UFR 2-13 Test Case: Difference between revisions
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== | |||
== | == Description of the geometrical model and the test section == | ||
FSI-PfS-1a consists of a flexible thin structure with a distinct | |||
thickness clamped behind a fixed rigid non-rotating cylinder installed | |||
in a water channel (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rubber_plate_geom}). The | |||
cylinder has a diameter <math>D \operatorname{=} 0.022m</math>. It is positioned in the | |||
middle of the experimental test section with <math>H_c = H/2 \operatorname{=} 0.120m</math> <math>H_c/D \approx 5.45</math>, whereas the test section denotes a | |||
central part of the entire water channel (see | |||
Fig.~\ref{fig:water_channel}). Its center is located at <math>L_c \operatorname{=} | |||
0.077m</math> <math>(L_c/D \operatorname{=} 3.5)</math> downstream of the inflow | |||
section. The test section has a length of <math>L \operatorname{=} 0.338m</math> | |||
<math>(L/D \approx 15.36)</math>, a height of <math>H \operatorname{=} 0.240m</math> | |||
<math>(H/D \approx 10.91)</math> and a width <math>W \operatorname{=} 0.180m</math> | |||
<math>(W/D \approx 8.18)</math>. The blocking ratio of the channel is | |||
about <math>9.2\%</math>. The gravitational acceleration <math>g</math> points in | |||
x-direction (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rubber_plate_geom}), i.e. in the | |||
experimental setup this section of the water channel is turned 90 | |||
degrees. The deformable structure used in the experiment behind the | |||
cylinder has a length <math>l \operatorname{=} 0.060m</math> <math>(l/D \approx 2.72)</math> | |||
and a width <math>w \operatorname{=} 0.177m</math> <math>(w/D \approx 8.05)</math>. | |||
Therefore, in the experiment there is a small gap of about <math>1.5 | |||
\times 10^{-3}m</math> between the side of the deformable structure and | |||
both lateral channel walls. | |||
The thickness of the plate is <math>h \operatorname{=} 0.0021m</math> <math>(h/D | |||
\approx 0.09)</math>. This thickness is an averaged value. The material | |||
is natural rubber and thus it is difficult to produce a perfectly | |||
homogeneous 2 mm plate. The measurements show that the thickness of | |||
the plate is between 0.002 and 0.0022 m. All parameters of the | |||
geometrical configuration of the FSI-PfS-1a benchmark are summarized | |||
in Table~\ref{tab:geom_conf_bench}. | |||
[[File:FSI-PfS-1a_Benchmark_Rubberplate_geometry0001.jpg]] | |||
= Test Case Study = | = Test Case Study = | ||
Revision as of 12:31, 4 October 2013
A fluid-structure interaction benchmark in turbulent flow (FSI-PfS-1a)
Description of the geometrical model and the test section
FSI-PfS-1a consists of a flexible thin structure with a distinct thickness clamped behind a fixed rigid non-rotating cylinder installed in a water channel (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rubber_plate_geom}). The cylinder has a diameter . It is positioned in the middle of the experimental test section with , whereas the test section denotes a central part of the entire water channel (see Fig.~\ref{fig:water_channel}). Its center is located at downstream of the inflow section. The test section has a length of , a height of and a width . The blocking ratio of the channel is about . The gravitational acceleration points in x-direction (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rubber_plate_geom}), i.e. in the experimental setup this section of the water channel is turned 90 degrees. The deformable structure used in the experiment behind the cylinder has a length and a width . Therefore, in the experiment there is a small gap of about between the side of the deformable structure and both lateral channel walls. The thickness of the plate is . This thickness is an averaged value. The material is natural rubber and thus it is difficult to produce a perfectly homogeneous 2 mm plate. The measurements show that the thickness of the plate is between 0.002 and 0.0022 m. All parameters of the geometrical configuration of the FSI-PfS-1a benchmark are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:geom_conf_bench}.
Test Case Study
Brief Description of the Study Test Case
This should:
- Convey the general set up of the test-case configuration( e.g. airflow over a bump on the floor of a wind tunnel)
- Describe the geometry, illustrated with a sketch
- Specify the flow parameters which define the flow regime (e.g. Reynolds number, Rayleigh number, angle of incidence etc.)
- Give the principal measured quantities (i.e. assessment quantities) by which the success or failure of CFD calculations are to be judged. These quantities should include global parameters but also the distributions of mean and turbulence quantities.
The description can be kept fairly short if a link can be made to a
data base where details are given. For other cases a more detailed,
fully self-contained description should be provided.
Test Case Experiments
Provide a brief description of the test facility, together with the measurement techniques used. Indicate what quantities were measured and where.
Discuss the quality of the data and the accuracy of the measurements. It is recognized that the depth and extent of this discussion is dependent upon the amount and quality of information provided in the source documents. However, it should seek to address:
- How close is the flow to the target/design flow (e.g. if the flow is supposed to be two-dimensional, how well is this condition satisfied)?
- Estimation of the accuracy of measured quantities arising from given measurement technique
- Checks on global conservation of physically conserved quantities, momentum, energy etc.
- Consistency in the measurements of different quantities.
Discuss how well conditions at boundaries of the flow such as inflow, outflow, walls, far fields, free surface are provided or could be reasonably estimated in order to facilitate CFD calculations
CFD Methods
Provide an overview of the methods used to analyze the test case. This should describe the codes employed together with the turbulence/physical models examined; the models need not be described in detail if good references are available but the treatment used at the walls should explained. Comment on how well the boundary conditions used replicate the conditions in the test rig, e.g. inflow conditions based on measured data at the rig measurement station or reconstructed based on well-defined estimates and assumptions.
Discuss the quality and accuracy of the CFD calculations. As before, it is recognized that the depth and extent of this discussion is dependent upon the amount and quality of information provided in the source documents. However the following points should be addressed:
- What numerical procedures were used (discretisation scheme and solver)?
- What grid resolution was used? Were grid sensitivity studies carried out?
- Did any of the analyses check or demonstrate numerical accuracy?
- Were sensitivity tests carried out to explore the effect of uncertainties in boundary conditions?
- If separate calculations of the assessment parameters using the same physical model have been performed and reported, do they agree with one another?
Contributed by: Michael Breuer — Helmut-Schmidt Universität Hamburg
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024