Abstr:UFR 2-15: Difference between revisions
m (moved UFR 2-15 to Lib:UFR 2-15) |
m (moved Lib:UFR 2-15 to Abstr:UFR 2-15) |
||
| (2 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 | == 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 | |||
{{ | 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)
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
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024