Showing posts with label Automotive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Automotive. Show all posts

Thursday 20 August 2020

The Fan Car

     The idea to reduce Drag and/or improve Downforce on a vehicle using fans at the rear has been around for decades. Specially in the world of motorsports. Examples include Gordon Murray's BT46 and the T50. Here an explanation is made as to why placing a fan behind a car or a container-carrier truck can be used to improve fuel economy.

     The sample car model is of the renowned Ahmed Body. For validation of the numerical simulation, please refer to this post.

     Fig. 1 shows pressure isosurfaces around the car body both with and without fans installed at the rear. It is clear that the pressure difference between rear and front of the car is more when the fans are not available. More pressure difference results in more Drag and a relatively bad fuel economy.


Fig. 1, T-B; Fan disabled, fan enabled


     Fig. 2 shows cross section view of the car. It can be seen that the the boundary layer is re-energized and as a result the flow separation is significantly reduced by adding a fan at the rear. By adding a fan, the vortices are not only moved away from the rear-end of the car but also have smaller size and less intensity, as shown in Fig. 3.


Fig. 2, T-B; Fan disabled, fan enabled. Red arrows represent direction of airflow


Fig. 3, L-R; Fan disabled, fan enabled

Thank you for reading. Please share my work. If you would like to collaborate on a project please reach out.

Thursday 31 January 2019

Automotive Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis

     This post is about the numerical analysis of an Ahmed body. It was a new experience because of the area between the car's floor and the road which is different from most of the numerical analysis performed in open channel aeronautics and turbo-machinery.

     The numerical analysis was performed using the commercial software, SolidWorks Flow Simulation. The software employs κ − ε turbulence model with damping functions, SIMPLE-R (modified), as the numerical algorithm and second-order upwind and central approximations as the spatial discretization schemes for the convective fluxes and diffusive terms. The time derivatives are approximated with an implicit first-order Euler scheme. Flow simulation solves the Navier–Stokes equations, which are formulations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation laws for fluid flows. To predict turbulent flows, the Favre-averaged Navier–Stokes equations are used.

     The software generates Cartesian mesh using immersed boundary method. The mesh had a cell size of 0.035 m in the far field regions within the computational domain. A fine mesh was need between the road the the car's floor to make sure the interaction of the car's floor with the road was captured accurately. Therefore the mesh between the car's floor and the road was refined to have a cell size of 0.00875 m. Another mesh control was applied around the body to refine the mesh with a cells size of 0.0175 m to capture the trailing vortices. The resulting mesh had 209,580 total cells, among those cells, 31,783 cells were at the solid fluid boundary. The computational domain size was ~1L x 1.12L x 3L where L being the vehicle's length. The computational domain along with the computational mesh is shown in Fig. 1.



Fig. 1 Mesh, computational domain and the boundary conditions.

     The red arrows within the Fig. 1 represents the inlet boundary condition of ambient (free-stream) velocity and the blue arrows represent the outlet boundary condition of the ambient pressure. The green arrows represents the co-ordinates axes direction.

     The results from the numerical analysis were compared with [1-3]. The results are within 10% of the experimental results. The velocity (superimposed by the velocity streamlines) and pressure profiles around the car body at various free-stream velocities is shown in Fig. 2.


Fig. 3 Velocity and pressure plots. From the top, Row 1, L-R; ambient velocity of 30 and 40 m/s. Row 2, L-R; ambient velocity of 60 and 80 m/s. Row 3, ambient velocity of 105 m/s.

     It was a good experience learning about automotive CFD after spending a long time in aeronautic/turbo-machinery CFD. Thank you for reading. Please share my work. If you would like to collaborate on a project please reach out.


[1] F.J.Bello-Millán, T.Mäkelä, L.Parras, C.delPino, C.Ferrera, "Experimental study on Ahmed's body drag coefficient for different yaw angles", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volume 157, October 2016, Pages 140-144.

[2] Guilmineau E., Deng G.B., Queutey P., Visonneau M. (2018) Assessment of Hybrid LES Formulations for Flow Simulation Around the Ahmed Body. In: Deville M. et al. (eds) Turbulence and Interactions. TI 2015. Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, vol 135. Springer, Cham.

[3] A. Thacker, S.Aubrun, A.Leroy, P.Devinant, "Effects of suppressing the 3D separation on the rear slant on the flow structures around an Ahmed body", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Volumes 107–108, August–September 2012, Pages 237-243.

Monday 17 March 2014

Comparison between Down-Force and Drag Produced by a Legacy Spoiler VS a Spoiler with Tubercles (Humpback Whale Fin's Inspired)

Following data was obtained from Simulations carried out in SolidWorks Flow Simulation Premium.

Without Bumps

Air Speed in Km/h

Down Force in N

Drag in N

120
98.682
33.234
110
82.88
27.957
100
68.266
23.02
90
55.299
18.668
80
43.529
14.697
70
33.284
11.255
60
24.438
8.272
50
16.982
5.769
40
10.83
3.688
30
6.08
2.081
20
2.681
0.929
10
0.648
0.235


With Bumps

Air Speed in Km/h

Down Force in N

Drag in N

120
108.238
30.47
110
90.599
25.549
100
74.818
21.047
90
60.423
17.014
80
47.695
13.443
70
36.441
10.27
60
26.682
7.532
50
18.504
5.228
40
11.82
3.352
30
6.613
1.886
20
2.909
0.841
10
0.685
0.211

Comparison between Down Force and Drag

Air Speed in Km/h
Percentage Less Drag
Percentage More Down Force
120
8.32
8.83
110
8.61
8.51
100
8.57
8.76
90
8.86
8.48
80
8.53
8.73
70
8.75
8.66
60
8.95
8.41
50
9.38
8.23
40
9.11
8.38
30
9.37
8.06
20
9.47
7.84
10
10.21
5.4





It is clear that the spoiler with humpback whale's fin's inspired profile not only produce more down force at a particular velocity but also less drag.

Data for Spoiler without Humpback Whale's Fin's Inspired Bumps:

Wing Span: 100 cm
Chord Length: 17.5 cm
Air Velocity: 0-120 Km/h head on
Vertical Pitch: 22.5 Degree Downwards
Gravity Considered
Fluid: Dry Air at STP
Mesh Settings: Coarse (3/10)


Data for Spoiler with Humpback Whale's Fin's Bumps:

Wing Span: 100 cm
Chord Length Large: 17.5 cm
Chord Length Small: 15.75 cm
Air Velocity: 0-120 Km/h head on
Vertical Pitch: 22.5 Degree Downwards
Gravity Considered
Fluid: Dry Air at STP
Mesh Settings: Coarse (3/10)



Let's now take a look at visual representation of data.


This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Drag, Down-Force by the Spoiler without Bumps


This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Drag, Down-Force by the Spoiler with Bumps

As you can see from above two plots; the spoiler with the whale's fin like profile generates more down force and less drag.



This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Down-Force Generated by the Spoilers

The green line represents the Down-Force generated by the spoiler with whale's fin's inspired design. It is around eight percent more at each velocity.


This Plot Shows Air Velocity VS Drag Generated by the Spoilers

The green line represents the Drag generated by the spoiler with whale's fin inspired design. It is around nine percent less at each velocity.


This Plot Shows Air velocity VS Down-Force to Drag Ratio

It is clear from this plot that Down-Force to Drag ratio is around sixteen percent more for whale's fin's inspired spoiler than the legacy one at each velocity.



This Plot Shows Air Flow Around the Spoiler without Bumps at 120 Km/h from the Right Side.


This Plot Shows Air Flow Around the Spoiler without Bumps at 120 Km/h.


This Plot Shows Air Flow Around the Spoiler with bumps at 120 Km/h.


This plot Shows Air Flow Around the Spoiler with bumps at 120 Km/h.

A simple stress analysis was carried out on both spoilers at 120 Km/h. FOS was greater than 1 for both cases.

Advantages of Spoilers:

The main benefit of installing a spoiler on a car is to help it maintain traction at very high speeds. Particularly at speeds around 90 Km/h. A car with a spoiler installed will be easier to handle at highway speeds. Rear spoilers such as the one's analysed in this study; push the back of the car down so the tires can grip the road better and increase stability. It also increases the braking ability of the car.

To build the prototypes and complete the study further, I need donations. To donate your part send an email to fadoobaba@live.com , tweet @fadoobaba, PM at https://www.facebook.com/ThreeDimensionalDesign orhttps://grabcad.com/fahad.rafi.butt or comment with your contact details and I will contact you!. Thank you for reading!

Do comment and share!