Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New article page for UFR_2-15)
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=Benchmark on the Aerodynamics of a Rectangular 5:1 Cylinder (BARC)=
=Benchmark on the Aerodynamics of a Rectangular 5:1 Cylinder (BARC)=
{{UFRHeader
{{UFRHeader
Line 6: Line 5:
}}
}}
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
== Flows around bodies ==       
== Flows Around Bodies ==       
=== Underlying Flow Regime 2-15 ===
=== Underlying Flow Regime 2-15 ===
= Abstract =
= Abstract =
 
In July 2008, a benchmark study on the aerodynamics of a stationary rectangular cylinder
{{Demo_UFR_Guidance}}
with chord-to-depth ratio equal to 5 (BARC) was launched.
The results of about 70 realisations of the BARC flow configuration obtained under a nominally common set-up in both wind tunnel
experiments and numerical simulations {(LES, URANS and hybrid URANS/LES)} are compared among themselves and with the data
available in the literature {prior} to BARC.
{This comparison mainly concentrates on bulk parameters, aerodynamic load statistics and flow features on the cylinder side surfaces
and in the very near wake.}
It is shown that the near wake flow, the base pressure and, hence, the drag coefficient obtained in the different flow realisations
are in very good agreement.
Conversely, the flow features along the cylinder lateral surfaces and, hence, the lift are strongly sensitive to set-up and modelling,
leading to a significant dispersion of both wind tunnel measurements and numerical predictions.
<br/>
<br/>
----
----

Latest revision as of 10:09, 13 May 2014

Benchmark on the Aerodynamics of a Rectangular 5:1 Cylinder (BARC)

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Flows Around Bodies

Underlying Flow Regime 2-15

Abstract

In July 2008, a benchmark study on the aerodynamics of a stationary rectangular cylinder with chord-to-depth ratio equal to 5 (BARC) was launched. The results of about 70 realisations of the BARC flow configuration obtained under a nominally common set-up in both wind tunnel experiments and numerical simulations {(LES, URANS and hybrid URANS/LES)} are compared among themselves and with the data available in the literature {prior} to BARC. {This comparison mainly concentrates on bulk parameters, aerodynamic load statistics and flow features on the cylinder side surfaces and in the very near wake.} It is shown that the near wake flow, the base pressure and, hence, the drag coefficient obtained in the different flow realisations are in very good agreement. Conversely, the flow features along the cylinder lateral surfaces and, hence, the lift are strongly sensitive to set-up and modelling, leading to a significant dispersion of both wind tunnel measurements and numerical predictions.



Contributed by: Luca Bruno, Maria Vittoria Salvetti — Politecnico di Torino, Università di Pisa

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024