.231 No means to judge mesh quality, grids were obtained from CFX


7


CFD13,STREAM, RANS, EXP2



YES



NO



CO


7.241


Is the modeling strategy defined?


3



7.242


Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?


3











Solution strategy






7.243


Is the code (and version) specified?


3



7.244


Are the equations solved described adequately?


3



7.245


Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?


3



7.246


Is the solution algorithm described?


3











Computational Domain






7.247


Is the domain fully described?


3



7.248


Boundary conditions fully detailed?



3


3

7.249


Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?


3



3

7.250


Is the mesh used fully described?



3


7.251


Is the mesh quality appropriate?



3










Boundary Conditions






7.252


Are the boundary conditions fully defined?



3


3

7.253


Are they appropriate?



3


3

7.254


Do these replicate conditions in test rig?



3


3

7.255


Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?



3










Application of physical models






7.256


Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?


3











Numerical Accuracy






7.257


Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?



3


7.258


Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?



3


7.259


Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?



3












H


M


L

7.260


Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?











Comments:

7.248, 7.252-7.254 No information on inlet boundary condition given

7.249 Only half domain considered, stilts not included

7.250 & 7.251 No means to judge mesh quality


7


CFD14, ISIS, RANS, EXP2



YES



NO



CO


7.261


Is the modeling strategy defined?


3



7.262


Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?


3











Solution strategy






7.263


Is the code (and version) specified?


3



7.264


Are the equations solved described adequately?



3


3

7.265


Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?



3


3

7.266


Is the solution algorithm described?



3


3










Computational Domain






7.267


Is the domain fully described?


3



7.268


Boundary conditions fully detailed?



3


3

7.269


Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?


3



3

7.270


Is the mesh used fully described?



3


3

7.271


Is the mesh quality appropriate?



3


3










Boundary Conditions






7.272


Are the boundary conditions fully defined?



3


3

7.273


Are they appropriate?



3


3

7.274


Do these replicate conditions in test rig?



3


3

7.275


Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?



3










Application of physical models






7.276


Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?


3











Numerical Accuracy






7.277


Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?



3


7.278


Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?



3


7.279


Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?



3












H


M


L

7.280


Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?











Comments:

7.264-7.266 No information provided

7.268, 7.272-7.274 No information on inlet and outflow boundary conditions given

7.269 Only half domain considered, stilts not included

7.270 & 7.271 No means to judge mesh quality


7


CFD15, StarCD, RANS, EXP2



YES



NO



CO


7.281


Is the modeling strategy defined?


3



7.282


Is the modeling strategy appropriate for the physical problem?


3











Solution strategy






7.283


Is the code (and version) specified?


3



7.284


Are the equations solved described adequately?



3


3

7.285


Is the numerical discretisation scheme used specified?



3


3

7.286


Is the solution algorithm described?



3


3










Computational Domain






7.287


Is the domain fully described?


3



7.288


Boundary conditions fully detailed?



3


3

7.289


Is the domain used an idealisation/simplification?


3



3

7.290


Is the mesh used fully described?



3


7.291


Is the mesh quality appropriate?



3










Boundary Conditions






7.292


Are the boundary conditions fully defined?



3


7.293


Are they appropriate?



3


3

7.294


Do these replicate conditions in test rig?



3


3

7.295


Were sensitivity runs carried out to explore effects of uncertainties in boundary data?



3










Application of physical models






7.296


Were turbulence models and other physical models applied in an appropriate and consistent way?


3











Numerical Accuracy






7.297


Is there any demonstration/estimation of numerical (discretisation) accuracy?



3


7.298


Was a mesh sensitivity study carried out?



3


7.299


Was sufficient iteration convergence achieved?



3












H


M


L

7.300


Impact of uncertainties on DOAPs ?











Comments:

7.284-7.286 No information provided

7.288, 7.292-7.294 Experimental inlet velocity profile not used

7.289 Only half domain considered, stilts not included

7.290 & 7.291 No means to judge mesh quality



8


EVALUATION - Comparison of Test data and CFD


YES



NO



CO


8.1


Is the comparison of CFD and test data clearly presented?




3

8.2


Are the discussion, conclusions and recommendations adequately supported by the available experimental and CFD results?




3








Comments:

8.1 The D30 contains a discussion on the comparison of test data and CFD. More information is provided in the paper by Florian Menter, which also include a variety of figures

8.2 Some minor discussion on accuracy of CFD results provided. Need to consult the source publications to judge whether or not this is supported by the results.



© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004



Contributors: Remi Manceau; Jean-Paul Bonnet - Université de Poitiers

Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS


Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice