Boundary layer interacting with wakes under adverse
pressure gradient - NLR 7301 high lift configuration

Underlying Flow Regime 3-01 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004

Quality Review

Key issues remaining

• ECARP should be the focus of the study. If possible the ECARP CD should be accessible from the document

Underlying Flow Regime Title: Boundary Layer-Wake Interaction

UFR Author and UFR number: Jan Vos UFR 3-01

Reviewer (Name/Organisation) : A.G. Hutton/QinetiQ

1 '	TOP LEVEL CHECK '	YES '	NO '	CO '
1. 1	Is the selected test-case study a good representation of the assigned UFR?		q	q
1. 2	Does the test-case study include both flow measurements and CFD calculations?		q	q
1. 3	Does the document under review comply with the D32 template		q	q
1. 4	Should any parts be expanded, condensed or deleted?		q
1. 5	Are the illustrations and their captions clear and informative?		o
1. 6	Are the references adequate and complete?		o	o
1. 7	If any hyperlinks are used, do these function correctly?		q

Comments:
1.4 ECARP results seem better quality than EUROVAL (better grids, better agreement with experiment). Indeed only ECARP illustrations are included. Thus focus exclusively on ECARP and dispense with EUROVAL?
1.5 Figure numbers start at 5 (should start at 2). 1.7 The hyperlink is not very useful since a password is needed to logon. Can the ECARP CD be mounted on the KB?

DETAILED CHECK

2 '	REVIEW OF UFR STUDIES AND CHOICE OF TEST CASE '	YES '	NO '	CO '
2. 1	Have past studies of the UFR been reviewed adequately?		q	q
2. 2	Is the chosen test-case study selected from an established database or comparison exercise?		q	q
2. 3	Have the test-case experiments been devised for CFD validation?		q	q

Comments:

3 '	DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY TEST CASE '	YES '	NO '	CO '
3. 1	Is the geometry described adequately, including an appropriate sketch?		q	q
3. 2	Are the flow parameters defining the flow regime specified?		q	q
3. 3	Are the principal measured quantities (i.e. those by which success or failure of CFD is to be judged) specified?		q	o
3. 4	Is the description fully self-contained and sufficiently detailed ? (the level of detail required depends on whether a hyperlink to a detailed database is provided)		q

Comments:
3.4 It is difficult to acquire the geometrical details from FLOWNET ( password protected). I suggest mounting the ECARP CD on the KB

4 '	Test CASE EXPERIMENTS''''''''	YES '	NO '	CO '
4. 1	Is the test-case facility described adequately?	q
4. 2	Are the measurement techniques explained?		q	o
4. 3	Is the quality/accuracy of the measured data discussed?		q	q
4. 4	Are the following quality aspects addressed in this discussion :-
a)	Closeness of flow to target/design conditions?		q	q
b)	Accuracy estimation of measured quantities?	q		q
c)	Checks on global conservation of conserved quantities?	q		q
d)	Consistency in the measurements of different quantities?	q		q
e)	Other (briefly describe)			q
4. 5	Is the evidence of data quality judged to be sufficient?		q	o
4. 6	Is the information provided at the flow boundaries sufficient to specify or estimate reasonably well the boundary conditions required for a CFD calculation?		o	o
4. 7	Is the overall discussion self-contained and sufficiently detailed? (the level of detail required depends on whether a hyperlink to a detailed database is provided)		q

Comments:
4.1 The facility is not described. NLR 3x2m is well known and so perhaps a description is not necessary. 4.7 I recommend that the ECARP CD is made available in the KB.

5 '	CFD METHODS''''''''	YES '	NO '	CO '
5. 1	Is an overview given of the methods used?		q	q
5. 2	Have the following aspects of the methods used been explained adequately:-
a)	The codes employed?		o	q
b)	The turbulence/physical models used?		o
c)	The wall treatments applied?		o
d)	The numerical boundary conditions?		o	q
5. 3	Are comments made on how well the boundary conditions replicate conditions in the test rig?		o	o
5. 4	Is the quality of the calculations discussed?		q	q
5. 5	Are the following quality aspects addressed in this discussion?			q
a)	The discretisation scheme(s) and solver(s)?		q	q
b)	The sufficiency of grid resolution(s) ?		q
c)	Sensitivities to uncertainties in the boundary conditions	q		o
d)	Comparisons between separate calculations using the same physical model		q	o
e)	Other (briefly describe) The calculations were performed by experts in the application of the codes used			q
5. 6	Is the evidence of CFD quality judged to be sufficient in all cases?		q

Comments:
5.2 b) Only references to source documents which describe the models provided 5.5 b) Grid convergence studies were carried out in ECARP. The document should concentrate on ECARP 5.5 Evidence of CFD quality is not strong and explicitly recorded. However, ECARP is a well regarded exercise and alternative studies with better evidence of quality are not currently available.

6 '	COMPARISON OF CFD CALCULATIONS WITH EXPERIMENT''''''''	YES '	NO '	CO '
6. 1	Are key comparisons of CFD results with experiment presented in the form of tables or plots?		q	o
6. 2	Do these comparisons include the assessment quantities?		q	q
6. 3	Are further comparisons available via hyperlinks to a results database?		q
6. 4	Is the performance of the CFD calculations judged by comparison with experiments discussed and analysed in all cases?	q

Comments:
6.3 The FLOWNET link is not useful (password protected). The ECARP CD should be mounted on the KB 6.4 Not all calculations exercising all turbulence models are discussed. But, given the large number and variety of results it is probably appropriate to pick out salient features.

7''''''''	BEST PRACTICE ADVICE FOR THE UFR'' '''''	YES '	NO '	CO '
7. 1	Are model abilities for this test case discussed and analysed in sufficient detail?		q	q
7. 2	Are recommendations provided on which models should be used for this UFR?		q	q
7. 3	Are these recommendations supported by the evidence?		o	o

Comments:
.