# Validation and test cases

(Difference between revisions)
 Revision as of 06:17, 2 November 2005 (view source)Praveen (Talk | contribs) (→2-D test cases)← Older edit Latest revision as of 14:38, 3 September 2013 (view source)HannesGS (Talk | contribs) (→2-D test cases) (38 intermediate revisions not shown) Line 1: Line 1: + Suitable cases for the validation and benchmarking of CFD codes.  Articles should include a description of the case, data to compare with, and possibly contributed solutions.  We could definitely use more three dimensional cases (only one has an article currently). + + == Introduction == + A common issue that arises in CFD is the validation and testing of the code to be used for a computation.  The code can be a newly written one (the testing then is to determine if the code works properly), or it can be a commercial code (the testing then is to determine if the code is suitable for the task at hand).  Some of the cases described in the article below are easy to solve, while others are more difficult. + + + + When choosing a case for validation purposes, keep the following in mind: + + * Don't try to do too much.  If you have written a code, try the 2-D cases first.  If you are testing a commercial code, it is probably best to try (vendor supplied) tutorial cases, and then move on to a test case that is like what the code will be expected to do. + * Some of these cases are still active areas of research, particularly for LES and the like. + * Don't rely just on the information here.  The authoritative source is always the literature, so look at the references cited in the articles for definitive details. + == 1-D test cases == == 1-D test cases == *[[Shock tube problem]] *[[Shock tube problem]] - *[[Wave propagation]] - *[[Burgers Equation]] == 2-D test cases == == 2-D test cases == *[[2-D vortex in isentropic flow]] *[[2-D vortex in isentropic flow]] - *[[2-D linearised Euler equation]] + *[[2-D Riemann problem]] + *[[2-D laminar/turbulent driven square cavity flow]] *[[Circular advection]] *[[Circular advection]] *[[Explosion test in 2-D]] *[[Explosion test in 2-D]] *[[Lid-driven cavity problem]] *[[Lid-driven cavity problem]] - *[[Laminar Flow over backward facing step]] + *[[Jeffery-Hamel flow]] - *[[Turbulent Flow over backward facing step]] + *[[Laminar flow over backward facing step]] - *[[Laminar flow around cylinder]] + *[[Turbulent flow over backward facing step]] - *[[Turbulent flow around cylinder]] + *[[Flow around a circular cylinder]] + *[[Flow across a square cylinder]] *[[NACA0012 airfoil]] *[[NACA0012 airfoil]] *[[RAE2822 airfoil]] *[[RAE2822 airfoil]] Line 24: Line 37: *[[Viscous diffusion of multiple vortex system]] *[[Viscous diffusion of multiple vortex system]] *[[Williams airfoil]] *[[Williams airfoil]] + *[[2-D ramp in channel problem]] + *[[2-D Single Mode Rayleigh-Taylor Instability]] + *[[2-D Single Mode Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability]] + *[[2-D Mach 3 Wind Tunnel With a Step]] + *[[Gresho vortex]] == 3-D test cases == == 3-D test cases == Line 30: Line 48: *[[Flow in the 180 degree U-bend square duct]] *[[Flow in the 180 degree U-bend square duct]] *[[DARPA SUBOFF model]] *[[DARPA SUBOFF model]] - *[[Flow across a square cylinder]] *[[Hypersonic blunt body flow]] *[[Hypersonic blunt body flow]] *[[Onera M6 wing]] *[[Onera M6 wing]] + *[[Turbomachinery]] + *[[Eckardt Centrifugal Compressor]] + *[[NASA Rotor 37 for axial rotors]] + *[[NASA Rotor 67 for axial fans]] + *[[3-D Single Mode Rayleigh-Taylor Instability]] + *[[3-D Single Mode Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability]] + *[[Free-Surface Piercing NACA 0024 Hydrofoil]] + + == Transition test cases == + *[[2D Cascade]] + + == Aeroacoustics == + + === Workshops === + + *[[ICASE/LaRC workshop on benchmark problems in computational aeroacoustics]] + + === 1-D test cases === + *[[Linear wave propagation]] + *[[Non linear wave propagation]] + *[[Burgers equation]] + + === 2-D test cases === + *[[2-D linearised Euler equation]] + *[[2-D scattering from a cylinder]] + *[[Driven cavity with feedback]] + + === 3-D test cases === + *[[Driven cavity with feedback]] + *[[3-D Scattering from a cylinder]] == External links == == External links == Line 43: Line 90: *[http://aaac.larc.nasa.gov/tsab/cfdlarc/aiaa-dpw AIAA CFD drag prediction workshop] *[http://aaac.larc.nasa.gov/tsab/cfdlarc/aiaa-dpw AIAA CFD drag prediction workshop] *[http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/validation.html NPARC Alliance CFD verification and validation web-site] *[http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/validation.html NPARC Alliance CFD verification and validation web-site] + *[http://www.aero.gla.ac.uk/Research/CFD/projects/cfdval/TN02-016/TN02-016.html Test case validation database] at CFD Lab, University of Glasgow + *[http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/F_viz/gallery/VnV/SAND2002-0529.pdf Verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics] + *[http://flowlab.fluent.com/exercise/index.htm Many of the standard cfd excercises are validated using Fluent, the files are available here. The case/data files can be found inside each template library.]

## Latest revision as of 14:38, 3 September 2013

Suitable cases for the validation and benchmarking of CFD codes. Articles should include a description of the case, data to compare with, and possibly contributed solutions. We could definitely use more three dimensional cases (only one has an article currently).

## Introduction

A common issue that arises in CFD is the validation and testing of the code to be used for a computation. The code can be a newly written one (the testing then is to determine if the code works properly), or it can be a commercial code (the testing then is to determine if the code is suitable for the task at hand). Some of the cases described in the article below are easy to solve, while others are more difficult.

When choosing a case for validation purposes, keep the following in mind:

• Don't try to do too much. If you have written a code, try the 2-D cases first. If you are testing a commercial code, it is probably best to try (vendor supplied) tutorial cases, and then move on to a test case that is like what the code will be expected to do.
• Some of these cases are still active areas of research, particularly for LES and the like.
• Don't rely just on the information here. The authoritative source is always the literature, so look at the references cited in the articles for definitive details.