[SB123]

as I read somewhere on this forum the JFE has requirements for numerical simulations (http://journaltool.asme.org/Template...umAccuracy.pdf) this requires several things of which seem reasonable and most of which seem to be thorough and good science.

The reason for my post is not to debate the validity of these tasks, but rather figure out standard practice. Are all of these standard practice for any publication in any journal or is this JFE just trying to be be thorough? specifically published mesh study results (4), temporal accuracy demonstration (6) error estimation using celik's attached method. new to the field and trying to get my mind wrapped around what's properly expected.

[SB123]

is this just a dumb question?

[tas38]

Depends on the field as to the degree in which CFD results must be verified. For example, in Tribology, I often see CFD results compared alongside Reynolds equation results with no mention of grid or iterative convergence of the CFD results. In other areas, such as Aerospace/Aerodynamics, metrics which demonstrate some measure of iterative and grid convergence are almost always presented as reviewers in these fields almost always request them.

[SB123]

Originally Posted by tas38

Depends on the field as to the degree in which CFD results must be verified. For example, in Tribology, I often see CFD results compared alongside Reynolds equation results with no mention of grid or iterative convergence of the CFD results. In other areas, such as Aerospace/Aerodynamics, metrics which demonstrate some measure of iterative and grid convergence are almost always presented as reviewers in these fields almost always request them.

this is directed in a hydrodynamics field. i've seen papers with grid studies but i can't remember seeing much of anything for the GCI or error estimation... am i just reading the wrong papers?