CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Validation with experiments - without error

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 2, 2011, 14:48
Default Validation with experiments - without error
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
Connor is on a distinguished road
Hi,

when CFD users want to show the results of their validation, they often plot diagrams comparing CFD results and experimental data.

However, why does nobody use error bars on the experimental data?

I am looking forward for you answer!


best regards
Connor
Connor is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 2, 2011, 16:13
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Florent Duchaine
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toulouse, France
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 6
Florent is on a distinguished road
that's a very good and interesting question ... !

I hope their will be many responses to this post. And I think this will change: as soon as UQ will be more and more used (thanks to big computers), errors bars both on experiments and cfd results will b given

flo
Florent is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 2, 2011, 17:47
Default
  #3
Member
 
Skeptic
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 67
Rep Power: 8
Lysistrata is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor View Post
Hi,

when CFD users want to show the results of their validation, they often plot diagrams comparing CFD results and experimental data.

However, why does nobody use error bars on the experimental data?

I am looking forward for you answer!


best regards
Connor
Maybe because the errors are so large it makes the experimenters look incompetent.
Lysistrata is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 3, 2011, 12:45
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 519
Rep Power: 9
Martin Hegedus is on a distinguished road
The answer to this depends on what parameters will have uncertainty measurements. For example, uncertainty values can exist for position (i.e. angle of attack), load cells, geometry, and upstream conditions. Those are usually given in the report. However, uncertainties also exist for the physics. To determine that can be very difficult and expensive. This can require that the experiment be run repeatedly in a single wind tunnel and that the experiment be run in several different tunnels. For example, determining lift and drag for transonic flow over a 2D airfoil. The uncertainty for this is large and not clear to people. It is what it is.
Martin Hegedus is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   April 3, 2011, 13:47
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Florent Duchaine
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toulouse, France
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 6
Florent is on a distinguished road
Experimentalists give also the uncertainty of their measures without repeating several times the experiments on different wind tunnel ...
Florent is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 3, 2011, 14:23
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 519
Rep Power: 9
Martin Hegedus is on a distinguished road
This is where the art comes in. In general the authors of the WT report will explain what went into their error/uncertainty bars. The error bands should capture the errors that the experimentalist are aware of, load balance, angle of attack, Mach number, geometry, etc. Also, the experimentalist should document any WT induced flow features that he or she was aware of. However, those uncertainties may not represent all the uncertainties that are important to you. For example, if one could run that same experiment without wind tunnel walls and a sting you may get a value that falls outside of the error bands given in a report.
Martin Hegedus is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   April 5, 2011, 09:12
Default
  #7
New Member
 
YongQiang Chi
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7
sazabi2001 is on a distinguished road
Most of the CFD validation experiment would be far too expensive (large scale wind tunnel ) or almost impossible to do (large buildings, weather or so).

Therefore, the way of full simulation => full experiment => improving simulation may never work out in most companies.. except in those military or big government funded projects.

===========

But there is still a way of doing so when such validation is a very simple type of experiment, such as the very classical 'back step turbulent flow' thing.

So the process now becomes like this: simple simulation => simple experiment => extended to complex object simulation. This might have less theoretical accuracy, but still good enough for most engineers.

===========

However, those classical tests like back step model was completed / published in the mid last century and has been repeat doing by every mechanics studnets in every university every year.. So now people just skip this and use the model directly.

Also, like we said, wind tunnel may has many uncertainties as well; and because of the non-linearly of N-S function and the fluid dyanmic properties, we may never get a model has error less than 30%. So in some point people just looking for more fundamental things like flow property in CFD rather than a series of accurate data.
sazabi2001 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
diagram, error bars, experimental data, validation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CGNS Compiling Diego Main CFD Forum 17 December 21, 2014 02:40
Compile problem ivanyao OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 October 12, 2012 09:31
Accessing phi from a fvPatchField at same patch johndeas OpenFOAM 1 September 13, 2010 20:23
attach/detach (valve opening/closing) phsieh2005 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 March 21, 2009 06:18
Compiling problems with hello worldC fw407 OpenFOAM Installation 21 January 6, 2008 18:38


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:11.