Computational Mechanics Research and Support for Aerodynamics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2.19 Comparison of CFD and ADV velocity contour under the condition of 0D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 9 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................... 35 Figure 2.20 Sketch of experimental model (left) and CAD model of culvert section (right) under the situation of bed elevation at 5.4 inch ......................................................................................................... 36 Figure 2.21 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.15D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 4.5 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................ 37 Figure 2.22 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.15D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 6 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.23 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.15D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 9 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................... 39 Figure 2.24 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.15D bed elevation and 0.71 fps for 4.5 inch water depth (velocity: 21.6 cm/s) .............................................................................. 40 Figure 2.25 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.15D bed elevation and 0.71 fps for 6 inch water depth (velocity: 21.6 cm/s) ................................................................................. 41 Figure 2.26 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.15D bed elevation and 0.71 fps for 9 inch water depth (velocity: 21.6 cm/s) ................................................................................. 42 Figure 2.27 Sketch of experimental model (left) and CAD model of culvert section (right) under the situation of bed elevation at 10.8 inch ....................................................................................................... 43 Figure 2.28 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.3D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 4.5 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................ 44 Figure 2.29 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.3D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 6 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................... 45 Figure 2.30 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.3D bed elevation and 1.1 fps for 9 inch water depth (velocity: 33.5 cm/s) ................................................................................... 46 Figure 2.31 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.3D bed elevation and 0.71 fps for 4.5 inch water depth (velocity: 21.6 cm/s) .............................................................................. 47 Figure 2.32 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.3D bed elevation and 0.71 fps for 6 inch water depth (velocity: 21.6 cm/s) ................................................................................. 48 Figure 2.33 Comparison of CFD and PIV velocity contour under the condition of 0.3D bed elevation and 0.71 fps for 9 inch water depth (velocity: 21.6 cm/s) ................................................................................. 49 Figure 2.34 A conceptual drawing of the preliminary inlet design ............................................................. 53 TRACC/TFHRC Y2Q2 Page 5
Figure 2.35: Two different transition profiles of trumpet: streamline and multi-line................................ 54 Figure 2.36: Comparison of velocity uniformity along different sections .................................................. 55 Figure 2.37: Comparison of velocity uniformity along different sections in the test regime ..................... 56 Figure 2.38: Comparison between with-honeycomb and without-honeycomb for the streamline trumpet .................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 2.39: Announcement for CFD training course held in March .......................................................... 59 Figure 2.40: Announcement for CFD training course held in March, topics and tutorials ......................... 60 TRACC/TFHRC Y2Q2 Page 6
Page 1 and 2: ANL/ESD/12-27 Energy Systems Divisi
Page 3 and 4: ANL/ESD/12-27 Computational Mechani
Page 5: List of Figures Figure 2.1: Bridge
Page 9 and 10: 1. Introduction and Objectives The
Page 11 and 12: 2. Computational Fluid Dynamics for
Page 13 and 14: flat surface assumption is good exc
Page 15 and 16: conditions from Example 1 defined i
Page 17 and 18: scour rate is initially highest nea
Page 19 and 20: Figure 2.6 Dividing streamline posi
Page 21 and 22: 2.1.3. Resolving Issues of the Seco
Page 23 and 24: educe the rate of increase for y wh
Page 25 and 26: Design Scour Depth 0.400 0.350 0.30
Page 27 and 28: extend the impact of the findings t
Page 29 and 30: Table 2.2 Contour plots comparing C
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2.14 Comparison of CFD and P
Page 37 and 38: consistent with the lab test setup,
Page 51 and 52: RMSD area area ( V1 V2 ) n area 2
Page 53 and 54: 2. Marian Muste, Hao-Che Ho, Daniel
Page 55 and 56: Honeycomb Streamline Trumpet Unifor
Page 57 and 58:
(a) Streamline trumpet transition c
Page 59 and 60:
2.6. Training and Technology Transf
Page 61:
Figure 2.40: Announcement for CFD t
show all

Computational Mechanics Research and Support for Aerodynamics ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?