AIAA OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Technical Investigation Department. METHOD FOR 3-D MODELLING OF A MIXED FLOW PUMP USING PHOENICS D Radosavljevic.
Advertisements

Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics
Multidisciplinary Computation and Numerical Simulation V. Selmin.
1 Pressure-based Solver for Incompressible and Compressible Flows with Cavitation Sunho Park 1, Shin Hyung Rhee 1, and Byeong Rog Shin 2 1 Seoul National.
1 “CFD Analysis of Inlet and Outlet Regions of Coolant Channels in an Advanced Hydrocarbon Engine Nozzle” Dr. Kevin R. Anderson Associate Professor California.
Estimation of the Accuracy Obtained from CFD for industrial applications Prepared by Imama Zaidi.
Coupled Fluid-Structural Solver CFD incompressible flow solver has been coupled with a FEA code to analyze dynamic fluid-structure coupling phenomena CFD.
1 Internal Seminar, November 14 th Effects of non conformal mesh on LES S. Rolfo The University of Manchester, M60 1QD, UK School of Mechanical,
Thermo-fluid Analysis of Helium cooling solutions for the HCCB TBM Presented By: Manmeet Narula Alice Ying, Manmeet Narula, Ryan Hunt and M. Abdou ITER.
Steady Aeroelastic Computations to Predict the Flying Shape of Sails Sriram Antony Jameson Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University First.
Prediction of Fluid Dynamics in The Inertial Confinement Fusion Chamber by Godunov Solver With Adaptive Grid Refinement Zoran Dragojlovic, Farrokh Najmabadi,
Chamber Dynamic Response Modeling Zoran Dragojlovic.
DETAILED TURBULENCE CALCULATIONS FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW
© 2011 Autodesk Freely licensed for use by educational institutions. Reuse and changes require a note indicating that content has been modified from the.
AIAA SciTech 2015 Objective The objective of the present study is to model the turbulent air flow around a horizontal axis wind turbine using a modified.
© British Crown Copyright 2007/MOD Numerical Simulation Using High-Resolution Methods A. D. Weatherhead, AWE D. Drikakis, Cranfield University.
Wind Modeling Studies by Dr. Xu at Tennessee State University
AIAA th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on MAO, 09/05/2002, Atlanta, GA 0 AIAA OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINITIES Serhat Hosder,
Hybrid WENO-FD and RKDG Method for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws
ICHS4, San Francisco, September E. Papanikolaou, D. Baraldi Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy and Transport
Characterization and Prediction of CFD Simulation Uncertainties Ph.D Preliminary Oral Exam, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department, February 27 th.
CENTRAL AEROHYDRODYNAMIC INSTITUTE named after Prof. N.E. Zhukovsky (TsAGI) Multigrid accelerated numerical methods based on implicit scheme for moving.
1 Conducting & Reporting CFD Analyses. 2 Objective is to achieve a high level of credibility and confidence in the results from CFD performed as part.
Approximate Riemann Solvers for Multi-component flows Ben Thornber Academic Supervisor: D.Drikakis Industrial Mentor: D. Youngs (AWE) Aerospace Sciences.
Target Functional-based Adaptation > Daniel Vollmer > Folie 1 Target Functional-based Adaptation Daniel Vollmer TAU Grid Adaptation Workshop.
© Fluent Inc. 11/24/2015J1 Fluids Review TRN Overview of CFD Solution Methodologies.
© Saab AB Transonic store separation studies on the SAAB Gripen aircraft using CFD Ingemar Persson and Anders Lindberg Stockholm,
NSF Grant DMI NSF-SNL Grantees Meeting, 09/24/2002, Albuquerque NM 0 PROTECTION AGAINST MODELING AND SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES IN DESIGN OPTIMIZATION.
FALL 2015 Esra Sorgüven Öner
Discretization Methods Chapter 2. Training Manual May 15, 2001 Inventory # Discretization Methods Topics Equations and The Goal Brief overview.
CFD Study of the Development of Vortices on a Ring Wing
Tokyo 2015 A Workshop on CFD in Ship Hydrodynamics URANS Simulation of Surface Combatant using CFDShip-Iowa V.4 S. Bhushan and F. Stern IIHR-Hydroscience.
Conference on PDE Methods in Applied Mathematics and Image Processing, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria, 2004 NUMERICAL APPROACH IN SOLVING THE PDE FOR PARTICULAR.
DLR Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology 1 Simulation of Missiles with Grid Fins using an Unstructured Navier-Stokes solver coupled to a Semi-Experimental.
1 Application of Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory Limiting to Compact Interpolation Schemes Debojyoti Ghosh Graduate Research Assistant Alfred Gessow.
1 CASE 2: Modeling of a synthetic jet in a cross flow Williamsburg, Virginia, USA March 29 th -31 th 2004 C. Marongiu 1, G. Iaccarino 2 1 CIRA Italian.
School of Aerospace Engineering MITE Numerical Simulation of Centrifugal Compressor Stall and Surge Saeid NiaziAlex SteinLakshmi N. Sankar School of Aerospace.
AIAA th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on MAO, 09/05/2002, Atlanta, GA 0 AIAA OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES Serhat Hosder, Bernard.
Code verification and mesh uncertainty The goal is to verify that a computer code produces the right solution to the mathematical model underlying it.
An Introduction to Computational Fluids Dynamics Prapared by: Chudasama Gulambhai H ( ) Azhar Damani ( ) Dave Aman ( )
Theory of Turbine Cascades P M V Subbarao Professor Mechanical Engineering Department Its Group Performance, What Matters.……
NSF Grant DMI NSF-SNL Grantees Meeting, 09/24/2002, Albuquerque NM 0 PROTECTION AGAINST MODELING AND SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES IN DESIGN OPTIMIZATION.
A V&V Overview of the 31st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Design and analysis of Parabolic nozzle using MOC and CFD
Titolo presentazione sottotitolo
Date of download: 10/16/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.
“Solve the equations right” Mathematical problem Validation :
Chamber Dynamic Response Modeling
Drag Prediction Using NSU3D (Unstructured Multigrid NS Solver)
Abhay Srinivas, Kiran Siddappaji and Mark G. Turner
DPW-4 Results For NSU3D on LaRC Grids
CAD and Finite Element Analysis
Convergence in Computational Science
AIRFRAME NOISE MODELING APPROPRIATE FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION AIAA Serhat Hosder, Joseph A. Schetz, Bernard Grossman and.
The application of an atmospheric boundary layer to evaluate truck aerodynamics in CFD “A solution for a real-world engineering problem” Ir. Niek van.
AIAA OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINITIES
AIAA OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES
Convergence in Numerical Science
QUANTIFYING THE UNCERTAINTY IN Wind Power Production Using Meteodyn WT
Objective Numerical methods Finite volume.
E. Papanikolaou, D. Baraldi
AIAA OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES
Accurate Flow Prediction for Store Separation from Internal Bay M
High Accuracy Schemes for Inviscid Traffic Models
Accurate Flow Prediction for Store Separation from Internal Bay M
Mahnameh TAHERI, Ardeshir MAHDAVI
Low Order Methods for Simulation of Turbulence in Complex Geometries
Investigation of Flow Turning in a Natural Blockage
Presentation transcript:

AIAA 2002-5531 OBSERVATIONS ON CFD SIMULATION UNCERTAINTIES Serhat Hosder, Bernard Grossman, William H. Mason, and Layne T. Watson Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA Raphael T. Haftka University of Florida Gainesville, FL 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization 4-6 September 2002 Atlanta, GA

Introduction Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as an aero/hydrodynamic analysis and design tool CFD being used increasingly in multidisciplinary design and optimization (MDO) problems Different levels of fidelity from linear potential solvers to RANS codes CFD results have an associated uncertainty, originating from different sources Sources and magnitudes of the uncertainty important to assess the accuracy of the results

Drag polar results from 1st AIAA Drag Prediction Workshop (Hemsch, 2001)

Objective of the Paper Finding the magnitude of CFD simulation uncertainties that a well informed user may encounter and analyzing their sources We study 2-D, turbulent, transonic flow in a converging-diverging channel complex fluid dynamics problem affordable for making multiple runs

Transonic Diffuser Problem Weak shock case (Pe/P0i=0.82) experiment Pe/P0i CFD Strong shock case (Pe/P0i=0.72) Pe/P0i streamlines Separation bubble Contour variable: velocity magnitude

Uncertainty Sources (following Oberkampf and Blottner) Physical Modeling Uncertainty PDEs describing the flow Euler, Thin-Layer N-S, Full N-S, etc. boundary conditions and initial conditions geometry representation auxiliary physical models turbulence models, thermodynamic models, etc. Discretization Error Iterative Convergence Error Programming Errors We show that uncertainties from different sources interact

Computational Modeling General Aerodynamic Simulation Program (GASP) A commercial, Reynolds-averaged, 3-D, finite volume Navier-Stokes (N-S) code Has different solution and modeling options. An informed CFD user still “uncertain” about which one to choose For inviscid fluxes (most commonly used options in CFD) Upwind-biased 3rd order accurate Roe-Flux scheme Flux-limiters: Min-Mod and Van Albada Turbulence models (typical for turbulent flows) Spalart-Allmaras (Sp-Al) k- (Wilcox, 1998 version) with Sarkar’s compressibility correction

Grids Used in the Computations y/ht A single solution on grid 5 requires approximately 1170 hours of total node CPU time on a SGI Origin2000 with six processors (10000 cycles) Grid level Mesh Size (number of cells) 1 40 x 25 2 80 x 50 3 160 x 100 4 320 x 200 5 640 x 400 Grid 2 is the typical grid level used in CFD applications

Nozzle efficiency Nozzle efficiency (neff ), a global indicator of CFD results: H0i : Total enthalpy at the inlet He : Enthalpy at the exit Hes : Exit enthalpy at the state that would be reached by isentropic expansion to the actual pressure at the exit

Uncertainty in Nozzle Efficiency

Uncertainty in Nozzle Efficiency Strong Shock Weak Shock Maximum value of the total variation in nozzle efficiency 10% 4% the discretization error 6% (Sp-Al) 3.5% (Sp-Al) the relative uncertainty due to the selection of turbulence model 9% (grid 4) 2% (grid 2)

Discretization Error by Richardson’s Extrapolation error coefficient order of the method a measure of grid spacing grid level Turbulence model Pe/P0i estimate of p (observed order of accuracy) estimate of (neff)exact Grid level Discretization error (%) Sp-Al 0.72 (strong shock) 1.322 0.71950 1 14.298 2 6.790 3 2.716 4 1.086 0.82 (weak shock) 1.578 0.81086 8.005 3.539 1.185 0.397 k-  1.656 0.82889 4.432 1.452 0.461 0.146

Major Observations on the Discretization Errors Grid convergence is not achieved with grid levels that have moderate mesh sizes. For the strong shock case, even with the finest mesh level we can afford, asymptotic convergence is not certain As a consequence of above result, it is difficult to separate physical modeling uncertainties from numerical errors Shock-induced flow separation, thus the flow structure, has a significant effect on grid convergence Discretization error magnitudes are different for different turbulence models. The magnitudes of numerical errors are affected by the physical models chosen.

Error in Geometry Representation

Error in Geometry Representation Upstream of the shock, discrepancy between the CFD results of original geometry and the experiment is due to the error in geometry representation. Downstream of the shock, wall pressure distributions are the same regardless of the geometry used.

Error in Geometry Representation In nozzle efficiency, the uncertainty due to the error in geometry representation is not as large as the uncertainties originating from the other sources negligible for the strong shock case can be up to 1.4% for the weak shock case

Downstream Boundary Condition

Downstream Boundary Condition Extending the geometry or changing the exit pressure ratio affect: location and strength of the shock size of the separation bubble

Conclusions Based on the results obtained from this study, For attached flows without shocks (or with weak shocks), informed users may obtain reasonably accurate results They may get large errors for the cases with strong shocks and substantial separation Grid convergence is not achieved with grid levels that have moderate mesh sizes (especially for separated flows) The flow structure has a significant effect on the grid convergence It is difficult to isolate physical modeling uncertainties from numerical errors

Conclusions Uncertainties from different sources interact, especially in the simulation of flows with separation The magnitudes of numerical errors are influenced by the physical models (turbulence models) used In nozzle efficiency results, range of variation for the strong shock is much larger than the one observed in the weak shock case (10% vs. 4%) the error between grid level 2 and grid level 4 can be up to 6% (strong shock) relative uncertainty due to the selection of the turbulence model can be as large as 9% (strong shock)