2D Boundary layers with pressure gradients (A)

Underlying Flow Regime 3-03 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2004

Quality Review

Underlying Flow Regime Title: 2D boundary layer in an adverse pressure gradient

Reviewer (Name/Organisation): K.Kozel/ Czech Academy of Sciences

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

Comments:
References are adequate but some of them are not commonly accessible ([3] and [4]). The work of Iaccarino was also published in the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering in 2001.

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?	n	q	q
2. 2	Is the chosen test-case study selected from an established database or comparison exercise?	n	q	q
2. 3	Have the test-case experiments been devised for CFD validation?	n	q	q

Comments:

3	DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY TEST CASE	YES	NO	CO
3. 1	Is the geometry described adequately, including an appropriate sketch?	n	q	q
3. 2	Are the flow parameters defining the flow regime specified?	n	q	q
3. 3	Are the principal measured quantities (i.e. those by which success or failure of CFD is to be judged) specified?	n	q	q
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	q	n

Comments:
A hyperlink to database is provided for a more detailed description of the test case.

4	Test CASE EXPERIMENTS	YES	NO	CO
4. 1	Is the test-case facility described adequately?	n	q	q
4. 2	Are the measurement techniques explained?	n	q	q
4. 3	Is the quality/accuracy of the measured data discussed?	q	q	n
4. 4	Are the following quality aspects addressed in this discussion:
a)	Closeness of flow to target/design conditions?	q	q	n
b)	Accuracy estimation of measured quantities?	q	q	n
c)	Checks on global conservation of conserved quantities?	q	q	n
d)	Consistency in the measurements of different quantities?	q	q	n
e)	Other (briefly describe)			q
4. 5	Is the evidence of data quality judged to be sufficient?	n	q	q
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?	n	q	q
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	q	n

Comments:
The chosen test case is the test case 8.2 at the 8^th ERCOFTAC/IAHR/COST Workshop and more detailed description of the test facility and measuring techniques can be found by hyperlink to database.

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

Comments:
The CFD codes are described very briefly with reference to 8^th ERCOFTAC/IAHR/COST Workshop.. The UFR document summarises results of this workshop. Just results of Iaccarino [4] are added.

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?	n	q	q
6. 2	Do these comparisons include the assessment quantities?	n	q	q
6. 3	Are further comparisons available via hyperlinks to a results database?	n	q	q
6. 4	Is the performance of the CFD calculations judged by comparison with experiments discussed and analysed in all cases?	n	q	q

Comments:
The performance of CFD methods is judged by comparison with measured distribution of the pressure and skin-friction coefficients. More details can be found via hyperlink to the database.

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?	n	q	q
7. 2	Are recommendations provided on which models should be used for this UFR?	n	q	q
7. 3	Are these recommendations supported by the evidence?	n	q	q

Comments: