[gschaider]

This forum is for comparing the solvers of OpenFOAM with experimental or analytical results. Thread titles should have the solver that is to be validated and a unique name for the case in the title (for instance "simpleFoam - backward facing step measured by Pitz and Dailey"). It is NOT a forum for questions for help - there are other Forums for that. Threads for which this Forum is not appropriate will be moved to a more appropriate thread to keep the forum focused on its topic. Apart from this the Forum is unmoderated

[FelixL]

Good morning, Bernhard,


why only the solvers? Turbulence models, transport models and other applications also need V&V, so why not put them into this forum, too?


Greetings,
Felix.

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by FelixL

why only the solvers? Turbulence models, transport models and other applications also need V&V, so why not put them into this forum, too?

Maybe the formulation was a bit narrow but in spirit this wouldn't be a problem (verifying submodels) although one could argue that you can only verify the submodel in the framework of a concrete solver.

The idea was to avoid threads like "It would be NICE if SOMEONE verified ALL THE turbulence models so that I can use it for my thesis" (or even worse "Help me VERIFY that my boundary conditions are correct") and make sure that threads start with something like "I have this set of data that nicely shows a laminar turbulent transition and would like to verify the turbulence models with it. I think simpleFoam is the way to go and I started a case with it but I'm getting nowhere and would need some input. Anyone interested?" because that might lead somewhere. The important point is that people know WHAT they want to validate/verify and against WHAT.

[Bernhard]

Originally Posted by gschaider

The idea was to avoid threads like "It would be NICE if SOMEONE verified ALL THE turbulence models so that I can use it for my thesis" (or even worse "Help me VERIFY that my boundary conditions are correct") and make sure that threads start with something like "I have this set of data that nicely shows a laminar turbulent transition and would like to verify the turbulence models with it. I think simpleFoam is the way to go and I started a case with it but I'm getting nowhere and would need some input. Anyone interested?" because that might lead somewhere. The important point is that people know WHAT they want to validate/verify and against WHAT.

I feel adressed by your post. A lot of validation has been done already, the only thing is that is is scattered and repeated much more than necessary. My interpretation of the intention of this subforum was that it evolves into a thorough collection of validated test cases to make OpenFOAM more valuable for everyone. As I understand from your post now, the intention is to focus on some test case of specific users still in progress. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by Bernhard

I feel adressed by your post.

I hope not in a bad way

Originally Posted by Bernhard

A lot of validation has been done already, the only thing is that is is scattered and repeated much more than necessary. My interpretation of the intention of this subforum was that it evolves into a thorough collection of validated test cases to make OpenFOAM more valuable for everyone. As I understand from your post now, the intention is to focus on some test case of specific users still in progress. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Collecting existing cases is OK. But if you are aware of validation that was done, why don't you adress it? "I've seen LES-validations in the thesis of Dr.X. Anyone has these cases and is willing to share it?" Be concrete. People are also much more likely to respond if you adress their work

(also do I think that for verification cases that are "consolidated" something like the Wiki is a better place)

Bernhard (the other one)

[wiedangel]

Hi everyone,
i find the idea of this forum a very nice one. I am trying to validate turbulence models using DDES for an airfoil flow. Will post some results here when I get them ready.
Thank you for this validation and exchange space.

[kerim]

Hi Foamers,
I would like to validate interFoam solver against the experimental data Fraccarollo and Toro, 1995. That is why I am seeking for the next paper:
Experimental and Numerical Assessment of the Shallow Water Model for Two-dimensional Dam-Break Type Problems.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 33(6):843-864 · November 1995,
DOI: 10.1080/00221689509498555.

Any kind of help highly appreciated.

Best regards,
Kerim