[Roh]

Guys,
I'm trying to validate my simulation which has been done by Fluent. So, I chose this article to validate my simulation.


https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.1997-65


Here is the experimental setup and design guide for bump body


http://uupload.ir/files/l3hp_1-1.jpg


Here is some explanations to the measurment:


http://uupload.ir/files/jd5_2-1.jpg


Here is specifictions of the wind tunnel:


http://uupload.ir/files/gwzq_3-1.jpg


Here is schematic of model and test section:


http://uupload.ir/files/ratw_4-1.jpg


Here is schematic of data aquisition and pressure tapping:


http://uupload.ir/files/9oqf_5-1.jpg


Some results for roughed wall:


http://uupload.ir/files/chh4_6-1.jpg


Because of some ambiguities, chose this article to design the domain and choose proper boundary conditions.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/....2010.11015308


As said in this part, designed the domain and specified the boundary condition as pressure inlet and pressure outlet:


http://uupload.ir/files/wt8_7-1.jpg


And specified inlet total temp. and pressure 310K and 140kPa respectively and outlet pressure 66kPa and Roughness height 580 micrometer and ran the computation.


The results showed that the location of shock(using pressure distribution) is far away than the experimental results and the numerical simulation in the above article. I'm a little bit surprised because didn't expect to get such result. Also, the Mach number is lower/higher than 0.73.



Questions:

1. What could be the problem?
2. Why the authors of the second article changed the outlet pressure to find the location of the shockwave in the case of without roughness effect? shouldn't everything be the same as experimental results?
3. If you were the authors, How would you simulate such work?