UFR 4-19 Test Case: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 13: Line 13:
<!--{{LoremIpsum}}-->
<!--{{LoremIpsum}}-->
== Brief Description of the Study Test Case ==
== Brief Description of the Study Test Case ==
{{Demo_UFR_Test_Brief}}
The geometry of the Sajben transonic converging-diverging diffuser and the flow
characteristics have been obtained from the Alliance CFD Verification and Validation
Archive-NASA website (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/archive.html). The
diffuser geometry and the dimensions are given in fig.4. The flow starts subsonic with
M=0.46 at the inlet of the diffuser, accelerates through the throat up to the supersonic
region where a shock-wave is formed which abruptly decelerates the flow which is then
subsonic in the remaining diverging part of the diffuser downstream of the shock-wave.
 
== Test Case Experiments ==
== Test Case Experiments ==
{{Demo_UFR_Test_Expt}}
{{Demo_UFR_Test_Expt}}

Revision as of 10:37, 12 April 2016

Converging-diverging transonic diffuser

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Confined flows

Underlying Flow Regime 4-19

Test Case Study

Brief Description of the Study Test Case

The geometry of the Sajben transonic converging-diverging diffuser and the flow characteristics have been obtained from the Alliance CFD Verification and Validation Archive-NASA website (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/archive.html). The diffuser geometry and the dimensions are given in fig.4. The flow starts subsonic with M=0.46 at the inlet of the diffuser, accelerates through the throat up to the supersonic region where a shock-wave is formed which abruptly decelerates the flow which is then subsonic in the remaining diverging part of the diffuser downstream of the shock-wave.

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: Z. Vlahostergios, K. Yakinthos — Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024