Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:
'''
'''
* '''You already had a look at the test case [http://uriah.dedi.melbourne.co.uk/w/index.php/UFR_2-13_Description UFR 2-13] and think that this case is not challenging enough?
* '''You already had a look at the test case [http://uriah.dedi.melbourne.co.uk/w/index.php/UFR_2-13_Description UFR 2-13] and think that this case is not challenging enough?
'''
'''
Then the following description might be of interest for you!
Then the following description might be of interest for you!


The objective of the present contribution is provide a second well-defined benchmark  
The objective of the present contribution is provide a second well-defined benchmark  
Line 27: Line 27:


* '''What are the differences between the previous case and the present one?'''  
* '''What are the differences between the previous case and the present one?'''  


For the previous configuration (FSI-PfS-1a) the flexible
For the previous configuration (FSI-PfS-1a) the flexible
structure deforms in the first swiveling mode inducing only moderate structural displacements
structure deforms in the first swiveling mode inducing only moderate structural displacements
by an instability-induced excitation.  
by an instability-induced excitation.  
On the contrary, the new case denoted FSI-PfS-2a is a movement-induced excitation  
On the contrary, the new case denoted FSI-PfS-2a is a '''movement-induced excitation'''
with significantly large deformations of the flexible structure in the second swiveling mode.
with significantly '''larger deformations''' of the flexible structure in the '''second swiveling mode'''.





Revision as of 09:01, 3 May 2014

Fluid-structure interaction in turbulent flow past cylinder/plate configuration II

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Flows Around Bodies

Underlying Flow Regime 2-14

Abstract

  • You are looking for an interesting test case for fluid-structure interaction in turbulent flow?

  • You already had a look at the test case UFR 2-13 and think that this case is not challenging enough?

Then the following description might be of interest for you!

The objective of the present contribution is provide a second well-defined benchmark case for fluid-structure interaction as a growing branch of research in science and industry. Similar to the previous case UFR 2-13 the entire study relies on a complementary experimental and numerical investigation. The same measuring techniques (planar particle image velocimetry (PIV), volumetric three-component velocimetry (V3V),multiple-point laser triangulation sensor) and the same numerical methodology (partitioned FSI coupling scheme based on large-eddy simulation) is applied and will thus only partially repeated here for the sake of brevity (However, all details are available at UFR 2-13).


  • What are the differences between the previous case and the present one?

For the previous configuration (FSI-PfS-1a) the flexible structure deforms in the first swiveling mode inducing only moderate structural displacements by an instability-induced excitation. On the contrary, the new case denoted FSI-PfS-2a is a movement-induced excitation with significantly larger deformations of the flexible structure in the second swiveling mode.


In this work, the coupling of a vortex-induced periodic deformation of a flexible structure mounted behind a rigid cylinder and a fully turbulent water flow performed at a Reynolds number of Re = 30,470 is experimentally investigated. The three-dimensional fluid velocity results show shedding vortices behind the structure, which reaches the second swiveling mode with a frequency of about 11.2 Hz corresponding to a Strouhal number of St = 0.177. Providing phase-averaged flow and structure measurements precise experimental data for coupled computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and computational structure dynamics (CSD) validations are available for this new benchmark case denoted FSI-PfS-2a. The test case possesses four main advantages:

  • (i) The geometry is rather simple;
  • (ii) Kinematically, the rotation of the front cylinder is avoided;
  • (iii) The boundary conditions are well defined;
  • (iv) Nevertheless, the resulting flow features and structure displacements are challenging from the computational point of view.


Graphical abstract2.png





Contributed by: Andreas Kalmbach, Guillaume De Nayer, Michael Breuer — Helmut-Schmidt Universität Hamburg

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024