Gold:Quality Review AC2-01

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

Bluff body burner for CH4-HE turbulent combustion

Application Challenge 2-01 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004

Application Challenge (AC) Title: Bluff-Body burner for CH4-H2 turbulent combustion

AC Author and Thematic Area: University of Florence

Reviewer (Name/Organization) : Afif Ahmed & Emma Briec /Renault

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:

Please identify Underlying Flow Regimes for this AC:

Free shear flows: coaxial jet

2D flow around bodies: blunt base flow (stream-wise flow with cut-off end

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:

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 non-dimensional parameters (GNDPs) identified?

Comments:

3.2 fuel jet composition is: 50%CH4 &50% H2. something wrong with fuel mixtureC2H4 in page 5? In this page we can find twice the same paragraph, this paragraph is also in page 1?????

3.3 Re based on jet bulk velocity and the outer diameter of the bluff body

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:

4.4 .references of website are given, I did not manage to read/find the files quoted

//www.ca.sandia.gov/tdf/Workshop.html

//www.mech.eng.usyd.edu.au/research/energy/energy.html

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:

5.4 Cannot access files of S/N ratios for data collected 1992 and after 1995 STN95.dat STN95.dat

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:

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 discretization 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 (discretization) 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:

7.1- 7.16 answer to be given in further review

Boundary Conditions: I can't read this file: ICBBODY.dat.

7.21 no steady convergence. After a residual once reaches 10e-6 , a cyclic behavior is observe: spurious calculations? Numerical discretization?

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:

© copyright ERCOFTAC 2004

---

Contributors: Elisabetta Belardini - Universita di Firenze

Site Design and Implementation: Atkins and UniS

Front Page

Description

Test Data

CFD Simulations

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice