Abstr:UFR 2-14: Difference between revisions
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) m (→Abstract) |
Rapp.munchen (talk | contribs) |
||
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 | 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
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.
Contributed by: Andreas Kalmbach, Guillaume De Nayer, Michael Breuer — Helmut-Schmidt Universität Hamburg
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024