Template:Demo UFR BPA: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This section should be structured around the five subsections below.
This section should be structured around the six subsections below.


Wherever possible, the advice should be in the form of an instruction
Wherever possible, the advice should be in the form of an instruction
rather than a conclusion. If appropriate, the conclusion can included
rather than a conclusion. If appropriate, the conclusion can included
after the 'instruction' in order to provide context. Thus, for
after the "instruction" in order to provide context. Thus, for
example: 'The aerodynamic coefficients can be accurately predicted with
example:
algebraic turbulence models. However these fail to predict the
detailed dynamics of the wake boundary layer interaction. Such detail
can, however, be predicted with reasonable accuracy using Spalart and
Allmaras' is a conclusion. The BPA advice flowing from this conclusion is:


''"The aerodynamic coefficients can be accurately predicted with algebraic turbulence models. However these fail to predict the detailed dynamics of the wake boundary layer interaction. Such detail can, however, be predicted with reasonable accuracy using Spalart and Allmaras"''


* ''‘Use algebraic turbulence models if the requirement is to  predict accurately just the aerodynamic coefficents’''
is a conclusion. The BPA advice flowing from this conclusion is:


* ''‘Use the Spalart Allmaras turbulence model if the requirement is to predict the detailed dynamics of the wake-boundary layer interaction as well as the aerodynamic coefficients.’
:* ''"Use algebraic turbulence models if the requirement is to predict accurately just the aerodynamic coefficents"''


:* ''"Use the Spalart Allmaras turbulence model if the requirement is to predict the detailed dynamics of the wake-boundary layer interaction as well as the aerodynamic coefficients".


It is generally easier to draw conclusions than to convert these into
It is generally easier to draw conclusions than to convert these into
clear statements of advice. Thus it may be helpful to first set down your
clear statements of advice. Thus it may be helpful to first set down your
conclusions at the end of Section 6. 'Comparison of CFD Calculations
conclusions at the end of the Evaluation section and then work on these to develop the BPA.
with Experiments' and then work on these to develop the BPA.


Be extremely careful to ensure that your BPA is strongly supported by the
Be extremely careful to ensure that your BPA is strongly supported by the
evidence examined in Section 6. Do not offer advice based upon your own
evidence examined in the Evaluation section. Do not offer advice based upon your own
experience or prejudices or upon published/unpublished evidence which is
experience or prejudices or upon published/unpublished evidence which is
not fully examined in the UFR document (e.g. you may have read a recent
not fully examined in the UFR document (''e.g.'' you may have read a recent
paper which concludes Spalart and Allmaras is the best for this test
paper which concludes Spalart and Allmaras is the best for this test
case. You cannot base BPA on this if you have not discussed the
case. You cannot base BPA on this if you have not discussed the
calculations here).
calculations here).

Latest revision as of 18:41, 1 April 2011

This section should be structured around the six subsections below.

Wherever possible, the advice should be in the form of an instruction rather than a conclusion. If appropriate, the conclusion can included after the "instruction" in order to provide context. Thus, for example:

"The aerodynamic coefficients can be accurately predicted with algebraic turbulence models. However these fail to predict the detailed dynamics of the wake boundary layer interaction. Such detail can, however, be predicted with reasonable accuracy using Spalart and Allmaras"

is a conclusion. The BPA advice flowing from this conclusion is:

  • "Use algebraic turbulence models if the requirement is to predict accurately just the aerodynamic coefficents"
  • "Use the Spalart Allmaras turbulence model if the requirement is to predict the detailed dynamics of the wake-boundary layer interaction as well as the aerodynamic coefficients".

It is generally easier to draw conclusions than to convert these into clear statements of advice. Thus it may be helpful to first set down your conclusions at the end of the Evaluation section and then work on these to develop the BPA.

Be extremely careful to ensure that your BPA is strongly supported by the evidence examined in the Evaluation section. Do not offer advice based upon your own experience or prejudices or upon published/unpublished evidence which is not fully examined in the UFR document (e.g. you may have read a recent paper which concludes Spalart and Allmaras is the best for this test case. You cannot base BPA on this if you have not discussed the calculations here).