2006
DOI: 10.2514/1.13819
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Synthetic Jet Flowfield Database for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The model validation for the present simulation was carried out by developing a separate synthetic jet model by altering the micro-scale domain dimensions to match the published work involving mini-scale geometries of Yao et al [22]. These results were extensively incorporated in NASA Langley Research Centre Workshop (CFDVAL2004) [23] in assessing suitability of turbulence models for synthetic jet flows.…”
Section: Model Validationmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The model validation for the present simulation was carried out by developing a separate synthetic jet model by altering the micro-scale domain dimensions to match the published work involving mini-scale geometries of Yao et al [22]. These results were extensively incorporated in NASA Langley Research Centre Workshop (CFDVAL2004) [23] in assessing suitability of turbulence models for synthetic jet flows.…”
Section: Model Validationmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…5, the predicted axial (y-velocity) was compared with the experimental jet velocities measured by Yao et al [22] using the techniques of Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), Hot wire anemometry and Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV). It is clearly seen that the present simulation agrees very well with the experimental data validating the model and its accuracy.…”
Section: Model Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the experiments for the workshop, an effort was made to take duplicate measurements using different techniques; this duplication highlighted the uncertainties inherent in the measurements. [1][2][3][4][5] A summary of the workshop results can be found in Rumsey et al 6 Overall, one of the general conclusions was that CFD was only able to qualitatively predict synthetic jet flow physics, but some of this inability to achieve consistent quantitative predictions resulted from significant uncertainty regarding how to best model the unsteady boundary conditions that are always required for such flows. An important need identified was for building-block synthetic jet experiments to focus more on obtaining extremely detailed data at and near slot or orifice exits.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model validation for the present simulation was carried out by formulating a separate synthetic jet model to match the dimensions used in the published work of (Yao et al, 2006). These results were extensively incorporated in NASA Langley Research Centre Workshop (CFDVAL2004) in assessing the suitability of turbulence models for synthetic jet flows.…”
Section: Model Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of this workshop concluded that the Shear-Stress-Transport (SST) k-ω turbulence model works best among the URANS models for jet flows. For validation, the predicted axial (y-velocity) was compared with the experimental jet velocities measured by (Yao et al, 2006) using the techniques of Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), Hot wire anemometry and Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV). This comparison is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Model Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%