UFR 2-12 Evaluation: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 20: Line 20:
==== Effect of span size of domain ====
==== Effect of span size of domain ====
As mentioned in Section 4, the aspect ratio  of  the  CT  configuration ''L<sub>z</sub>/&nbsp;D'' in the BART facility is equal  to  12.4.
As mentioned in Section 4, the aspect ratio  of  the  CT  configuration ''L<sub>z</sub>/&nbsp;D'' in the BART facility is equal  to  12.4.
Strictly  speaking  this demands carrying out simulations exactly at  this  value  of /L/z//D/ and
Strictly  speaking  this demands carrying out simulations exactly at  this  value  of ''L<sub>z</sub>/&nbsp;D'' and imposing
    imposing no-slip boundary conditions on the floor and  ceiling  of  the
no-slip boundary conditions on the floor and  ceiling  of  the test section (see Figure 2).
    test section (see Figure 2). However such  simulations  would  be  very
However such  simulations  would  be  very expensive.
    expensive. Considering this and, also, recommendations  of  the  BANC-I
Considering this and, also, recommendations  of  the  BANC-I Workshop based on simulations at different ''L<sub>z</sub>/&nbsp;D''
    Workshop based on simulations at different /L/z//D/ with periodic  boundary
with periodic  boundary conditions in the spanwise directions, most of the simulations  in  the ATAAC project were performed at
    conditions in the spanwise directions, most of the simulations  in  the
''L<sub>z</sub>/&nbsp;D''&nbsp;=&nbsp;3 assuming  spanwise  periodicity.
    ATAAC project were performed at /L/z//D/=3 assuming  spanwise  periodicity.
In  order  to  get  an  idea  on  how  strong  the  effect  of  such  a simplification could be, NTS  conducted  a  series  of
    In  order  to  get  an  idea  on  how  strong  the  effect  of  such  a
simulations  at different  ''L<sub>z</sub>/&nbsp;D''.
    simplification could be, NTS  conducted  a  series  of simulations  at
Some  results  of  these  simulations  are  presented below [[UFR_2-12_References#3|[3]]].
    different  /L/z//D/. Some  results  of  these  simulations  are  presented
    below[3].
<br/>
<br/>
----
----

Revision as of 12:33, 27 October 2012

Turbulent Flow Past Two-Body Configurations

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Flows Around Bodies

Underlying Flow Regime 2-12

Evaluation

Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments

This section is organized as follows. First (Section 6.1), results of some sensitivity studies are presented and briefly discussed. These include evaluation of such effects as span-size of the domain, compressibility, time sample used for computing the mean flow and turbulent statistics, and numerical dissipation of the method used. Then, in Section 6.2, a comparison with the experimental data is shown for the main body of simulations carried out within the ATAAC project with the use of the physical and computational problem setups outlined in Section 5.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY STUDIES

Effect of span size of domain

As mentioned in Section 4, the aspect ratio of the CT configuration Lz/ D in the BART facility is equal to 12.4. Strictly speaking this demands carrying out simulations exactly at this value of Lz/ D and imposing no-slip boundary conditions on the floor and ceiling of the test section (see Figure 2). However such simulations would be very expensive. Considering this and, also, recommendations of the BANC-I Workshop based on simulations at different Lz/ D with periodic boundary conditions in the spanwise directions, most of the simulations in the ATAAC project were performed at Lz/ D = 3 assuming spanwise periodicity. In order to get an idea on how strong the effect of such a simplification could be, NTS conducted a series of simulations at different Lz/ D. Some results of these simulations are presented below [3].



Contributed by: A. Garbaruk, M. Shur and M. Strelets — New Technologies and Services LLC (NTS) and St.-Petersburg State Polytechnic University

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References


© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024