UFR 3-34 Evaluation: Difference between revisions
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
turbulence resolving capabilities of the approaches used. Then, a comparison with the | turbulence resolving capabilities of the approaches used. Then, a comparison with the | ||
experimental data is shown for the main body of these simulations. | experimental data is shown for the main body of these simulations. | ||
===RANS Calculations=== | |||
The 2DWMH flow has been computed and discussed in numerous RANS studies both by | |||
individual researches and in the framework of different collaborative projects and workshops. So | |||
below we present only a concise outline of major findings of these studies based on quite | |||
representative information on performance of different RANS models available at | |||
https://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/nasahump_val.html [7]. The models (see Table 5) include: four | |||
linear eddy viscosity models (one-equation model of Spalart & Allmaras (SA model) [31], this | |||
model with the Rotation-Curvature correction (SACC) [32], the two-equation k-. Shear Stress | |||
Transport of Menter (SST) [33]) and the two-equation k-kL model of Menter & Egorov and | |||
Abdol-Hamid (k-kL-MEAH2015 [34]) and one differential Reynolds Stress Model (RSM), | |||
namely the SSG/LLR-RSM-w2012 model [35] which “blends” the Speziale-Sarkar-Gatski (SSG) | |||
model [36] in the near wall flow region and Launder-Reece-Rodi (LRR) model [37] in the outer | |||
region. | |||
Revision as of 12:42, 6 March 2018
Semi-Confined Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 3-34
Evaluation
Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments
In this section we first present major results of RANS computations of the considered flow performed with different turbulence models [7] and their comparison with the experimental data (sub-section 6.1). Then, in sub-section 6.2, results are presented of the scale-resolving simulations (enhanced RANS-LES methods [8], [9] and WRLES [6]). This sub-section begins with a comparison of flow visualizations from different simulations, which visually display turbulence resolving capabilities of the approaches used. Then, a comparison with the experimental data is shown for the main body of these simulations.
RANS Calculations
The 2DWMH flow has been computed and discussed in numerous RANS studies both by individual researches and in the framework of different collaborative projects and workshops. So below we present only a concise outline of major findings of these studies based on quite representative information on performance of different RANS models available at https://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/nasahump_val.html [7]. The models (see Table 5) include: four linear eddy viscosity models (one-equation model of Spalart & Allmaras (SA model) [31], this model with the Rotation-Curvature correction (SACC) [32], the two-equation k-. Shear Stress Transport of Menter (SST) [33]) and the two-equation k-kL model of Menter & Egorov and Abdol-Hamid (k-kL-MEAH2015 [34]) and one differential Reynolds Stress Model (RSM), namely the SSG/LLR-RSM-w2012 model [35] which “blends” the Speziale-Sarkar-Gatski (SSG) model [36] in the near wall flow region and Launder-Reece-Rodi (LRR) model [37] in the outer region.
Contributed by: E. Guseva, M. Strelets — Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University (SPbPU)
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024