SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CFD Validation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Separation Control CFD Validation Test Case: Baseline and Steady Suction - Part 1

Low speed flow separation over a wall-mounted hump, and its control using steady suction, were studied experimentally in order to generate a data set for a workshop aimed at validating CFD turbulence models. The baseline and controlled data sets comprised static and dynamic surface pressure measurements, flow field measurements using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and wall shear stress obtained via oil-film interferometry. In addition to the specific test cases studied, surface pressures for a wide variety of conditions were reported for different Reynolds numbers and suction rates. Stereoscopic PIV and oil-film flow visualization indicated that the baseline separated flow field was mainly two- dimensional. With the application of control, some three-dimensionality was evident in the spanwise variation of pressure recovery, reattachment location and spanwise pressure fluctuations. Part 2 of this paper, under preparation for the AIAA Meeting in Reno 2005, considers separation control by means of zero-efflux oscillatory blowing.

David Greenblatt↗

NASA NTRS2004

A Separation Control CFD Validation Test Case: Baseline and Steady Suction - Part 1

Low speed flow separation over a wall-mounted hump, and its control using steady suction, were studied experimentally in order to generate a data set for a workshop aimed at validating CFD turbulence models. The baseline and controlled data sets comprised static and dynamic surface pressure measurements, flow field measurements using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and wall shear stress obtained via oil-film interferometry. In addition to the specific test cases studied, surface pressures for a wide variety of conditions were reported for different Reynolds numbers and suction rates. Stereoscopic PIV and oil-film flow visualization indicated that the baseline separated flow field was mainly two-dimensional. With the application of control, some three-dimensionality was evident in the spanwise variation of pressure recovery, reattachment location and spanwise pressure fluctuations. Part 2 of this paper, under preparation for the AIAA Meeting in Reno 2005, considers separation control by means of zero-efflux oscillatory blowing.

Greenblatt, David↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cross-Measurement Comparisons for a CFD Validation Dataset on Mach 2.5 Axisymmetric Turbulent Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Experimental data for a shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction has been collected using multiple measurement techniques. Unfortunately, diversity of methods for acquisition begets an aggregation of data which does not directly quantify the same properties of the flowfield. The objective in this paper was to (a) present the collection of flowfield measurements in one venue in a format more usable for those validating CFD models against the data, (b) evaluate the degree to which the experimental data support each other, and (c) highlight the differences and relative advantages/shortcomings of each measurement techniques. To present the various measured quantities into common format, CFD results from a companion paper also submitted for presentation at this meeting are utilized. For the case where the boundary layer remains attached, there is agreement between the various measurements as well as with Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulation solutions. As the impinging shock strength is increased beyond the point of separating the boundary layer, the congruity of the data wanes. Generally, agreement among the measurements exceeds the degree to which the CFD solutions agree with experiments. This suggests that unmodeled physical phenomena, such as transient motion of the reflected shock and separation bubble, give rise to the discrepancies observed in the computational results.

Shock-wave Boundary-layer interaction↗

NASA NTRS1989

NASA's CFD Validation Program

With computational fluid dynamics (CFD) becoming a productive research and design tool, the requirement to validate CFD codes has grown significantly. NASA had emphasized CFD validation activities since 1986 when a separate work element was formed to fund experimental activities related to validation. NASA's CFD and CFD validation programs are closely coordinated to ensure that experimental data bases are available as soon as possible for validating codes. In response to industry and academic requirements, four levels of experimental research have been defined as part of CFD validation with NASA's Aeronautics Advisory Committee (AAC) support although only the fourth level actually has the detailed information necessary for validating codes. Critical flow physics especially turbulence modeling are key to improved CFD codes. NASA has focused additional resources on transition and turbulence physics to meet these requirements. With improved turbulence models, CFD codes will be more accurate, robust, and efficient. However, with the level of detailed information available from CFD codes, highly accurate and detailed experiments are required to capture the critical information for validating codes. Advanced instrumentation especially non-intrusive instrumentation is required to acquire this information in validation experiments. The CFD validation program is being coordinated and managed to address these critical activities. A list of experiments which are currently being supported at least partially are included.

Satran, Dale R.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Progress Towards a Microgravity CFD Validation Study Using the ISS SPHERES-SLOSH Experiment

Understanding, predicting, and controlling fluid slosh dynamics is critical to safety and improving performance of space missions when a significant percentage of the spacecrafts mass is a liquid. Computational fluid dynamics simulations can be used to predict the dynamics of slosh, but these programs require extensive validation. Many CFD programs have been validated by slosh experiments using various fluids in earth gravity, but prior to the ISS SPHERES-Slosh experiment1, little experimental data for long-duration, zero-gravity slosh existed. This paper presents the current status of an ongoing CFD validation study using the ISS SPHERES-Slosh experimental data.

CFD↗

NASA NTRS2017

Progress Towards a Microgravity CFD Validation Study Using the ISS SPHERES-SLOSH Experiment

Understanding, predicting, and controlling fluid slosh dynamics is critical to safety and improving performance of space missions when a significant percentage of the spacecrafts mass is a liquid. Computational fluid dynamics simulations can be used to predict the dynamics of slosh, but these programs require extensive validation. Many CFD programs have been validated by slosh experiments using various fluids in earth gravity, but prior to the ISS SPHERES-Slosh experiment, little experimental data for long-duration, zero-gravity slosh existed. This paper presents the current status of an ongoing CFD validation study using the ISS SPHERES-Slosh experimental data.

microgravity↗

NASA NTRS2017

Progress Towards a Microgravity CFD Validation Study Using the ISS SPHERES-SLOSH Experiment

Storey, Jedediah M.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Dryden lectureship in research, a perspective on CFD validation

A comprehensive approach to CFD validation is presented. Requirements from computational and experimental perspectives are given. Experimental validation is emphasized because it ultimately determines the accuracy of CFD modeling and its application to complex problems. The concepts of building block and benchmark experiments are introduced. The types of measurements required of these experiments and their accuracy determination are explained. Contributions from such experiments toward the development and validation of CFD are reviewed and examples provided. Future challenges and strategies for validation are discussed.

Marvin, Joseph G.↗

NASA NTRS1990

2nd NASA CFD Validation Workshop

The purpose of the workshop was to review NASA's progress in CFD validation since the first workshop (held at Ames in 1987) and to affirm the future direction of the NASA CFD validation program. The first session consisted of overviews of CFD validation research at each of the three OAET research centers and at Marshall Space Flight Center. The second session consisted of in-depth technical presentations of the best examples of CFD validation work at each center (including Marshall). On the second day the workshop divided into three working groups to discuss CFD validation progress and needs in the subsonic, high-speed, and hypersonic speed ranges. The emphasis of the working groups was on propulsion.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2016

Experience with Aero- and Fluid-Dynamic Testing for Engineering and CFD Validation

Ever since computations have been used to simulate aerodynamics the need to ensure that the computations adequately represent real life has followed. Many experiments have been performed specifically for validation and as computational methods have improved, so have the validation experiments. Validation is also a moving target because computational methods improve requiring validation for the new aspect of flow physics that the computations aim to capture. Concurrently, new measurement techniques are being developed that can help capture more detailed flow features pressure sensitive paint (PSP) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) come to mind. This paper will present various wind-tunnel tests the author has been involved with and how they were used for validation of various kinds of CFD. A particular focus is the application of advanced measurement techniques to flow fields (and geometries) that had proven to be difficult to predict computationally. Many of these difficult flow problems arose from engineering and development problems that needed to be solved for a particular vehicle or research program. In some cases the experiments required to solve the engineering problems were refined to provide valuable CFD validation data in addition to the primary engineering data. All of these experiments have provided physical insight and validation data for a wide range of aerodynamic and acoustic phenomena for vehicles ranging from tractor-trailers to crewed spacecraft.

experiment↗

NASA NTRS1988

CFD validation experiments for internal flows

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) validation experiments at NASA Lewis are described. The material presented summarized the research in 3 areas: Inlets, ducts and nozzles; Turbomachinery; and Chemically reacting flows. The specific validation activities are concerned with shock boundary layer interactions, vortex generator effects, large low speed centrifugal compressor measurements, transonic fan shock structure, rotor/stator kinetic energy distributions, stator wake shedding characteristics, boundary layer transition, multiphase flow and reacting shear layers. These experiments are intended to provide CFD validation data for the internal flow fields within aerospace propulsion system components.

Povinelli, Louis A.↗

NASA NTRS1988

CFD validation experiments for internal flows

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) validation experiments at NASA Lewis Research Center are described. The material presented summarizes the research in three areas: Inlets, Ducts and Nozzles; Turbomachinery; and Chemically Reacting Flows. The specific validation activities are concerned with shock-boundary layer interactions, vortex generator effects, large low speed centrifugal compressor measurements, transonic fan shock structure, rotor/stator kinetic energy distributions, stator wake shedding characteristics, boundary layer transition, multiphase flow and reacting shear layers. These experiments are intended to provide CFD validation data for the internal flow fields within aerospace propulsion system components.

Povinelli, Louis A.↗

NASA NTRS1987

Overview of CFD validation experiments

The topics are presented in viewgraph form and include the following: fundamental physics validation experiments; applied physics validation experiments; physical flow phenomena; boundary layer tunnel; boundary layer research; centrifugal compressors; centrifugal compressor flow phenomena; turbomachinery computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation; inlet, duct, and nozzle CFD validation; and chemical reacting flows CFD validation.

Povinelli, Louis A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Validation Experiments: Toward a Broader Perspective

The current literature considers a CFD validation experiment synonymously with a particular type of wind tunnel test. By drawing on the experience of the authors, this paper makes a case for broadening the definition to include a more balanced and synergistic exploitation of computational and physical testing techniques. The concept of validation dialog is introduced which, together with technique verification, is considered a key enabler in the pursuit of an improved CFD predictive capability. An outline of a lifecycle for a CFD validation experiment is also proposed to consolidate the thinking. The result, it is reasoned, will encourage improved engagement with a broader range of stakeholders and wider recognition of the value of the outcomes of what might otherwise be considered studies of lesser importance. In turn, this is expected to encourage the adoption of more systematic approaches to complex problems, such that they are more readily broken down into smaller, more focused endeavors, while at the same time making such activities easier to fund.

CFD↗

NASA NTRS2011

Toward Supersonic Retropropulsion CFD Validation

This paper begins the process of verifying and validating computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes for supersonic retropropulsive flows. Four CFD codes (DPLR, FUN3D, OVERFLOW, and US3D) are used to perform various numerical and physical modeling studies toward the goal of comparing predictions with a wind tunnel experiment specifically designed to support CFD validation. Numerical studies run the gamut in rigor from code-to-code comparisons to observed order-of-accuracy tests. Results indicate that this complex flowfield, involving time-dependent shocks and vortex shedding, design order of accuracy is not clearly evident. Also explored is the extent of physical modeling necessary to predict the salient flowfield features found in high-speed Schlieren images and surface pressure measurements taken during the validation experiment. Physical modeling studies include geometric items such as wind tunnel wall and sting mount interference, as well as turbulence modeling that ranges from a RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) 2-equation model to DES (Detached Eddy Simulation) models. These studies indicate that tunnel wall interference is minimal for the cases investigated; model mounting hardware effects are confined to the aft end of the model; and sparse grid resolution and turbulence modeling can damp or entirely dissipate the unsteadiness of this self-excited flow.

Kleb, Bil↗

NASA NTRS1990

CFD validation for aerodynamic flows - Challenge for the '90's

The process of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation is described from two perspectives, numerical error validation and physical model validation. Errors associated with time and space discretization, grid refinement, numerical dissipation, and level of solution convergence, are all possible sources of numerical error. The second aspect of CFD code validation is associated with the governing equations and the physical models, e.g., chemistry and turbulence models. This type of validation requires comparisons with carefully conducted experiments and is the primary aspect of the validation process discussed in this paper. Examples of validation are shown for selected Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes codes for conditions from transonic through hypersonic. Since code applications are becoming more complex, it no longer suffices to use data from surface or integral quantities alone to provide the required validation. Flow field surveys and experimental boundary condition measurements are emerging as critical data that must be obtained for CFD code validation. Progress in the overall level of validation is shown to be improving. However, future challenges remain, some of which are enumerated.

Marvin, Joseph G.↗

NASA NTRS1992

CFD validation experiments for hypersonic flows

A roadmap for CFD code validation is introduced. The elements of the roadmap are consistent with air-breathing vehicle design requirements and related to the important flow path components: forebody, inlet, combustor, and nozzle. Building block and benchmark validation experiments are identified along with their test conditions and measurements. Based on an evaluation criteria, recommendations for an initial CFD validation data base are given and gaps identified where future experiments could provide new validation data.

Marvin, Joseph G.↗

DOE OSTI2023

Validated CFD Model for Multimode Gasoline Compression Ignition Engine

A validated CFD model for the multimode combustion engine developed under the DOE funded project DE-EE0008478 (Co-optimized Mixed-Mode Engine and Fuel Demonstrator for Improved Fuel Economy while Meeting Emissions Requirements). It incorporates advanced physics-based fuel surrogate models for thermophysical properties and reaction kinetics. The combustion modes include spark ignition (SI), low temperature combustion (LTC), and compression ignition (CI). The real fuel model was validated for RON60, RON70, RON80, RON90, and two biofuel blends. The validation cases can be found in https://doi.org/10.2172/1887341.

02 PETROLEUM↗