Ok, I have two sets of simulations which are progressing alright but I want to make the results stronger. I will now assess the stage at which both of these are at and where to go from here.
-MT03-01: Flat plate boundary layer using TIR
This isn’t bad but I’m not really happy that I have a 3D simulation with a fully settled down mean profile. What may be the best bet is to run a 2D RANS simulation and use this as the mean profile to start with. I can then turn it 3D and add in the random fluctuations. If we choose the time averaging interval long enough that the mean is protected then I think we can go from there.
So, the overall plan of action is:
- Create a new simulation, mt03-01-25, which will be the new full 3D boundary layer in preparation for TIR.
- Run this as 2D RANS without fluct. for the moment and until the averages have settled down.
- Once this is done, switch to 3D DES with fluct. and run until the RMSs have settled down too (although these will probably not be correct, they need to have converged)
- Only after all this is settled, can we get on with applying the inflow rescaling realistically.
For this afternoon then:
- Get a 2D RANS simulation running as mt03-01-25 and get it fully settled down
-RS01-02: Lille Bump without flow control
The 3D bump simulations without any methods are still running (good!). However, I am not 100% happy with rs01-02-07 (IBM + WF). I think that the criterion for selecting which cells to apply the WF approach is screwed up by the presence of the ghost cells. If I have a rethink and fix the criterion we may see the recirculation region reduce (as it did for the wall function approach alone).
The plan of action for this then is:
- Fix rs01-02-07 so that WF nodes are being forced along the entire domain without clashing with the IBM nodes.
Right, to work!
MT03-01-25 set running…
Am just waiting for two simulations now:
- MT03-01-25: 2D RANS flat plate simulation. Need to wait until the average has settled down
- RS01-02-07a: Bump with IBM + WF. Need to check it’s stable