Upload
cyril-jacques
View
116
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Race Car Aerodynamics GDPMSc Race Car Aerodynamics
Z. Chen, B. Dufour, C. Elliott, F. Harrold, C. Jacques, N. McDowell and R. van der Meer
2
Introduction Good aerodynamic design reduces lap
time Improve the aerodynamics of a hill-climb
car model CFD enables analysis of different
concepts at low cost
3
Overview Aims & Objectives Methodology CFD Methodology Design Baseline Car Design upgrades Resulting Car Discussion Conclusion
4
Aim & Objectives The aim of this project is “to accurately determine and improve
the aerodynamic performance of a hill climb car model using CFD”
First semester objectives were:– Determining the regulations and general performance levels
of hill climb race cars.– Gaining a clear understanding of the devices used to add
aerodynamic performance to a race car.– Setting up a valid CFD simulation of a baseline race car model
to accurately determine its aerodynamic performance.
5
Aim & Objectives Second semester objectives were:– Making alterations to the model to improve aerodynamic
performance.– Quantifying the impact of these alterations using CFD.– Optimising the alterations and ensuring they result in a
holistic design.
6
Methodology
7
CAD Corrections Baseline CAD was unsuitable. Modifications made:
– Realignment of Rear Wing– Realignment of Sidepods– The addition of relationships between respective parts– CFD Preparation– Changing of the axis system to ensure usability later on
8
Boundary ConditionsBoundary Conditions
Car Surface No Slip Wall
Inlet Velocity Inlet
Outlet Pressure Outlet
Engine Intake Pressure Outlet
Sidepod Intake Pressure Outlet
Ground Moving Wall
Symmetry Plane Symmetry
Top and Side Walls No Slip Wall
9
Physics SettingsPhysics Settings
Inlet VelocityGround Tangential Velocity
Front Wheel Wall Rotation Rear Wheel Wall Rotation
10
Domain
Cross section:Based on the RJ Mitchell wind tunnel
Length:Roughly 3 car lengths upstream and 5 car lengths downstream
11
SolverSolver Parameter Value
Space Three DimensionalTime Steady
Material GasFlow Segregated
Equation of State Constant DensityViscous Regime Turbulent
Reynolds Averaged Turbulence K-EpsilonRelaxation Scheme Gauss Seidel
Turbulent Specification Intensity and Viscosity RatioTurbulent Viscosity Ratio 10
12
Mesh SettingsMesh Parameter Value
Base Size 1.0mMaximum Cell Size 0.25m
Maximum Core/Prism Layer Transition Ratio 2Prism Layers 8
Prism Layer Stretching 1.05Prism Layer Thickness 0.01m
Surface Curvature 180 points per circleSurface Growth Rate 1.3
Minimum Surface Size 0.001mMaximum Surface Size 0.5mTemplate Gowth Rate Very Slow
Wrapper Feature Angle 30 degWrapper Scale Factor 25%
13
Domain and Mesh IndependenceDomain Length
(m) CL CD Efficiency
17 -2.025 0.805 2.515
18 -1.989 0.837 2.376
0.0E+00 2.0E+06 4.0E+06 6.0E+06 8.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.2E+07 1.4E+07 1.6E+07-2.10
-2.05
-2.00
-1.95
-1.90
-1.85
-1.80
-1.75
-1.70
-1.65Baseline Mesh Independency Study
Number of Cells
CL
• Mesh independence tested by varying base size between 0.7-5m
• Mesh found to be stable for most runs
• Domain independence showed small changes through lengthening
• Minimal changes
14
Y-Plus• Below 30 in regions of stagnation and separation• Average 50
15
Design Methodology
16
Objective Increase lift coefficient value above
4 Keep drag coefficient value below
1.2 Increase efficiency Drivable aerodynamic balance (39%
to 44% front)
17
HardpointsThe following were considered unchangeable: Mass flow into the sidepod and engine air intake (within 5% of
baseline) Shape of the wheels Wheelbase of the vehicle Shape and position of driver
18
Member AllocationPerson
Area of Car Group Tasks
Barret Sidepod Communication and Organization
Chen Engine Cover and Nose Cone
CAD Assembly
Craig Front Wing CAD Assembly, Third Iteration Simulation, Report Proof Reading
Cyril Underbody Full Car Data Processing, First Iteration Simulation, Second Iteration Simulation
Francis Rear Wing and Exhaust
Baseline Simulation Setup and Runs, First Iteration CAD Assembly, Interim Presentation Assembly, Third Iteration Simulation, Report Proof Reading
Nicky Front Wing CAD Corrections, Baseline Simulation Setup and Runs, Third Iteration Simulations
Robbin Underbody Assembly of Report, Second Iteration Simulation, Third Iteration Simulation, Project Planning and Supervision
19
Baseline Results
20
Lift, Drag, Efficiency & Balance
Car (Unit) CL CD Efficiency % Front BalanceBaseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
Frontal area: 0.08022687m² Downforce and drag are both low Balance is too far rearward
21
Components breakdown
-20.00% -10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
35.74%
55.58%
10.48%
-9.81%
-9.36%
17.37%
Components CL breakdownUnderbody
Sidepods
Wheels
Body/Nose
Rear Wing
Front Wing
In terms of downforce: Rear wing is the part producing
most of the downforce Unbalance between front and rear
wing Underbody is only producing 17% Sidepods is high, nearly 10%
In terms of drag: Wheels are producing most of the
drag The other source is the rear wing Rest is about 7-10%
Front wing
Rear wing
Sidepods
Wheels
Body/Nose
Underbody
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
7.43%
22.69%
7.14%
44.66%
9.60%
8.49%
Components CD breakdown
22
Pressure Coefficient Top view
– High pressure visible on the rear wing pressure side
– Low pressure on the side pod inlet Side view
– Low pressure on the outer side of both rear and front tyres
Bottom view– Pressure on the underbody is close to zero– High pressure on the diffuser inlet
23
Pressure Coefficient Front view– High pressure region on the nose
cone, inner side of the front tyres and bottom of the sidepod inlet
Rear view– Separation developing on the diffuser
24
First Design Iteration Upgrades
25
Front Wing – 2D Optimisation 2D Analysis of Baseline Wing
Selection of suitable aerofoil profile
2D Optimisation of New Wing – Angles, Slot Gaps, Overlaps
Wing Version
Cl Cd Efficiency
Baseline 2D -2.888 0.649 4.449Final 2D -4.389 0.236 18.5930 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
0.1Wake Velocity Profiles
Baseline Wing
2D Final Wing Geome-try
Velocity, m/s
Posit
ion,
m
26
Front Wing – 2D OptimisationBaseline Wing Geometry
Iteration 1 Wing Geometry
27
Front Wing – Width Study This study was focused
primarily around efficiency of the full car
Optimal reviewing the data points lies between 80-87.5% width
70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%2.732.742.752.762.772.782.79
2.82.812.822.832.84
Wing Width Study, Efficiency
Wing Width, % of Total width allowed
Efficie
ncy,
L/D
28
Front Wing Iteration 1Endplate Refinement: Addition of Footplate Turning Vane for optimised
flow Sweep angles tested to
reduce separation but channel underfloor flow
29
Sidepod
1-SP-IT1-CS1-A 1-SP-IT1-CS1-B 1-SP-IT1-CS1-C
1-SP-IT1-CS1-DCar 1 Sidepod
30
Engine Cover
Geometry:
Removed sharp corner
Made it longer
Made it smoother
31
Engine Cover
Model Overall CL Rear Wing CL Efficiency
Baseline -2.030 -1.1276 2.523
Iteration 1 -2.213 -1.2633 2.620
CFD results:Improve the rear wing performance
32
Underfloor Diffuser shape changed to an aerofoil shape: S1223 Venturi channels included into the underfloor design
and tucked inwards. Diffuser is extended from 159 to 423mm behind the
rear wheels and widened as closest as possible to the rear tyres.
Two different exit heights tested: 150mm and 170mm.
Flat plates installed on the side of the diffuser. Inlet shape was also modified.
33
Underfloor Significant increase in downforce Moderate increase in drag The 170mm exit height has proven to be the best Less separation visible on the diffuser Recirculation region removed from the inlet
Total
Fwing
Rwing
Sidep
odWheel
s
Body
& Nose
Underb
ody
-0.10.20.50.81.11.41.7
22.32.62.9
CL Breakdown Comparison
Baseline car Design 2 : 150mm Design 2 : 170mm
CL
Total
Fwing
Rwing
Sidep
odWhe
els
Body
& Nose
Underb
ody
-0.050.050.150.250.350.450.550.650.750.85
CD Breakdown Comparison
Baseline car Design 2 : 150mmDesign 2 : 170mm
CD
34
Rear Wing Changed all aerofoil profiles to Selig-1223. Rotated first element to -5 degrees AoA. Beam wing lowered by 60mm. Beam wing and diffuser interaction led to
removal of beam wing.
Baseline First Iteration
35
First Iteration Car
36
First Iteration Full Car Geometry
37
Lift, Drag, Balance & Efficiency
Model CL CDAerodynamic
Efficiency% Front Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
First Iteration -3.07 0.925 3.31 31.2
52% increase in downforce production. 15% increase in drag production. 31% increase in efficiency. 7% increase in balance towards the front
of the car.
38
Component Breakdown
Total Fwing Rwing Sidepod Wheels Body & Nose
Underbody-0.3
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
Component Lift Coefficient Breakdown
Baseline car First Iteration
CL
Total Fwing Rwing Sidepod Wheels Body & Nose
Underbody0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Component Drag Coefficient Breakdown
Baseline car First Iteration
CD
39
Pressure Coefficient Against Baseline
40
Second Design Iteration Upgrades
41
Front WingRide height of wing analysis with respect to full car downforce:
Balance moves rearwards with increasing ride height
Optimal coefficient of lift at approximately 18mm ride height
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 253.023.033.043.053.063.073.083.09
Coefficient of Lift vs Ride height
Ride height, mm
Coeffi
cient
of L
ift
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2564%66%68%70%72%74%
Balance vs Ride height
Ride height, mm
Bala
nce
Rear
ward
s %
42
Front WingTest of Different Concepts Cut-out Wing Bridge Wing Shallow Angle of Attack Wing Bargeboard EndplatesCarried Forwards Cut-out Front Wing
Description CL CD Balance % Rearward
Efficiency
Baseline Setup 3.086 0.925 69.186 3.336Bridge Wing 2.973 0.927 69.441 3.208
Shallow Angle 2.905 0.939 85.525 3.095Experimental
cut-out3.093 0.948 74.351 3.262
Bargeboard 2.528 0.919 78.074 2.749
43
Front WingCascade Addition: Fourth and Fifth Element 2D X and Y
optimisations Span length of cascade
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2004.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
16.216.416.616.81717.217.417.617.81818.2Coefficient of Lift against X Position
Coeffi-cient of Lift CL
Effi-ciency
X Direction distance (mm)
Coeffi
cient
of L
ift
Efficie
ncy
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 801.5
1.752
2.252.5
2.753
3.253.5
3.754
4.254.5
4.75
5791113
151719
Coefficient of Lift against Y Position
Coefficient of Lift CL
Efficiency
Y Direction distance (mm)Co
efficie
nt o
f Lift
Efficie
ncy
44
Sidepod
Part NumberInlet Area
(mm^2)
Mass Flow
(Kg/S)CL CD Efficiency
2-SP-IT2-CS1-F 5880 0.1409 -3.314 1.005 3.295
2-SP-IT2-CS2-A 6011 0.1540 -3.410 1.003 3.3982-SP-IT2-CS1-F
2-SP-IT2-CS2-A
45
Nose Cone Made the nose higher to
help diffuser
Connected the nose and splitter curve
Reduced the effect on the trailing edge of the front wing
CFD results:Runs Overall CL Overall CD Front Wing
CL
Rear Wing CL
Diffuser CL Efficiency
Iteration 1 -2.98 0.93 -1.07 -1.14 -1.30 3.20Iteration 2 -3.15 0.95 -1.16 -1.14 -1.39 3.33
46
Underfloor Modifications were brought to an “idealised car”
Run Diffuser CL
Diffuser CD
Overall CL Overall CD Efficiency
First Iteration Car
-1.31 0.145 -3.07 0.925 3.31
Idealised Car -1.41 0.164 -2.68 0.937 2.86
47
Underfloor
Different area ratios were tested
Lower pressure appearing on the diffuser
Throat
Exit Ratio to ground
clearance
DiffuserCL
DiffuserCD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
15 170 6.34 -1.41 0.164 -2.68 0.937 2.8620 170 5.41 -1.55 0.164 -2.93 0.942 3.1120 190 6.00 -1.74 0.176 -3.09 0.953 3.2520 210 6.59 -1.85 0.189 -3.17 0.965 3.2820 230 7.18 -1.90 0.198 -3.26 0.994 3.2820 250 7.76 -1.87 0.204 -3.07 0.993 3.1025 265 7.15 -1.90 0.209 -3.18 1.02 3.13
48
Underfloor Illegal skirts tested
Upward skirts tried
Runs DiffuserCL
DiffuserCD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Throat 20mm (T20) Exit 230mm (E230)
-1.90 0.198 -3.28 0.994 3.28
T20 E230 with illegal skirts -2.36 0.205 -3.67 0.967 3.79T20 E230 with upward skirts -1.95 0.200 -3.20 0.975 3.28
49
Underfloor Area ratio optimized from 7.18 to 7.47 New side pod included in the design Flat plates added behind the rear wheels
Runs DiffuserCL
DiffuserCD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
T20 E230 with upward skirts
-1.95 0.200 -3.20 0.975 3.28
T20 E220 with upward skirts
-1.92 0.197 -3.17 0.963 3.29
T20 E240 with upward skirts
-1.96 0.205 -3.22 0.983 3.28
T20 E240 with upward skirts and iteration 2 side
pod
-1.94 0.204 -3.40 1.01 3.36
T20 E240 with upward skirts, iteration 2 side pod
and rear flat plates
-2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
50
Rear Wing Slot gap and Overlap Optimisation Remodelled mounts Redesigned endplates Rear wing positioning optimisation
First iteration Second Iteration
Model CL CD Efficiency
Revised Iteration 1 -2.871 0.970 2.960
Iteration 1 with New RW -3.092 0.935 3.307
51
Second Iteration Car
52
Second Iteration Car
53
Lift, Drag, Balance & EfficiencyModel CL CD
Aerodynamic Efficiency
% Front Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
First Iteration -3.07 0.925 3.31 31.2
Second Iteration -3.47 1.010 3.42 34.3
• 11.5% increase in downforce production• 8.4% increase in drag production• 3.2% increase in efficiency• 3.1% increase in balance towards the front of the car
54
Component Breakdown
Full car Front Wing
Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Un-der-body
-0.3
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3
3.3
Component Lift Coefficient Breakdown
Iteration 1 Iteration 2
CL
Full car Front Wing
Rear Wing
Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose
Un-der-body
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
Component Drag Coefficient Breakdown
Iteration 1 Iteration 2CD
55
Pressure Coefficient
56
Third Design Iteration Upgrades
57
Front Wing Movement of wheels outboard of the car Introduction of Strakes Re-introduction of the middle of the wing
Carried Forward: Re-introduction of the middle of the wing
58
Front Wing
Vortex Channel Configuration CL CD
Wide Main, Original Cascade -3.47603 1.010946
Original Main, Original Cascade -3.57881 1.011578
Original Main, Narrow Cascade -3.60611 1.011733
Capturing Vortices: Optimum width for mainplane
elements Optimum width for cascade
elements Vortex Generator design and
test
59
Sidepod
3-SP-IT1-CS1-A
3-SP-IT2-CS1-C
3-SP-IT3-CS1-A
Case Description
Part Number
Inlet Area (mm^2)
Mass Flow (Kg/S)
Area CL ∆CL CD ∆CD
3-SP-IT3-CS1-A 5062 0.1240 0.0874 -3.6618 -0.2521 0.9735 -0.030 3.761
60
Third Iteration-Nose Cone Improved the front wing performance by
pressing the front nose down Improved the flow around the trailing
edge of the front wing by making the middle nose higher
Moved the balance towards Was not carried forward
CFD results:
Runs Overall CL
Overall CD
Efficiency
Front Wing CL
Diffuser CL
% Front Balance
Iteration 2 -3.461 1.012 3.419 -0.960 -1.940 34.3Iteration 3 -3.434 1.003 3.424 -1.010 -1.824 39.4
61
Underfloor Vortex generators and fins
Zoom in on both devices
Runs Diffuser CL
Diffuser CD
Overall CL
Overall CD
Efficiency
Second Iteration Car -2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Vortex Generators -2.02 0.208 -3.48 1.01 3.45Fins -2.02 0.209 -3.48 1.01 3.45
62
Underfloor Barge boards
Turning Vane
Runs Diffuser CL
Diffuser CD
Overall CL
Overall CD
Efficiency
Second Iteration Car -2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Barge Boards -1.98 0.217 -3.45 1.01 3.42Single Turning
Vane -2.07 0.214 -3.52 1.01 3.50
Underfloor Double turning vanes
Double steeper vanes
Double steepest vanes
Runs DiffuserCL
DiffuserCD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Second Iteration Car -2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Barge Boards -1.98 0.217 -3.45 1.01 3.42
Single Turning Vane -2.07 0.214 -3.52 1.01 3.50
Double Turning Vanes
-2.07 0.216 -3.54 1.01 3.51
Steeper Double -2.06 0.218 -3.52 1.01 3.51
Steepest Double -2.03 0.222 -3.49 1.01 3.46
63
64
Underfloor Gurney flap
Wing element
Runs DiffuserCL
DiffuserCD
Overall
CL
Overall
CD
Efficiency
Second Iteration Car -2.00 0.208 -3.46 1.01 3.42
Gurney Flap added -2.30 0.303 -3.68 1.07 3.45Wing element
added -2.41 0.368 -3.76 1.12 3.35
65
Underfloor Testing the Gurney Flap on the Final car at
different speed 30m/s
Runs Velocity m/s Diffuser CL Diffuser CD
Overall CL
Overall CD
Efficiency
Third Iteration Car 30 -2.84 0.422 -4.48 1.14 3.93Gurney Flap
added 30 -3.86 0.899 -5.43 1.52 3.57
Third Iteration Car 150 -2.62 0.247 -4.60 1.02 4.52Gurney Flap
added 150 -2.90 0.348 -4.80 1.08 4.45
150m/s
66
Exhaust Reimplementation Rear Wing improvements were limited through diffuser developments Exhaust reimplementation was deemed to add a larger performance gain Exhaust added to engine cover Exit speed calculated at 109.62m/s Tested over a range of exit angles
Second Iteration Third Iteration
CL CD
Exhaust Setting Full Car Rear Wing Diffuser Full Car Rear wing Diffuser
No Exhaust -3.832 -1.022 -2.389 0.989 0.240 0.260
Optimised -4.597 -1.112 -3.093 1.133 0.244 0.461
67
Third Iteration Car
68
Third Iteration Car
69
Lift, Drag, Balance and Efficiency
Model CL CD
Aerodynamic Efficiency % Front Balance
Baseline -2.02 0.805 2.52 24.4
First Iteration -3.07 0.925 3.31 31.2
Second Iteration -3.47 1.010 3.42 34.3
Third Iteration -4.48 1.142 3.93 32.1
22.5% increase in downforce production 3.7% increase in drag production 13.0% increase in efficiency 2.2% reduction in front balance
70
Component Breakdown
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody-0.5-0.20.10.40.71.01.31.61.92.22.52.83.13.43.74.04.34.6
Coefficient of Lift Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 2
CL
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody-0.050.050.150.250.350.450.550.650.750.850.951.051.15
Coefficient of Drag Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 2
CD
71
Component Breakdown
Full c
ar
Front
Wing
Rear
Wing
Sidep
ods
Wheels
Body
/Nose
Underb
ody
-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5
Coefficient of Lift Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 3: 150m/s
CL
Full car Front Wing Rear Wing Sidepods Wheels Body/Nose Underbody-0.050.050.150.250.350.450.550.650.750.850.951.051.15
Coefficient of Drag Breakdown Comparison
Iteration 3 Iteration 3: 150m/s
CD
72
Pressure Coefficient
73
Discussion
74
Reynolds Scaling EffectsVelocity
(m/s)CL CD Balance
% FrontBalance% Rear
Efficiency
30 -4.4823 1.1416 0.3206 0.6793 -3.926160 -4.4228 1.0458 0.4365 0.5634 -4.229090 -4.4683 1.0256 0.4543 0.5456 -4.3568
120 -4.4710 1.0141 0.4628 0.5371 -4.4088150 -4.6042 1.0185 0.4629 0.5370 -4.5203
Significant rearward balance at 30 m/s ≈ 23 mph full-car
Balance shifts forward as speed increases• Inertial forces dominate so
reduced separation• Exhaust effect diminishes
Balance is 46% forward at 150m/s ≈ 117 mph full-car
Efficiency increases at higher Reynolds number
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1600
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
0.350.4
0.450.5
Velocity against Front Balance
Velocity (m/s)%
Fron
t Bal
ance
75
CFD Accuracy Baseline car model• Extensive verification• Validation against force coefficients• No comparison of flow field with experiment
Design alterations• Carried over settings of baseline car• Potential inaccuracy for radical geometry changes• Ideally verify and validate further
Design FeasibilityThere are some feasibility concerns as this is a purely aerodynamic investigation: The rear wing mounts and the underbody are sticking out far rearward The wing-shaped diffuser results in high engine positioning The lack of suspension results in no attachment of the wheels to the car
chassis The limited space for the driver in the final nose design
76
77
Further Design Optimisations Front Wing:
• Angles of attack• Aerofoil shape• Further analysis into inwash wings• Bargeboard Endplates
Sidepod• Optimize airflow from wheel cover to rear wing• Vortex generators
78
Further Design Optimisations
Rear wing• Teamwork with engine cover and diffuser• Beam wing• Channelling of the turbulent air emanating from the wheels• Addition of cut-outs to the endplate
Diffuser• Gurney• Bargeboard ahead the diffuser• An automated optimisation on the top surface
79
Conclusion Baseline model simulated in CFD
• Extensive verification• Validation against force coefficients
Design improvements made• 3 design iterations were performed• Coefficient of Lift value increased to 4.48• Coefficient of Drag value kept relatively low at 1.14
Further work to be done• Verify and validate CFD of final design• Further optimise design and address feasibility concerns