contributor author | Robert V. Wilson | |
contributor author | Assistant Research Engineer | |
contributor author | Hugh W. Coleman | |
contributor author | Eminent Scholar in Propulsion | |
contributor author | Professor of Mechanical Engineering | |
contributor author | Eric G. Paterson | |
contributor author | Associate Research Engineer | |
contributor author | Fred Stern | |
contributor author | Professor Mechanical Engineering and Research Engineer | |
date accessioned | 2017-05-09T00:05:06Z | |
date available | 2017-05-09T00:05:06Z | |
date copyright | December, 2001 | |
date issued | 2001 | |
identifier issn | 0098-2202 | |
identifier other | JFEGA4-27167#803_1.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/125361 | |
description abstract | Part 2 of this two-part paper provides an example case study following the recently developed comprehensive verification and validation approach presented in Part 1. The case study is for a RANS simulation of an established benchmark for ship hydrodynamics using a ship hydrodynamics CFD code. Verification of the resistance (integral variable) and wave profile (point variable) indicates iterative uncertainties much less than grid uncertainties and simulation numerical uncertainties of about 2%S1(S1 is the simulation value for the finest grid). Validation of the resistance and wave profile shows modeling errors of about 8%D (D is the measured resistance) and 6%ζmax(ζmax is the maximum wave elevation), which should be addressed for possible validation at the 3%D and 4%ζmax levels. Reducing the level of validation primarily requires reduction in experimental uncertainties. The reduction of both modeling errors and experimental uncertainties will produce verified and validated solutions at low levels for this application using the present CFD code. Although there are many issues for practical applications, the methodology and procedures are shown to be successful for assessing levels of verification and validation and identifying modeling errors in some cases. For practical applications, solutions are far from the asymptotic range; therefore, analysis and interpretation of the results are shown to be important in assessing variability for order of accuracy, levels of verification, and strategies for reducing numerical and modeling errors and uncertainties. | |
publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
title | Comprehensive Approach to Verification and Validation of CFD Simulations—Part 2: Application for Rans Simulation of a Cargo/Container Ship | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 123 | |
journal issue | 4 | |
journal title | Journal of Fluids Engineering | |
identifier doi | 10.1115/1.1412236 | |
journal fristpage | 803 | |
journal lastpage | 810 | |
identifier eissn | 1528-901X | |
keywords | Electrical resistance | |
keywords | Simulation | |
keywords | Waves | |
keywords | Computational fluid dynamics | |
keywords | Engineering simulation | |
keywords | Modeling | |
keywords | Errors | |
keywords | Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations | |
keywords | Ships | |
keywords | Uncertainty | |
keywords | Containers AND Geometry | |
tree | Journal of Fluids Engineering:;2001:;volume( 123 ):;issue: 004 | |
contenttype | Fulltext | |