Difference between revisions of "UFR 335 Test Case"
Line 56:  Line 56:  
}  }  
−  [[File:UFR335_Flume.png  +  [[File:UFR335_Flume.pngthumbnone700pxFig. 2: Experimental setup]] 
Revision as of 15:30, 9 January 2020
Contents
Cylinderwall junction flow
General Remark
The experimental and numerical setups applied in this study were described in detail by Schanderl et al. (2017b) (PIV and LES). The experiment is further described by Jenssen (2019), the numerics in Schanderl & Manhart (2016), Schanderl et al. (2017a) and Schanderl & Manhart (2018). Thus, the following shall provide a brief overview only.
Test Case Experiments
In order to provide both numerical and experimental data acquired for the same flow configuration under identical (as good as possible) boundary conditions, we performed a large eddy simulation and a particle image velocimetry experiment. We studied the flow around a wallmounted slender () circular cylinder with a flow depth of . The width of the rectangular channel was (see Fig. 1). The investigated Reynolds number was approximately , the Froude number was in the subcritical region. As inflow condition we applied a fullydeveloped openchannel flow.
Experimental setup
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The turbulent openchannel flow developed within the long entry length and by the use of vortex generators as recommended by (Counihan 1969).
The experimental parameters are listed in the following Table:
Description  Value  Unit 

Cylinder diameter  
Flow depth  
Channel width  
Flow rate  
Depthaveraged velocity of approach flow  
Kinematic viscosity  
Reynolds number 
Measurement technique
The experimental data were acquired by conducting planar monoscopic 2D2C PIV in the vertical symmetry plane upstream of the cylinder. The PIV snapshots were evaluated by the standard interrogation window based crosscorrelation of . Doing so, we achieved instantaneous velocity fields of the streamwise () and the wallnormal () velocity component. From these data the timeaveraged turbulent statistics were calculated in the postprocessing. We used a CCDcamera with a square sensor. The size of a pixel was , therefore the spatial resolution of the images was . The size of the interrogation windows was . The temporal resolution was , which is approximately twice the macro time scale . The light sheet was approximately 2mm thick provided by a Nd:YAG laser. The fnumber and the focal length of the lens were and , respectively.
At the measurement section, the flume had transparent walls. Therefore, the laser light, which entered the flow from above could pass with a minimum amount of surface reflections through the bottom wall. However, an acrylic glass plate had to be mounted at the waterair interface to suppress the bow waves of the cylinder and let the light sheet enter the water body perpendicularly (see Fig. 3). The influence of this device at the water surface was tested and considered to be insignificant at the cylinderwall junction.
Hollow glass spheres were used as seeding and had a diameter of . The corresponding Stokes number was , and therefore, the particles were considered to follow the flow precisely.
The total number of timesteps was , the timedelay between two image frames of a timestep was . Therefore, the total sampling time was or . During the experiment seeding and other particles accumulated along the bottom plate, which undermined the image quality by increasing the surface reflection. Therefore, the data acquisition was stopped after images to allow surface cleaning and to empty the limited capacity of the laboratory PC's RAM. The sampling time of such a batch was or .
The data acquisition time and number of valid vectors was validated by the convergence of statistical moments. In the centre of the HV the number valid samples had its minimum. Therefore, the timeseries at the centre of the HV was analysed as a reference for the entire flow field. The standard error of the mean was times the standard deviation, the corresponding error in the fourth central moment is .
The PIV setup is given in detail here, including the qualitative size of the fieldofviews (FOV) for investigating the approaching boundary layer as well as the flow in front of the wallmounted cylinder.
CFD Code and Methods
We applied our inhouse finite volume code MGLET with a staggered Cartesian grid. The grid was equidistant in the horizontal directions and stretched away from the wall in the vertical direction by a factor smaller than . The horizontal grid spacing was four times as large as the vertical one. The time integration was done by applying a third order RungeKutta sheme, the spatial approximation by second order central differences and the maximum of the CFL number was in the range of 0.55 to 0.82. To model the cylindrical body, a second order immersed boundary method was applied (Peller et al.2006; Peller 2010). The subgrid scales were modelled using the WallAdapting Local EddyViscosity (WALE) model (Nicoud & Ducros 1999). Around the cylinder, the grid was refined by three locally embedded grids (Manhart 2004), each reducing the grid spacing by a factor of two. A grid study shows the results to be converged over grid spacing (Schanderl & Manhart 2016). The resulting grid spacing in the vertical direction at the bottom plate around the cylinder was smaller than approximately 1.6 wall units (based on the local wallshear stress) (Schanderl & Manhart 2016). The fraction of the modelled dissipation is about 30% of the total dissipation rate (Schanderl & Manhart 2018).
The setup simulated was intended to be identical to the experimental one. To model the bottom and side walls, we applied noslip boundary conditions, whereas the free surface was modelled by a slip boundary condition. Therefore, the Froude number in the LES was infinitesimal and no surface waves occurred. By conducting a precursor simulation a fullydeveloped turbulent openchannel flow was achieved as inflow condition. The streamwise boundary conditions were periodic, and the precursor domain had a length of 30D. The wall resolution of the precursor grid was 7.5 wall units.
Grid  Level of refinement  Cells per diameter
horizontal / vertical 
Grid spacing

Number of grid cells 

Precursor  0  
Base  0  
Grid 1  1  
Grid 2  2  
Grid 3  3 
Contributed by: Ulrich Jenssen, Wolfgang Schanderl, Michael Manhart — Technical University Munich
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2019