UFR 3-32 Test Case: Difference between revisions
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
around the shock generator leading edge. The implementation of the shock | around the shock generator leading edge. The implementation of the shock | ||
generator is given in Figure 1. | generator is given in Figure 1. | ||
A sketch of the configuration is given in Figure 2. | |||
The external Mach number, i.e. in the external flow upstream of the | |||
interaction is /M//(/=2.25, stagnation pressure in the potential flow | |||
upstream of the interaction is /p//tref/=50 663 N/m2; the stagnation | |||
temperature in the outer flow /T//tref/ is typically atmospheric, and remains | |||
close to 300K. | |||
The incoming boundary layer is fully turbulent. It develops on a flat | |||
plate with nearly adiabatic constant wall temperature. The conditions in | |||
the incoming boundary layer are summed up in the following tables. | |||
The first campaign of measurements called "case-2006" was performed with | |||
the following parameters: | |||
== Test Case Experiments == | == Test Case Experiments == |
Revision as of 08:36, 12 August 2013
Planar shock-wave boundary-layer interaction
Semi-confined Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 3-32
Test Case Study
Brief Description of the Study Test Case
The flow under investigation is an oblique shock reflection on a flat plate where a turbulent boundary layer is formed (see Figure 2). In this case, the flat plate is the floor of the test section. The shock wave is produced by a shock generator. The angle /?/ of the shock generator with respect to the external flow is supposed to be the same as the flow deflection; this is a very good approximation in the present flow conditions. Two cases are studied, corresponding to flow deflections /?/ of 8° and of 9.5° at the nominal Mach number 2.25. They are both separated. This experiment is designed to provide the characteristics of the low frequency unsteadiness found in such conditions, and affecting the reflected (or separation) shock wave and the separated zone itself. The deflection is produced by a shock generator, i.e. a tilted flat plate, fixed on the ceiling of the wind tunnel, and leaving a sufficient gap to let a passage to the ceiling boundary layer, without affecting the flow around the shock generator leading edge. The implementation of the shock generator is given in Figure 1.
A sketch of the configuration is given in Figure 2.
The external Mach number, i.e. in the external flow upstream of the
interaction is /M//(/=2.25, stagnation pressure in the potential flow
upstream of the interaction is /p//tref/=50 663 N/m2; the stagnation
temperature in the outer flow /T//tref/ is typically atmospheric, and remains
close to 300K.
The incoming boundary layer is fully turbulent. It develops on a flat
plate with nearly adiabatic constant wall temperature. The conditions in
the incoming boundary layer are summed up in the following tables.
The first campaign of measurements called "case-2006" was performed with the following parameters:
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: Jean-Paul Dussauge — Orange
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024