Validation of OpenFOAM 1.6.x with the German VDI guideline for obstacle resolving micro-scale models

Abstract The open source flow solver OpenFOAM 1.6.x is validated for the computation of the statistically steady turbulent flow around single and multiple obstacles. To that end the Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes equations are solved together with the standard k–e turbulence model. Five cases are computed comprising a 2D beam, a wall mounted cube, a wall mounted cube rotated by 45° against the approach flow, a cuboid and an array of 21 cuboids. A block structured hexahedral, an unstructured tetrahedral and an unstructured hybrid mesh of tetrahedra and prisms are used for each case. The computed mean velocity components are compared with corresponding experimental results. From the relative or absolute difference of the results a hit rate is computed. For all cases and meshes the computed hit rate is larger than the hit rate required for successful validation if all available measurement positions are taken into account. When only positions in the near field are used for the hit rate, at least for one case and velocity component the successful validation criterion is not met, independent of the mesh. Thus only partial validation is achieved, which is consistent with published results obtained with other flow solvers. Furthermore it is shown that the metrics are not very sensitive to the choice of numerical and physical parameters, which raises the question whether the pass or fail criterion adopted by the guideline is too weak.

[1]  T. Trucano,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Computational Engineering and Physics , 2004 .

[2]  Jörg Franke,et al.  Introduction to the Prediction of Wind Loads on Buildings by Computational Wind Engineering (CWE) , 2007 .

[3]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , 2010 .

[4]  Jörg Franke,et al.  COST 732 in practice: the MUST model evaluation exercise , 2011 .

[5]  Rex Britter,et al.  SMEDIS: Scientific model evaluation of dense gas dispersion models , 2000 .

[6]  Jörg Franke,et al.  The COST 732 Best Practice Guideline for CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment: a summary , 2011 .

[7]  Harry John Ziman Computer prediction of chemically reacting flows in stirred tanks , 1990 .

[8]  T. Stathopoulos,et al.  CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: wall function problems , 2007 .

[9]  Michael Schatzmann,et al.  Flow and Transport in the Obstacle Layer: First Results of the Micro-Scale Model MITRAS , 2003 .

[10]  C. Kralj,et al.  Numerical simulation of diesel spray processes. , 1996 .

[11]  P. Richards,et al.  Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k-ε turbulence model , 1993 .

[12]  Joachim Eichhorn,et al.  The numerical flow model MISKAM: State of development and evaluation of the basic version , 2010 .

[13]  Jörg Franke,et al.  Application of Richardson extrapolation to the prediction of the flow field around building models , 2006 .

[14]  Nicolas G. Wright,et al.  On the use of the k–ε model in commercial CFD software to model the neutral atmospheric boundary layer , 2007 .

[15]  R. Britter,et al.  FLOW AND DISPERSION IN URBAN AREAS , 2003 .

[16]  Yoshihide Tominaga,et al.  AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings , 2008 .

[17]  Matthew F. Barone,et al.  Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: Validation metrics , 2004, J. Comput. Phys..