Baumgartner et al 2015a - Revision history

Cinmemj: Cinmemj moved page Draft Samper 908356597 to Baumgartner et al 2015a

2019-06-06T11:22:42Z

Cinmemj moved page Draft Samper 908356597 to Baumgartner et al 2015a

Cinmemj at 11:15, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T11:15:08Z

Cinmemj at 11:13, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T11:13:19Z

Cinmemj at 11:08, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T11:08:26Z

Cinmemj at 11:00, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T11:00:44Z

Cinmemj at 10:49, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T10:49:56Z

Cinmemj at 10:47, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T10:47:14Z

Cinmemj at 10:44, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T10:44:07Z

Cinmemj at 10:42, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T10:42:10Z

Cinmemj at 10:40, 6 June 2019

2019-06-06T10:40:23Z

@@ Line 6,831: / Line 6,831: @@
 {| class="floating_imageSCP" style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: 100%;max-width: 100%;"
 |-
-|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D55_Velocity_NoWind.png|250px|]]
+|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D55_Velocity_NoWind.png|350px|]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (a) Driving velocity field(Fluid model with embedded structure)
 |-
-|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D55_Pressure_NoWind.png|250px|'''Inflation of the membrane inside the environmental fluid''' - The figures show a snap-shot at t = 7.5s during the inflation phase]]
+|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D55_Pressure_NoWind.png|350px|'''Inflation of the membrane inside the environmental fluid''' - The figures show a snap-shot at t = 7.5s during the inflation phase]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (b) Induced surface pressure (Structure model with mapped pressure)
@@ Line 6,845: / Line 6,845: @@
 {| class="floating_imageSCP" style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: 100%;max-width: 100%;"
 |-
-|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D56_Velocity_InWind.png|250px|]]
+|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D56_Velocity_InWind.png|350px|]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (a) Driving velocity field(Fluid model with embedded structure)
 |-
-|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D56_Pressure_InWind.png|250px|'''Flow induced movement of the coupled membrane''' - The figures show a snap-shot of the resulting fluid-structure interaction during the active fluid flow at t = 8.75s]]
+|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D56_Pressure_InWind.png|350px|'''Flow induced movement of the coupled membrane''' - The figures show a snap-shot of the resulting fluid-structure interaction during the active fluid flow at t = 8.75s]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (b) Induced surface pressure (Structure model with mapped pressure)

@@ Line 6,786: / Line 6,786: @@
 Before discussing the simulation results, however, it is worthwhile to have a look at the different finite element models that needed to be prepared for the intended comparison. The single models are illustrated in figure [[#img-210|210]]. Without having computed anything the first and one of the most convincing advantages becomes already obvious. That is the advantage of a significantly eased pre-processing in the embedded approach. Whereas for the ALE method a detailed and explicit modeling of the interface is necessary, the embedded approach only requires a simple background fluid mesh which may be obtained very quickly by automated meshing routines. Depending on the intended level of accuracy, this may indeed contain areas with different refinement, but creating the latter is still significantly faster than an explicit modeling of the actual interface. In this context it is interesting, that the structure model may be the same in both cases, which means that for the embedded approach given models from earlier simulations may be recycled and do not have to be modeled again. This in fact is an additional advantage regarding the necessary pre-processing which might facilitate a possible change of the solution procedure from the ALE approach to the embedded approach.
-After having modeled the example for both solution approaches it is each simulated for maximum <math display="inline">10s</math>. The simulation is, however, expected to fail earlier due to reasons that we will see later. In the ALE-case we furthermore want to use two different mesh-updating strategies, i.e. the Laplacian mesh-updating with adaptive conductivity and the structure-like alternative. This shall allow us to evaluate the possible improvements in more detail. For the corresponding quantitative evaluation, we are looking at the two distinct nodes that were already given in figure [[#img-208|208]]. To be more precise, we are evaluating the flow-induced displacement at node ``<math display="inline">D</math>" and the resulting pressure evolution at node ``<math display="inline">P</math>". Let us first have a look on the displacements of node <math display="inline">D</math> in <math display="inline">X</math> and <math display="inline">Y</math>. The corresponding results are given in figure [[#img-211|211]] and [[#img-212|212]], respectively.
+After having modeled the example for both solution approaches it is each simulated for maximum <math display="inline">10s</math>. The simulation is, however, expected to fail earlier due to reasons that we will see later. In the ALE-case we furthermore want to use two different mesh-updating strategies, i.e. the Laplacian mesh-updating with adaptive conductivity and the structure-like alternative. This shall allow us to evaluate the possible improvements in more detail. For the corresponding quantitative evaluation, we are looking at the two distinct nodes that were already given in figure [[#img-208|208]]. To be more precise, we are evaluating the flow-induced displacement at node "<math display="inline">D</math>" and the resulting pressure evolution at node "<math display="inline">P</math>". Let us first have a look on the displacements of node <math display="inline">D</math> in <math display="inline">X</math> and <math display="inline">Y</math>. The corresponding results are given in figure [[#img-211|211]] and [[#img-212|212]], respectively.
 <div id='img-210'></div>

@@ Line 6,479: / Line 6,479: @@
 {| style="text-align: left; margin:auto;width: 100%;"
 |-
-| style="text-align: center;" | <math>\begin{array}{ccc}\\      \left[~\boldsymbol{x}_I(\boldsymbol{\eta }_I) ~\right]^T \\	      \\  \end{array}  =  \boldsymbol{N}_{local} (\boldsymbol{\eta }_I) </math>
+| style="text-align: center;" | <math>\begin{array}{ccc}\\      \left[~\boldsymbol{x}_I(\boldsymbol{\eta }_I) ~\right]^T \\	      \\  \end{array}  =  \boldsymbol{N}_{local} (\boldsymbol{\eta }_I) \cdot   \left[  \begin{array}{ccc}&&\\      \boldsymbol{x}_1 &  \boldsymbol{x}_2 & \boldsymbol{x}_3\\	      & &\end{array}  \right]  \begin{array}{ccc}\\  \end{array} </math>
-|-
-| style="text-align: center;" | <math>  \cdot   \left[  \begin{array}{ccc}&&\\      \boldsymbol{x}_1 &  \boldsymbol{x}_2 & \boldsymbol{x}_3\\	      & &\end{array}  \right]  \begin{array}{ccc}\\  \end{array} </math>
 |}
 | style="width: 5px;text-align: right;white-space: nowrap;" | (8.25)

@@ Line 6,294: / Line 6,294: @@
 |[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D33_Averaging_results_01.png|400px|]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
-| colspan="1" | (a) elemets/circumference = 14
+| colspan="1" | (a) ''elemets/circumference'' = 14
 |-
 |[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-D33_Averaging_results_02.png|400px|'''Results of pressure mapping by arithmetic averaging''' - The results are shown for two different levels of refinement of the fluid domain.]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
-| colspan="1" | (b) elemets/circumference = 94
+| colspan="1" | (b) ''elemets/circumference'' = 94
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | '''Figure 189:''' '''Results of pressure mapping by arithmetic averaging''' - The results are shown for two different levels of refinement of the fluid domain.

@@ Line 4,870: / Line 4,870: @@
 {| class="floating_imageSCP" style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: 100%;max-width: 100%;"
 |-
-|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-J01_FerrariStructureMesh.png|400px|'''Structure mesh of Formula 1 car''' - The surface model is meshed with 2.8e5 triangle elements.]]
+|[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-J01_FerrariStructureMesh.png|300px|'''Structure mesh of Formula 1 car''' - The surface model is meshed with 2.8e5 triangle elements.]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | '''Figure 126:''' '''Structure mesh of Formula 1 car''' - The surface model is meshed with <math>2.8e5</math> triangle elements.

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:22, 6 June 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 4,656: / Line 4,656: @@
 |-
 |[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-J38_PlaneRefine0.png|200px|]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (a) No refinement step
 | colspan="1" | (b) 6 refinement steps
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"

@@ Line 4,481: / Line 4,481: @@
 |-
 |[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-J21_WingAfter_Solution2_Side.png|300px|]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (a) Side view
 | colspan="1" | (b) Front view
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="2" | '''Figure 105:''' '''Wing model tested with the proposed approach''' - The applied approach is illustrated in figure [[#img-104|104]].
 |}

@@ Line 4,420: / Line 4,420: @@
 |-
 |[[Image:draft_Samper_908356597-monograph-J16_WingAfterCorrection_Cross.png|200px|]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" | (a) Cross section
 | colspan="1" | (b) Zoom to the trailing edge
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"