Evaluation AC2-12: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=Evaluation= | =Evaluation= | ||
==Comparison of test data and CFD== | ==Comparison of test data and CFD== | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
All simulated cases are listed in Table 6, where the following abbreviations are used: Code – the computational code: Ansys Fluent (AF) or OpenFOAM (OF), M – mesh: according to Section 4.2, N – convective schemes: the second-order upwind (SOU), the normalized variable diagram (NVD) (γ ), the total variation diminishing (TVD), CF – flow conditions: according to Table 1, TR – the approach for solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, (U)RANS , SAS or LES, TM – turbulence model: k-ε (SKE), k-ω SST (SST), k-equation eddy-viscosity sub-grid scale model (TKE), Smagorinsky (SMAG), TCM – turbulence-chemistry interaction model: Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC), Turbulent Flame Closure (TFC), CH – chemistry mechanism: according to Section 2.5.2, R – radiation sub-model: P1 or none, Sct – turbulence Schmidt number, Prt – turbulence Prandtl number, Two and Twc – temperature boundary conditions for the obstacle and channel walls, respectively: zero-gradient (zg), isothermal (Tisoth = 300 K and Tisoth = 600 K for cases C1 and C2, respectively) or conjugate fluid-solid heat transfer (CHT). | All simulated cases are listed in Table 6, where the following abbreviations are used: Code – the computational code: Ansys Fluent (AF) or OpenFOAM (OF), M – mesh: according to Section 4.2, N – convective schemes: the second-order upwind (SOU), the normalized variable diagram (NVD) (γ ), the total variation diminishing (TVD), CF – flow conditions: according to Table 1, TR – the approach for solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, (U)RANS , SAS or LES, TM – turbulence model: k-ε (SKE), k-ω SST (SST), k-equation eddy-viscosity sub-grid scale model (TKE), Smagorinsky (SMAG), TCM – turbulence-chemistry interaction model: Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC), Turbulent Flame Closure (TFC), CH – chemistry mechanism: according to Section 2.5.2, R – radiation sub-model: P1 or none, Sct – turbulence Schmidt number, Prt – turbulence Prandtl number, Two and Twc – temperature boundary conditions for the obstacle and channel walls, respectively: zero-gradient (zg), isothermal (Tisoth = 300 K and Tisoth = 600 K for cases C1 and C2, respectively) or conjugate fluid-solid heat transfer (CHT). | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 2 April 2019
Turbulent separated inert and reactive flows over a triangular bluff body
Application Challenge AC2-12 © copyright ERCOFTAC 2019
Evaluation
Comparison of test data and CFD
Introduction
All simulated cases are listed in Table 6, where the following abbreviations are used: Code – the computational code: Ansys Fluent (AF) or OpenFOAM (OF), M – mesh: according to Section 4.2, N – convective schemes: the second-order upwind (SOU), the normalized variable diagram (NVD) (γ ), the total variation diminishing (TVD), CF – flow conditions: according to Table 1, TR – the approach for solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, (U)RANS , SAS or LES, TM – turbulence model: k-ε (SKE), k-ω SST (SST), k-equation eddy-viscosity sub-grid scale model (TKE), Smagorinsky (SMAG), TCM – turbulence-chemistry interaction model: Eddy Dissipation Concept (EDC), Turbulent Flame Closure (TFC), CH – chemistry mechanism: according to Section 2.5.2, R – radiation sub-model: P1 or none, Sct – turbulence Schmidt number, Prt – turbulence Prandtl number, Two and Twc – temperature boundary conditions for the obstacle and channel walls, respectively: zero-gradient (zg), isothermal (Tisoth = 300 K and Tisoth = 600 K for cases C1 and C2, respectively) or conjugate fluid-solid heat transfer (CHT). For a quantitative validation of the present SAS and LES simulations, the averages have been obtained from the computational results by sampling over 40 vortex shedding periods (Nvs ) for the SAS non-reactive solution and three flow-through times for the combustion SAS and LES. The flow-through time was defined as the ratio between the axial length of the computational domain to the jet bulk velocity.
Contributed by: D.A. Lysenko and M. Donskov — 3DMSimtek AS, Sandnes, Norway
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2019