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.

Steady-State VS Transient Propeller Numerical Simulation Comparison

     This post is about the comparison between steady-state and transient computational fluid dynamics analysis of two different propellers. The propellers under investigation are 11x7 and 11x4.7 propellers. The first number in the propeller nomenclature is the propeller diameter and the second number represents the propeller pitch, both parameters are in inch. The transient analysis was carried out using the sliding mesh technique while the steady-state results were obtained by the local rotating region-averaging method. For details about 11x7 propeller click here, for the details about 11x4.7 propeller, click here.

 

     As expected, the propeller efficiencies of transient and steady-state analysis are within 0.9% of each other, as shown in Fig. 1-2. Therefore, it is advised to simulate propellers and horizontal axis wind turbines using the steady-state technique as long as no time-dependent boundary conditions are employed.

 

Fig. 1, Propeller efficiency plot.

  

 Fig. 2, Propeller efficiency plot.

 

     It can be seen from Fig. 3-4 that time taken by the steady-state simulation to converge is on average 42.37% less that the transient analysis.  The steady-state analysis takes considerably less time to give a solution then a transient analysis.

 

Fig. 3, Solution time.

 

Fig. 4, Solution time.

 

Thank you for reading. If you would like to collaborate on research projects, please reach out.