Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
125 lines (96 loc) · 5.96 KB

File metadata and controls

125 lines (96 loc) · 5.96 KB

Comparison with NASA Run 145 measurements

Pressure, wall-temperature and heat-transfer-coefficient (HTC) stations come from Appendix A, page 180 of Hylton et al., NASA-CR-168015. Regional external- HTC uncertainty intervals come from Table VI, report page 27. Additional experimental uncertainties reported in the Data Uncertainties subsection and Table VII are transcribed in references/experimental_data/c3x_experimental_uncertainty_summary.csv.

The outlet Mach is used only to match the nominal Run 145 operating point. NASA M2 = 0.90 and Fluent's mass-weighted outlet Mach are defined differently; the selection of the 236200 Pa pressure outlet is documented in outlet_pressure_selection.md.

NASA experimental uncertainty record

NASA's Data Uncertainties subsection reports the component uncertainties used in the experimental reduction:

Quantity Reported uncertainty
External vane surface temperature about ±1 °C
Free-stream gas temperature about ±11 °C
External airfoil profile about ±0.008 cm
Cooling-hole location about ±0.013 cm
Cooling-hole diameter ±0.005 cm
Internal cooling-hole HTC calculation estimated ±3%
Vane-material thermal conductivity used in the experimental reduction about ±3%
Pressure measurement ±0.7 kPa

Table VII separately reports uncertainty in test parameters:

Test parameter Reported uncertainty
Reynolds number, Re ±3.1%
Mach number, MN ±0.9%
Wall-to-gas temperature ratio, Tw/Tg ±2.0%
Inlet turbulence intensity, Tu ±10.0%

NASA states that the key uncertainty analysis uses the Kline and McClintock method (Ref. 23); the Tu value is based on prior experience with the laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) system. Table VI already gives the resulting regional external-HTC uncertainty, so the component values above are not added again to those intervals.

NASA also notes that some systematic contributions affect multiple runs in a similar way, so uncertainty in run-to-run trends can be smaller than uncertainty in the absolute level.

Coordinate matching and metrics

Experimental stations are matched to the CFD wall profiles by axial coordinate x/Cx, separately on the pressure and suction sides. Linear interpolation is used. Bias is defined as CFD minus NASA.

The SST profile comes from the final fine-grid wall export. Transition SST uses the direct 819-face Fluent wall export at iteration 556. HTC uncertainty bands are assigned by experimental surface position s/L using the Table VI regional intervals.

scripts/comparison/compare_run145.py writes the pointwise tables and summary to results/processed/nasa_comparison/ and generates the three figures below.

For wall temperature, mean absolute error (MAE) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) in kelvin are reported alongside mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). MAPE is kept as a compact relative summary using absolute temperature in kelvin, but it should not be read alone because the large absolute temperature baseline can make percentage errors look small.

Summary bias, MAE, RMSE and MAPE give equal weight to each experimental station. They are station-wise statistics rather than arc-length-weighted surface integrals, so regions with denser experimental station placement contribute more entries to the summary metrics.

Pressure ratio

Model Surface Points Bias MAE RMSE MAPE
SST Pressure 14 -0.003532 0.007100 0.011515 0.926%
SST Suction 14 -0.014069 0.023328 0.028166 3.980%
Transition SST Pressure 14 -0.002105 0.006201 0.008862 0.793%
Transition SST Suction 14 -0.013399 0.023569 0.029576 4.029%

Pressure-ratio comparison

Wall temperature

Model Surface Points Bias MAE RMSE MAPE
SST Pressure 31 +8.887 K 8.887 K 9.749 K 1.448%
SST Suction 44 +12.999 K 12.999 K 15.022 K 2.005%
Transition SST Pressure 31 -39.366 K 39.366 K 40.593 K 6.348%
Transition SST Suction 44 -41.723 K 41.723 K 52.352 K 6.408%

At the reported precision, the wall-temperature errors are one-signed over the sampled stations: SST is systematically hotter than the NASA values, while Transition SST is systematically colder.

Wall-temperature comparison

Heat-transfer coefficient

Model Surface Points MAE RMSE MAPE Inside experimental HTC interval
SST Pressure 31 46.954 W/(m²·K) 62.406 W/(m²·K) 7.795% 58.06%
SST Suction 44 84.320 W/(m²·K) 118.616 W/(m²·K) 11.535% 63.64%
Transition SST Pressure 31 294.658 W/(m²·K) 350.778 W/(m²·K) 47.443% 9.68%
Transition SST Suction 44 281.010 W/(m²·K) 389.862 W/(m²·K) 32.232% 31.82%

Heat-transfer-coefficient comparison

The HTC error bars use the Table VI experimental uncertainty intervals.

Why SST remains the primary case

Transition SST gives pressure errors close to SST but substantially worsens the wall-temperature and HTC comparison on the current fine grid. The separate Transition SST inlet-turbulence sensitivity study also shows that the suction-side transition-like response is strongly affected by turbulence decay between the inlet and the vane, especially through the inlet turbulent-viscosity ratio.

Transition SST is therefore retained as a sensitivity case rather than the baseline. No coarse or medium Transition SST cases were run, so the reported transition-response locations are fine-grid diagnostics.