UFR 7-01 Best Practice Advice
Thoughts of a poor old sod
Flummery & Flannery
Underlying Flow Regime 7-01
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 Do not offer advice based upon your own experience or prejudices or upon published/unpublished evidence which is not fully examined in the UFR document (e.g. you may have read a recent paper which concludes Spalart and Allmaras is the best for this test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).
Summarise the key flow physics which characterise the UFR and which must be captured for accurate prediction of the assessment parameters.
- Discretisation method
- Grids and grid resolution
- Turbulence modelling
- Transition modelling
- Near-wall modelling
- Other modelling
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
Contributed by: JB Priestley — Yorkshire
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2021