VERIFICATION BENCH · REV 1.0

A finished solve can still be wrong.

Inspect the cases that pass, the controls that fail, and the evidence that tells them apart.

01 / LAMINAR PIPE · Re 200

Same target. Five real outcomes.

The analytical target is 0.64 Pa. Three grids pass the 2% allowance; two negative controls do not.

Pressure drop across five pipe cases, with the two negative controls outside the reference allowance; error decreases with grid refinement
OpenFOAM Foundation 10 · fully developed circular-pipe flow · Poiseuille analytical reference. Not an experimental validation.
Recorded pipe results — fixed reference and acceptance limits
CaseCellsΔp / PaErrorGate
coarse3200.6336290.996%PASS
medium9600.6384470.243%PASS
fine2,5600.6396630.053%PASS
underresolved800.55063813.963%FAIL
wrong viscosity9601.27747399.605%FAIL

All five recorded outcomes are shown in the table above. Interactive gate selection is available on the full bench page when JavaScript is enabled.

    What was measured? What changed after the first diagnostic?

    D = 10 mm, L = 100 mm, bulk speed = 0.02 m/s, density = 1000 kg/m³, kinematic viscosity = 10⁻⁶ m²/s. Pressure is a fitted interior gradient × full length, not entrance loss. Darcy f = 64/Re = 0.32; Fanning f = 0.08.

    The first gate rejected an ill-conditioned residual in an essentially zero transverse velocity. Criteria 1.1 introduced an explicit component-to-bulk scale check, then all seven CFD cases were rerun. This is a disclosed post-diagnostic correction, not a blind preregistration. Original diagnostic summaries remain in the archive. Pipe runs reached the fixed iteration limit; the explicit scale-aware acceptance checks are separate from the built-in stopping flag.

    The underresolved case has two radial cells. The wrong-viscosity deck doubles viscosity without changing the original requirement. Their errors are measured, not assigned by a scripted FAIL label.

    Conservation is a plot, not just a green cell.

    Actual boundary flux imbalance versus SIMPLE iteration for the pipe and nozzle runs
    Actual inlet/outlet flux histories. Small imbalance does not guarantee reference agreement or convergence. Exact values are included as CSV; only the log plot clips values below 10⁻¹²%.

    02 / NEW LOW-MACH NOZZLE DIAGNOSTIC

    This mesh is not ready.

    NOT ESTABLISHED

    Same 1,920-cell grid, same SST closure, different near-wall treatments. Both fail the selected y+ area screen. Their residual behavior differs; neither reaches the built-in stop. This does not revalidate the older wall-refinement-v6 case.

    Provisional nominal-area-weighted y plus histograms and axial values for wall-function and direct low-Re treatments
    Provisional diagnostics from the last solved fields, not validated wall-resolution evidence. Neither treatment meets its 95%-area criterion.

    Wall-function treatment

    Maximum y+ 12.67

    Area inside selected screen 0.0%

    Near-wall screen FAIL

    Significant active-field residuals remain at the iteration limit.

    Direct low-Re walls

    Maximum y+ 11.64

    Area inside selected screen 6.2%

    Near-wall screen FAIL

    Active-field residuals are small; the negligible transverse component prevents the built-in stop.

    Inspect residuals, thresholds and model assumptions
    All six nozzle residual histories, distinguishing the negligible transverse component from active-field residuals

    Bench screens: 95% of nominal wall area at 30 ≤ y+ ≤ 300 for the log-wall treatment; 95% at y+ ≤ 1 for direct low-Re walls. These are selected requirements, not universal validity laws. The two treatments may evaluate effective wall scaling differently; the comparison is not an independent wall-shear validation.

    Direct low-Re pressure, in-plane velocity, k and omega residuals are below 10⁻¹⁰. Its normalized Uz residual remains about 0.003 despite max |Uz| / inlet speed being only 5.12 × 10⁻¹³. This is different from the wall-function case's significant active-field residuals. Both still fail near-wall suitability.

    Inlet Re ≈ 5,333, no transition model, no independent nozzle reference. Direct-wall omega uses approximate first-cell height. The report explains what must be established before a performance prediction can be accepted.

    03 / IMPORTED STEP · FILLET + INTERSECTING PORTS

    Reject the defect. Keep the original.

    SOLVER NOT SUBMITTED
    Actual reimported manifold tessellations, with a red detached sliver in the rejected two-solid variant
    Synthetic fixtures exported and reimported through OpenCASCADE. The red sliver is 0.1 mm thick, shown at its real position. No silent repair.

    Intact manifold

    Topology PASS

    One valid connected solid. Physics, fluid region and boundary assignments remain missing: overall readiness is not established.

    Detached sliver

    Intake FAIL

    Two connected components violate the single-solid contract. Quarantined for review before mesh or solve. Multiple solids can be intentional elsewhere; this gate does not silently delete them.

    04 / VERSIONED, DOWNLOADABLE EVIDENCE

    Keep the decks. Check the hashes.

    Seven new OpenFOAM runs, two STEP imports, and five retained CalculiX solves. 295 hashed source and evidence files. These curated downloads have no 48-hour job expiration.

    Versions, reproduction commands and retained CalculiX scope

    OpenFOAM Foundation 10; CalculiX 2.20; Gmsh 4.15.2; CadQuery 2.7.0; OCP 7.8.1.1. The archive includes original decks, meshes, logs, final fields, criteria and an offline verifier. Local image IDs identify the executed environment; they are not public image download URLs.

    python source/audit.py .

    Run this after extracting the archive. Copy decks to a new scratch directory before rerunning. Complete reproduction instructions · Machine-readable results

    The CalculiX subset contains the three-level pressure tube, a ported-tube fine solve and a thermal-gradient fine solve, recorded September 12. Original receipts preserve failed and incomplete gates. They are not five new solves.