CFD Club

Some notes on the first CFDC meeting

1. Scope of CFDC activities in the frames of IA HySafe

  • Partners agreed to recommend the consortium to refine the activity of CFDC into two complementary parts. The first one will include more or less traditional standard benchmark exercise problem (SBEP) simulations, which at the end of the simulation should be published as a common work. This activity has to demonstrate the abilities of the consortium in the area of CFD modelling and the target auditorium has to be rather industry than academy.
  • On the other side the scientific part has to be presented showing also to academy our abilities and helping the consortium to maintain and develop scientific expertise. This part will be concentrated in the working groups which will be considering more scientifically oriented problems. The result of such activity can be also common publication, but with the focus on the scientific component; it can be also an initiation for the following SBEP; in worst case it can be just consolidation of the knowledge and/or elimination of the identified knowledge gaps without visible consequences. We proposed to name such problems model development exercise problems (MDEPs) to distinguish them from the first ones.

2. Format of work for CFDC

  • Periodicity of the work is 1 year;
  • For each year two SBEPs are selected and proposed for common simulation: one for dispersion (distribution) and one for combustion;
  • Number of MDEPs are not limited, but as a rule, should not be more as three;
  • 2 partner meetings per year with the fixed dates: 1st week of December and 1st week of June;
  • At each meeting should be discussions on both SBEPs and all MDEPs, to prevent splitting into smaller group of interest;
  • At June meeting exercise problem candidates for next year has to be discussed;
  • At December meeting next year SBEPs / MDEPs and preparation of publication has to be fixed;

3. Candidates for SBEP 2010

  • Dispersion. Use V21 (case 4 or 5); Alexandros proposed that it would be better to have a case with natural ventilation. However it looks that Alain is not ready to provide corresponding case right now; he proposed to use ventilation option in the next period;
  • Combustion. Vented explosion test from FM Global proposed by Dmitriy. This proposal was supported already by 5 partners.

4. Candidates for MDEP 2010

  • Modelling of impinging jet. Besides the data from SNL there are no data available in the consortium. Please, try to find additional data on this subject. In case of the great demand from partners KIT can perform few tests suited for modelling.
  • Modelling of of transient laminar to turbulent combustion regime. Andrzej promised to look for the data. We believe that the data from Caltech (experiments of J. Shepherd can be good basis for this).
  • Problem with real thermodynamics (comparison of NIST data with other sources, applicability of A-N, VdW, etc).

5. Meeting attendance

Despite generally high support of the CFDC activity, certain problem with meeting attendance are already have been revealed. It is clear that these difficulties can influence the perspectives for the work of the CFDC activity in general. We think that the following reasons can encourage partners to be more active:

  • the considered numerical / scientific problems has to be interesting for the partners;
  • the goals of the whole activity has to be supported by most of the partners (see section 1.);
  • improvement of the quality of meeting hosting will increase an attractiveness of the meetings (probably can be partially supported by Association funding);
  • additional capabilities for virtual conferencing (as it was proposed by Jay and Bill) will facilitate participation in the discussions. It even looks as necessary extension of all meetings. Please have a look at e.g. this site (Thomas recommended it and he even tried already some of their services).

To conclude this section I would like to ask you: please, express your preferences in the selection of the SBEP and MDEP candidates. We have to make the right choice to provide highest participation of partners. Therefore I would like to ask each of you to indicate in which SBEP/MDEP you are going to take part.

6. Other candidates

Actually we have only one more candidate for SBEP (also porposed by Dmitriy) and one more for MDEP (proposal from A. Beccantini). This last exercise could help code validations as the analytical solution from Sedov can be used.

7. Next meeting

Andrzej proposed to take responsibility for preparation and hosting of the next meeting in June in beautiful place in Poland near Warsaw. Please, make notices in your calenders.

8. ToDo action list

Among those two important issues:

  • transfer of the existing experimental data base from old HySafe website to the new IA HySafe website (we here at KIT will try to solve this problem ourselves);
  • continuation of the publication preparation of the completed SBEPs (this is ongoing action performed now by Javier for V02, also SBEP14 has to be finalised under JRC coordination; SBEP V10 which was lead by DNV and V04 by HSL should be brushed up).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *