Jump to navigation Jump to search


This Template is used for generating a UFR Best Practice advice page. Use substitution not transclusion for embedding it into your new page.

  • articleTitle - the title of the article
  • area - the AC area number (1,2,3...)
  • number - the article number (01,02,03...)
  • authors - the list of authors, each separated by a semi-colon
  • organisation - the contributing organisation

[[UFR_{{{area}}}-{{{number}}}|Front Page]]


[[UFR_{{{area}}}-{{{number}}}_Test_Case|Test Case Studies]]


[[UFR_{{{area}}}-{{{number}}}_Best_Practice_Advice|Best Practice Advice]]



Underlying Flow Regime {{{area}}}-{{{number}}}

   Add your content here.  Note that the following sections are suggestions and 
   can be modified to suit your own article.

Best Practice Advice

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 Do not offer advice based upon your own experience or prejudices or upon published/unpublished evidence which is not fully examined in the UFR document (e.g. you may have read a recent paper which concludes Spalart and Allmaras is the best for this test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).

Key Physics

Summarise the key flow physics which characterise the UFR and which must be captured for accurate prediction of the assessment parameters.

Numerical Modelling

  • Discretisation method
  • Grids and grid resolution

Physical Modelling

  • Turbulence modelling
  • Transition modelling
  • Near-wall modelling
  • Other modelling

Application Uncertainties

Summarise any aspects of the UFR model set-up which are subject to uncertainty and to which the assessment parameters are particularly sensitive (e.g location and nature of transition to turbulence; specification of turbulence quantities at inlet; flow leakage through gaps etc.)

Recommendations for Future Work

Propose further studies which will improve the quality or scope of the BPA and perhaps bring it up to date. For example, perhaps further calculations of the test-case should be performed employing more recent, highly promising models of turbulence (e.g Spalart and Allmaras, Durbin's v2f, etc.). Or perhaps new experiments should be undertaken for which the values of key parameters (e.g. pressure gradient or streamline curvature) are much closer to those encountered in real application challenges.

Contributed by: {{{authors}}} — {{{organisation}}}

[[UFR_{{{area}}}-{{{number}}}|Front Page]]


[[UFR_{{{area}}}-{{{number}}}_Test_Case|Test Case Studies]]


[[UFR_{{{area}}}-{{{number}}}_Best_Practice_Advice|Best Practice Advice]]


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2020