0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 1012 стр.optimization of SUV

Mar 25, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

optimization of SUV

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 10

optimization of SUV

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Published 09/30/2014

Copyright 2014 SAE International

doi:10.4271/2014-01-2445

saepcmech.saejournals.org

Stage using a Response Surface Method

Shaoyun Sun

FAW R&D Center

Yin-ping Chang

Oakland University

FAW R&D Center

Exa Corporation

ABSTRACT

In the development of an FAW SUV, one of the goals is to achieve a state of the art drag level. In order to achieve such an

aggressive target, feedback from aerodynamics has to be included in the early stage of the design decision process. The

aerodynamic performance evaluation and improvement is mostly based on CFD simulation in combination with some wind

tunnel testing for verification of the simulation results. As a first step in this process, a fully detailed simulation model is

built. The styling surface is combined with engine room and underbody detailed geometry from a similar size existing

vehicle. From a detailed analysis of the flow field potential areas for improvement are identified and five design parameters

for modifying overall shape features of the upper body are derived. In a second step, a response surface method involving

design of experiments and adaptive sampling techniques are applied for characterizing the effects of the design changes.

The characterization is followed by an optimization step to find the best possible drag improvement from these design

changes. At the same time the wind tunnel tests at the Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center with a fully detailed clay

model of the vehicle confirmed the performance improvement of the simulation results.

CITATION: Sun, S., Chang, Y., Fu, Q., Zhao, J. et al., "Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of an SUV in early Development

Stage using a Response Surface Method," SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 7(4):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2445.

be made in these parameters with minimal impact on the

In today's economic environment, consumer demand for

styling aesthetics. The reference [2] has described the general

fuel-efficient vehicles has never been higher. Vehicle

role of aerodynamics in the whole process of vehicle

aerodynamic design has a critical impact on fuel efficiency,

development.

through reducing wind resistance of the vehicle's exterior

shape and reducing losses associated with requirements for

The challenge faced by vehicle manufacturers in each design

cooling flow through the engine compartment, which has been

stage is the urgent need for information about how to improve

summarized by Hucho [1]. Aerodynamic design starts with the

the design. Aerodynamic information can be costly and difficult

earliest concepts of the vehicle based on its shape and

to obtain, traditionally involving building a detailed model or

proportion to meet styling intent, passenger space, and

prototype of the vehicle and testing the model in a wind tunnel.

component packaging needs. As the exterior shape is refined,

Design iterations at this late stage of product development are

the aerodynamic efficiency is driven by shape parameters such

time-consuming and costly because it is difficult to make

1252

Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014) 1253

large-scale changes to a model, or to change any surface The Boltzmann equation describes a representation of the

features of a fully detailed prototype during a wind tunnel test. particles and how the particles evolve in a fluid. The equation

Prototype testing for aerodynamics is a major contributor to can be written as following,

vehicle development costs and design cycle time.

Aerodynamics simulation changes the vehicle development

process, reducing both vehicle development costs and design

cycle time. Because of its inherent advantages over physical (1)

testing methods, simulation can bring much more feedback

where f is the velocity probability distribution function and is

about the design performance into each stage of development,

the collision operator, which satisfies the necessary

improving the ability for designers and engineers to innovate in

conservation laws. v is velocity vector, t is time and x is the

balancing design aesthetics with aerodynamics.

position vector.

In the early development stage of an FAW's sports utility

In the lattice form, the Boltzmann equation can be expressed

vehicle (SUV), the upper body is optimized for best

as a set of algebraic equations of the probability distribution

aerodynamic performance. At first, the performance of current

function at each state, fi,

design is evaluated by computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

simulation. Based on simulation results, the potential areas of

improvement are identified. The aerodynamics team then

discussed with the styling team to determine the range of (2)

design changes so that the design space is defined. A total of

In which e is the unit normal vector. Here the lattice BGK

five parameters, each parameter represents a design change

collision term is,

of the shape of the upper body in a certain range, are defined

to form the design space. A minimal Latin Hypercube Sampling

(LHS) [3] method plus an adaptive sampling method are used

to generate the run list of simulations used to quantify the (3)

design space and corresponding response space. A response

surface method is used to both characterize the effects of the where is the relaxation time and fieq is the lattice equilibrium

design space on the performance objective and search for distribution function.

predicted optimal design regions within the design space. The

optimum design calculated by the response surface is The macroscopic variables such as density and velocity v

validated by CFD simulation. can be expressed by the distribution function as following,

(baseline geometry) is built and experimentally tested in a wind (4)

tunnel. The clay model is later modified to test the performance

of the optimized shape. The wind speed and the scales of the

models are set to be the same in simulation model and in wind

(5)

tunnel test model.

Turbulence modeling in this study uses turbulence theory to

model only the dissipative and inertial ranges, modeling the

METHODOLOGY

dynamics of sub-grid scale turbulence by two additional

Simulation Method equations derived from an extended RNG (Renormalization

Group theory) formulation, as following,

In the early development stage of the SUV, one version of the

CAS (Computer Aided Styling) surface is used as the basis of

the aerodynamic optimization work. The CAS surface is then

cleaned and combined with the underhood and underbody

(6)

geometry of an existing vehicle so that a fully detailed digital

model is built and then used for analysis. Here is turbulence kinetic energy, is dynamic viscous

coefficient, t is turbulence viscous coefficient, P is pressure

Commercial software PowerFLOW is used to perform transient and is the dissipation of the turbulence kinetic energy.

(unsteady) flow simulation. This software uses a special

discretization of the Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) on a

variable resolution Cartesian volumetric grid, which is

automatically generated by the software. The key concept of

the LBM is very briefly outlined here. For more details, please

refer to literature [4,5,6,7,8].

1254 Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014)

For more details, please refer to literature [9] and [10]. This variations to be tested. The results of each test are used to

approach is also known as Very Large Eddy Simulation (or guide the next variant, or if the tests were done in parallel the

VLES). best performing configuration is selected as the winner. The

serial mode of this design methodology has a certain utility in

The aerodynamic CFD simulations were performed in the specific environments, such as wind tunnel testing of a clay

Digital Wind Tunnel (DWT). DWT is a case template for model where variations can be time consuming to create and

simulating the vehicles in open road condition. The whole floor even more difficult to repeat. The parallel mode is also still

of the simulation is treated as sliding wall boundary condition popular in automotive design because it allows for infinite

with the same velocity of the ambient flow in order to represent flexibility in terms of design parameters, while allowing for the

real world driving condition. The thickness of the boundary engineer to limit the number of variants tested. Often

layer is zero in front of the vehicle. The wheels are all treated hypothesis testing is used when time or resources are limited

as rotating wall boundary conditions in all simulation cases. and more sophisticated statistical methods are judged to be

too costly.

In the simulation model the full scaled vehicle is used. The best

practice guide [11] for aerodynamic simulation of SUV is used The primary inefficiency of hypothesis testing, however, is that

to setup the case and the variable resolution regions. The total data from each variant is only valid for that variant. Knowledge

voxels (volumetric grids) of the baseline case is about 146 gained from this variant is only used to drive the following

million. For the physical time scaling, the time step is variant. If the production problem of interest contains many

6.683106 second. The total time steps are set to be 300,000 design parameters with interactive effects on performance, the

(about 2 seconds of real time). For each simulation, backward influence or importance of a single parameter may not be

averaging technique is used to ensure the convergence of reliably deduced from any one model.

transient simulation. The convergence criteria in all the

simulation is set to be one count for the drag coefficient. Advanced methods that can overcome this inefficiency include,

but are not limited to, design using a response surface model.

For the simulation boundary conditions, the ambient air speed Response surface models can be used as a representative or

is set to be 120 km/h to match the speed limit on typical surrogate of the true response of CFD simulations. In this way,

Chinese highways. The Reynolds number in this case is interrogation methods such as analysis of trends, the main and

3.54106, which is the same as in the wind tunnel. There is a interaction effects of parameters, and global search of optima,

fixed turbulent intensity (0.01) and a fixed turbulent length can be performed at little or no cost once the model is built.

scale (5mm) in the simulation inlet boundary condition to Additionally, multiple response models can be built from the

estimate the turbulent state in reality. With these conditions, the same input data providing an analytical way to relate multiple

boundary layers on vehicle surface are assumed as fully objectives. This additional information extracted from the data

developed turbulent boundary layers. There is no set via the response surface model gives each individual

measurement of the laminar-turbulent transition locations on simulation more and lasting value to the process.

the vehicle surface in the wind tunnel tests. The heat

exchangers in the underhood are simulated as porous media The barrier to response surface methods being employed more

and the pressure drop coefficients are calculated by widely is the cost of constructing the data set. For simple linear

experimental data of the components from the existing vehicle. trends, one need only evaluate simulations equal to 2 times the

number of input parameters. However for more complex

systems, the general rule in generating data via Design of

Optimization Method Experiments techniques is 8-10 times the number of input

There are examples of advanced design methods for parameters. For the method described here, we are using

optimization, such as Response Surface Methods and Design adaptive sampling (AS) employing a variant of the weighted

of Experiments, of use in the automotive field [12]. However, it expected improvement function (WEIF) described by Sobester,

has not been our experience that these methods are ubiquitous et al, in [16], followed by iterative validation of optima to

in automotive design. Historically the more common method, improve local convergence. In practice we have seen this

especially in cases involving complex flow physics or method require simulations totaling 3-5 times the number of

geometrical changes that are not well understood, is input parameters.

hypothesis testing [13,14,15].

When fully realized, response surface methods allows the

Hypothesis testing begins by performing one or more engineer to focus more on creating parameters that will have

simulations on baseline geometry. From the results one can significant effects on performance while maintaining the design

reason about the behavior of the fluid system and by extension character of the vehicle. The system is then allowed to perform

reason about likely performance changes that might be the challenging tasks of finding complex trends, interactions

achieved by changing aspects of the baseline geometry. The and optima.

engineer's hypotheses are translated into geometric design

Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014) 1255

Response surface models take as input data from simulations shown in Fig. 1, is useful to simultaneously view trends in

in the form of independent and dependent variables. We refer many dimensions from a single location in the design space.

to the independent variables as the design space (DS) The two-parameter, or 2-D, visualizations, as shown in Fig. 2,

parameters and to the dependent variables as the response help predict interaction effects between parameters at a single

space (RS) parameters. As an example, a design space could location in the design space. More complex analysis of the

consist of geometric morphs of a car's front fascia, rear spoiler, response surface can be done by averaging parameter main

and rear diffuser. An example of a response space could then effects [18] over the entire design space to return which

be the car's drag coefficient, as well as front and rear lift parameters have the largest effect on the response. Finally the

coefficients. The response surface model constructs a response surface can be directly searched to find the predicted

mathematical representation of a response given the matrix of optimum configuration, or in the case of multiple responses, to

design space parameters and a vector of responses for a create a predicted Pareto front as seen in Fig. 3, in which the

series of simulations. A widely used type of response surface multiple response of the drag coefficient CD and the front lift

model is the Kriging surface [17]. The Kriging surface assumes coefficient CLf, are shown This search can also involve

trends are characterized by the following equation, restricting the design space to let the designer explore what if

scenarios.

(7)

number of simulations, is the predicted response, are

coefficients to a polynomial regression, f, of order selected by

the user, and e is white noise which is solved for via a

user-specified correlation function and the constraint that the

response must exactly pass through the available data.

analysis techniques can be used to extract information from the

data set.

Figure 2. 2-D visualization of response surface model

surface itself. This can be done by viewing the trends in one

parameter direction at a time so the response surface appears Figure 3. Pareto Front prediction via response surface model

as a line or in two parameter directions such that the response

is a visible surface. When the response surface model has

many dimensions, the one parameter, or 1-D, visualization, as

1256 Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014)

Test Method together to decide the area of changes and the ranges of each

In this study, the design improvement was driven by the change. A total of five design changes are decided, as shown

detailed analysis of simulation results and later confirmed also in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9. Because of

in simulation. The objective of the test work in this study is to confidentiality, only the cross sections instead of the geometry

validate the simulation results. For aerodynamics, the test was can be shown in this paper.

done in the aerodynamics wind tunnel of the Shanghai

Automotive Wind Tunnel Center (SAWTC). It is a closed-loop, The first design change is the boat tailing, as shown in Figure

full scale automotive wind tunnel. Its sketch is shown in Figure 5. This change is made on the rear end of the vehicle body.

4 and its parameters are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. SAWTC aerodynamic wind tunnel parameters. Figure 5. Cross section of the boat tailing feature, made on a Z axis

aligned plane, Z=1871mm.

Figure 6. This change is made on the vehicle upper body.

with a scoop and tangential blowing. It also has a five-belt road

simulation system (one centerbelt and 4 minibelts for the

wheels). In all the tests mentioned in this paper, the BLRS is

on and all the belts are moving. The velocity of the flow is set

to be the same as in simulation, which is 120 km/h, so that the

Reynolds number is also the same as in simulation.

DESIGN IMPROVEMENT

Step 1: Baseline Evaluation and Design Space

Definition Figure 6. Cross section of the tumblehome feature, made on an X

As a first step of this study, a current version of the CAS axis aligned plane, X=2943mm.

surface is simulated and its performance is evaluated as the

baseline of the study. Based on the simulation results, the The third and fourth design changes are made on the same

aerodynamics team then proposed multiple design area, the front end of the vehicle body. They are called front

improvement proposals and discussed with the styling team taper 1 and front taper 2, as shown in Figure 7 and 8.

Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014) 1257

based the linear deformation of a Non-Uniform Rational

B-Spline (NURBS) volume enclosing the effected mesh points.

So while the resulting shape change is generally linear, the

NURBS volume allows the modified surface to preserve or

smoothly vary properties like tangency, curvature and highlight

lines. This level of shape control is critical when modifying

free-from sculpted models like those created in an automotive

design studio.

axis aligned plane, X=420mm.

aligned plane, Y=0mm.

aerodynamics team and the styling team. The minimum and

maximum MSFs of each design change are listed in Table 2.

For the baseline configuration, the MSFs of all the parameters

are zero.

parameter

axis aligned plane, X=420mm.

grille and the hood leading edge, and it is called grille angle, as The design space is then defined by these five parameters.

shown in Figure 9. The objective is then to characterize the design space and

search for the optimum combination of the parameters in the

A commercial morphing tool, PowerDELTA [19], is used to design space for the best performance.

perform the morphing on the surface mesh of the vehicle body.

Each morphing parameter is an individual free-form volumetric

feature based on concepts explained by Sederberg and Perry Step 2: Design Space Characterization and

[20]. Optimization

As mentioned in the Optimization Method section above, the

These features can be controlled by a parameter called a adaptive sampling approach used here has required, in

Morphing Scale Factor (MSF). When the MSF is set to 0.0 no practice, roughly 3 - 5 runs per parameter for convergence to

deformation is applied, when the MSF is set to 1.0 the full an optimal configuration. The decrease in cost relative to

deformation is applied. When the MSF is set to any other standard Design of Experiment approaches is related to the

number (inside or outside the range) a proportional change is iterative nature of the algorithm, leveraging current trends and

made. The actual displacement of each CAE mesh point is not response surface error predictions, as well as sequential

1258 Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014)

validation runs to increase local convergence around optima. After all the simulations are done, the response surface is

For this study we have 5 parameters, thus our project run generated and used to predict the optimum in the design

budget is 15 - 25 runs. The strategy we have found to be most space. A global optimum is found by genetic algorithm in the

successful is to use adaptive sampling for small iterative response surface and the parameter combination is then used

batches followed by serial iterations of optima validation. Here for the validation of the optimum by simulation, as shown in

we have run adaptive sampling in batches of 3 following an Table 5. The predicted optimum can reduce drag by 18 counts

initial characterization using 8 runs. The project was concluded compared to the baseline.

with a single optima validation run for a total of 18 simulations.

The root mean-squared cross-validated error following the Table 5. The global optimum predicted by the response surface

adaptive sampling iterations was 0.004, however upon

validation of the predicted optima the local error was found to

be zero, signaling convergence around the predicted optima of

the response surface.

To begin the process we start with 8 simulations to initially Step 3: Validation of the Optimum

characterize the design space and create a coarsely-resolved The response surface generated from previous study predicts

response surface. The run list is generated by LHS method. a global optimum with a certain combination of the parameters.

The run list of the MSF of each parameter and the results are One simulation is then performed for the validation of the

shown in Table 3. From Table 3 we can see that all the initial optimum. The simulation result shows good agreement with the

characterization results have lower drag than the baseline. It is prediction of the response surface in that the drag number is

then indicated that the design space has a very promising exactly the same as prediction. It can then be concluded that

potential to reduce the drag. the response surface converges to the global optimum in the

design space.

Table 3. The run list and simulation results of the initial characterization

simulation The global sensitivity of each parameter is shown in Figure 10.

Here the Main Effects Sensitivity Index of each parameter is

calculated and shown in a bar chart. It can be clearly seen that

the boat tailing parameter has the most effect on drag.

having three runs, are performed to increase resolution of the

response surface model. The Adaptive Sampling (AS)

described above is used to generate each batch based on the

available simulation results. The run list and simulation results

are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. The run list and simulation results of the adaptive sampling

simulation

Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014) 1259

slices, called Kriging slices, can be used to study the local

effect of a certain design. The Kriging slices of the baseline

configuration are shown in Figure 11, where the x axis is the

MSF for each parameter, respectively and the y axis is the

delta CD (unit: count), which is the difference of the drag

coefficient between each design change (with the according

MSF) and the baseline. The baseline is highlighted as a blue

dot in all the Kriging slices. It can be seen that all the design

changes help to reduce the drag from the baseline.

optimum

Figure 11. The Kriging slices of the baseline configuration Figure 14 shows the interaction between front taper 1 and front

taper 2 while other parameters are fixed at the optimum. The

Similarly, the Kriging slices of the optimum are shown in Figure response surface shows that there is possibly another local

12. It can be clearly seen that the optimum has the lowest drag optimum in this local design space.

in the area of all the local parameter changes.

drag can be shown as a 3D surface. Figure 13 shows the

interaction between boat tailing and tumblehome while other

parameters are fixed at the optimum. The response surface

shows that there is only one optimum in this local design

space.

Figure 14. The interaction of front taper 1 and front taper 2 at the

optimum

taper 2 while other parameters are fixed at the optimum. The

response surface shows that there is possibly another local

optimum in this local design space.

1260 Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014)

Generally, the flow coming from the top of the vehicle and the

flow coming from the underbody of the vehicle join together

and form the wake structure. When the two flows meet in the

wake they will form a jet which is typically impinging to the back

of the vehicle. If the angle of this impinging jet is opposite to

ambient flow direction, then when it reaches the back face of

the vehicle it will create an additional force to push the vehicle,

and will reduce the drag, we can call this effect as pushing

effect. In the vertical centerplane, typically two vortices can be

seen, one at the top and one at the bottom. If the two vortex

cores have similar distance and far enough to the back face of

the vehicle, which is called balanced, the low pressure areas

in the vortex cores will also be far from the back face of the

vehicle. In this case the pressure on the back face of the

vehicle will be quite high and uniform. This is usually a very

good sign for good aerodynamic performance.

the wake of the baseline case (Figure 17.), the upper vortex is

farther from the vehicle back face than the lower vortex. The

low pressure region in the lower vortex is then close to the

surface of the vehicle, so the pressure on the lower surface is

lower than on the upper surface. In this case the wake is not

Figure 15. The interaction of grille angle and front taper 2 at the balanced. The impinging jet in the wake has an angle with the

optimum flow direction so the pushing effect is not ideal. In the wake of

The flow results also confirm the performance improvement of the optimum case (Figure 18.), the upper vortex and the lower

the optimum. Figure 16 shows the drag development along the vortex are almost at the same distance from the surface of the

vehicle length direction. This curve is the cumulative drag vehicle, so the low pressure regions in the vortices are also at

difference between the optimized design and the baseline the same distance from the vehicle. The surface pressure at

along the flow direction (X axis positive direction). It can be the back face of the vehicle is then quite high and uniform.

seen that the design changes to the front end of the vehicle Besides, the impinging jet in the wake is almost exactly

reduce the drag by about 5 counts, and most of the opposite to flow direction, so the pushing effect is much better

improvement is achieved at the back of the vehicle. compared to the baseline.

The flow results also show that the optimum design, compared

to the baseline, has a very balanced wake structure and very

Figure 17. The wake structure of the baseline configuration

uniform pressure distribution at the back of the vehicle, which

are all good for aerodynamics, as shown in Figure 17 and

Figure 18.

Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014) 1261

upperbody of the SUV and the underhood and underbody

components of the sedan, and the gaps are filled with clay.

There are then inevitably some geometry differences between

the simulation model and the tested clay model in these gaps,

which can result in significant difference between the

simulation results and test results. Another reason is that in

simulation we used a very big simulation volume, with a 0.1%

blockage ratio is to represent real world driving condition, while

in the aerodynamic wind tunnel of SAWTC, the blockage is

close to 10%. The difference between the baseline and the

optimum is 18 counts in simulation and only 7 counts in wind

tunnel test. This may also be explained by the reasons

mentioned above.

for the optimum shape. A total of 84 points are measured on

different locations of the vehicle body, and are compared to

simulation results. The comparison is shown in Figure 19. Here

CP is the pressure coefficient. The points are plotted by brown

Figure 18. The wake structure of the optimum configuration dots and the linear fit of all the points is shown in green dashed

line. The y=x line is shown in black solid line which means

perfect comparison. It can be seen that the green dashed line

TEST VERIFICATION

is close to the black solid line. There are two points which have

A clay model of the SUV was built and tested in the significant difference between simulation and test results. For

aerodynamic wind tunnel in SAWTC. The model is open-grille point 1, there is a logo in the test model but not in the

and has all the underhood and underbody components. The simulation model, which results in higher pressure measured in

upper body of the model was made of clay with enough test. For point 2, this point is located at the front screen header,

thickness so that it can be used for the baseline model and where the pressure gradient is quite high, so a small

later modified for the optimized model. uncertainty of the location can cause large difference in the

measured result, which could be the reason for the difference.

The comparison between simulation results and wind tunnel

test results are listed in Table 6. It should also be noted that a small consistent discrepancy

over a large area, especially over the area that is perpendicular

Table 6. The comparison between simulation results and wind tunnel

to flow direction, will also contribute to the error they are seeing

results

between the forces measured and predicted.

lower than simulation results for the baseline and 8 counts

lower for the optimum. This discrepancy is acceptable and

there could be several reasons for it. Since the scales of the

simulation model and the wind tunnel model are the same, and

the velocities in the two cases are all set to be 120 km/h, one

possible reason to the discrepancy is that there are some

geometry differences between the simulation model and the

tested clay model. The simulation model was prepared from

the CAS surface of the SUV and all the underhood and

underbody components from an existing sedan, with similar

wheelbase length. There is some rather big gaps between the

upperbody of the SUV and the floor, firewall and wheelhouses

of the sedan. In the simulation model, these gaps are manually Figure 19. The comparison of measured surface pressure in wind

closed with artificial simple surfaces because there is no CAD tunnel test and in simulation results

geometry of these gaps available at this stage of the vehicle

1262 Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014)

In the total 84 points measured, there are 28 points are located simulation results show there are 18 counts drag reduction

along the centerline of the vehicle. Figure 20 shows the (improvement) for the optimum and the test results show 8

comparison between test results and simulation results of the counts reduction. The surface pressures of 84 points on the

surface pressure along the centerline. The overall agreement is upper body of the optimum design are also measured in the

again very good. In the test, point 1 is located close to the logo wind tunnel and compared with simulation results. Overall, The

on the hood, but there is no logo in the simulation model, so discrepancies are acceptable. There are some geometry

the measured pressure can be higher than simulation because differences between the test model and simulation model, due

of the additional stagnation caused by the logo. Point 10 is to the incomplete CAD geometry in the underhood and

located at the front screen header. The difference between test underbody, which could be a reason for the discrepancies,

result and simulation result of point 10 can be caused either by while the detailed analysis of the discrepancies still needs

the geometry difference between the test model and the further investigation. This investigation work is meaningful for

simulation model or by the uncertainly of the location of the the future work so that we can better understand the

measurement. It is noted that point 19 to point 28 are all correlation between simulation and wind tunnel test results.

located at the back of the vehicle. It can be seen from Figure

17 that in the simulation result of the optimum configuration, An immediate follow-up of this work is to scan the clay model

the base pressure of the SUV is very uniform and quite high, used in the wind tunnel test and then update the simulation

which is very good for aerodynamics. In Figure 19, the surface model and simulate another case to see the effects of

pressures measured from test along these points are also very geometry differences between simulation model and the test

uniform and agree very well with the simulation results. model. The aerodynamics team will then keep on working on

the underhood and underbody of the vehicle in order to further

improve the performance.

REFERENCES

1. Hucho, W.-H., Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, Society of

Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, P., ISBN 978-0-7680-

0029-0, 1998.

2. Fu L.M., Automobile Design and Aerodynamics, China Machine

Press, Beijing, China, ISBN 9787111325154, 2011.

3. Iman, R.L.; Davenport, J.M.; Zeigler, D.K. (1980). Latin hypercube

sampling (program user's guide).

4. Chen S. and Doolen G. D., Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid

flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 30:329-364, 1998.

5. Succi S., The Lattice Boltzmann Equation for Fluid Dynamics

Figure 20. The comparison of measured surface pressure along the

and Beyond, Series Numerical Mathematics and Scientific

centerline of the vehicle in wind tunnel test and in simulation results Computation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001.

6. d'Humieres D., Lallemand P. and Qian Y. H., Lattice BGK models

for Navier-Stokes equations, Europhysics Letters, 17(6):479-484,

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS 1992.

7. Chen H., Orszag S.A., Staroselsky I. and Succi S., Expanded

In the early stage of the development of a new SUV, the shape analogy between Bolzmann kinetic theory of fluids and

of the upperbody is optimized for better aerodynamics turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. (2004), vol. 519, pp. 301-314.

performance. The work is done in three steps. First, a current 8. Chen H., Kandasamy S., Orszag S., Shock R., Succi S. and

Yakhot V., Extended Boltzmann Kinetic Equation for Turbulent

version of the upperbody geometry, with fully detailed Flows, Science, vol. 301, 633-636, 2003.

underhood and underbody geometry, is simulated by CFD as 9. Yakhot V., and Orszag S.A.,, Renormalization Group Analysis of

the baseline of the analysis to understand its performance and Turbulence. I. Basic Theory J. Sci. Comput., 1(2), 3-51, 1986.

potential areas of improvement. Based on the analysis, five 10. V. Yakhot, V., Orszag S.A., Thangam S., Gatski T., and Speziale

C., Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a

parameters (upper body design changes) are determined so double expansion technique, Phys. Fluids A, 4 (7), 1510-1520,

that a design space is defined. An adaptive sampling method is 1992.

used to generate the run list of the simulations to characterize 11. PowerFLOW Best Practices Guide, ver. 2.0 rev. 3, Exa

Corporation, 2013.

the design space and to search for the optimum with the 12. Lietz R., Vehicle Aerodynamic Shape Optimization, SAE Paper

minimum number of simulations. The optimum is calculated 2011-02-0169, 2011.

from the response surface and is later validated by CFD 13. Senthooran, S., Duncan, B., Freed, D., Hendriana, D. et al.,

Design of Roof-Rack Crossbars for Production Automobiles to

simulation. Reduce Howl Noise using a Lattice Boltzmann Scheme, SAE

Technical Paper 2007-01-2398, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-2398.

Meantime, an open-grille clay model of the SUV (baseline 14. Hallqvist T., The Cooling Airflow of Heavy Trucks - A Parametric

Study, SAE Paper 2008-01-1171, 2008.

geometry) is built and tested in the wind tunnel. Both the

15. Lepley, D., Graf, A., Powell, R., and Senthooran, S., A

baseline and the optimum are tested. For the absolute value, Computational Approach to Evaluate the Vehicle Interior Noise

the drag coefficient is 19 counts lower in the test result from Greenhouse Wind Noise Sources, SAE Technical Paper

2010-01-0285, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-0285.

compared to simulation result for the baseline configuration,

and 7 counts lower for the optimum configuration. For the delta

between the baseline and the optimum configuration, the

Sun et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 7, Issue 4 (November 2014) 1263

16. Sobester A., Leary S. J., Keane A. J., On the Design and

Optimization Strategies Based on Global Response Surface

Approximation Models, Journal of Global Optimization, 33: 31-59,

2005.

17. Cressie, N. A. C., The Origins of Kriging, Mathematical Geology,

v. 22, pp 239-252, 1990

18. Sobol I. M.: Sensitivity analysis for non-linear mathematical

models, Mathematical Modeling & Computational Experiment,

Volume 1, p.407-414 (1993).

19. PowerDELTA Users Guide, Release 2.0, Exa Corporation, 2012.

20. Sederberg, T., Perry S. Free-Form Deformation of Solid

Geometric Models Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH '86) v. 20, n.

4 pp. 151-160 198620.

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS

FAW - First Automotive Works

CAS - Computer Aided Styling

LBM - Lattice Boltzmann Method

VLES - Very Large Eddy Simulation

DWT - Digital Wind Tunnel

LHS - Latin Hypercube Sampling

AS - Adaptive Sampling

MSF - Morphing Scale Factor

SAWTC - Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the

paper.

- Estimation of Energy Dissipation Rate in a Taylor-Couette Reactor using Particle Image VelocimetryЗагружено:editor3854
- D Kivotides, A J Mee and C F Barenghi- Magnetic field generation by coherent turbulence structuresЗагружено:Pelaggio
- leibovich1978(1)Загружено:Maiman Lato
- 11.CoherentЗагружено:pratikmitra30
- MATTIA GAZZOLA _2012_C-Start Optimal Start of Larval FishЗагружено:Cao Xuan Canh
- TR-AVT-080-06Загружено:Angel Villalonga Morales
- Aerodynamic Analysis of an Isolated Vehicle WheelЗагружено:volo87
- Blade_Optimization_of_Gravitational_Wate-34-68.pdfЗагружено:JonathanI.Sisalima
- Dynamo oЗагружено:Desty Trisna Lestari
- Chapter2 Kinematics of FluidsЗагружено:Jason Ross
- Aerodynamic Flow Control for a Generic Truck Cabin Using Synthetic JetsЗагружено:Ridho Yoga TKP
- Air CannonЗагружено:John Fulks
- 3Загружено:Bảo Võ
- Welker RegsЗагружено:Chegg Chem
- 20180719-G02-EXP06Загружено:Sanjeev Manutd
- start.pdfЗагружено:Domenico Verbicaro
- M. Mokry- Numerical Modelling of Vortex Flow Instabilities and InteractionsЗагружено:Lukoe
- Design Tools for the Virtual Wind Tunnel Setting Up the Geometry for CFD Calculations - Werkplan (1)Загружено:Gerrard Laren
- Turbulence PDFЗагружено:Larry Kiptoo
- 20120013081Загружено:Sangeeth Roshan
- 10 NEELAM.pdfЗагружено:aaaxxx
- Effect of Vortex Generators on the Flow Over Circular CylindersЗагружено:Arvind Rajan
- Three Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers Part i Foundation and Fluid MechanicsЗагружено:Altamash Munir
- 83_10_SinghSNЗагружено:Parul Chadha
- A Three-fluid Model of Two-phase Dispersed-Annular FlowЗагружено:Molly0630
- Numerical Heat Transfer -Paper1Загружено:Sandeep Bhaskar
- 083 Martin RotorЗагружено:marintraian
- An introduction to turbulence modelsЗагружено:Alfonso Cubillos
- Numerical models for centrifugal fan performance and noise analysisЗагружено:itakoto
- Simic h 2014Загружено:brgr

- ConnectionsЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Sprayer Parts NotesЗагружено:Aham Gty
- 12 Device TopicsЗагружено:Aham Gty
- 6AE5A Vehicle Body and AerodynamicsЗагружено:Aham Gty
- 7ae 1a Vehicle DynamicsЗагружено:Aham Gty
- CaaeЗагружено:Aham Gty
- 7th sem VDЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Assignment KomЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Format SynopsisЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Study of Airfoil Design for Low VwlocityЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Earth BatteryЗагружено:Syar Arif
- 7ME4A. Vehicle Dynamics Lession PlaneЗагружено:Aham Gty
- GST Invoice Format ExcelЗагружено:Aham Gty
- draft-formats-under-invoice-rules.pdfЗагружено:SAN
- Experimental TableЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Solid StateЗагружено:Aham Gty
- physics 11 and 12th.pdfЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Difference Between Fdm Fem and FvmЗагружено:Aham Gty
- ME6603 Finite Element Analysis.pdfЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Finite Element Analysis NotesЗагружено:vishnuvikasd
- automechenicaЗагружено:Aham Gty
- Automotive Painting ProcessesЗагружено:Aham Gty
- required essential process to paint a carЗагружено:Aham Gty
- DM_12_CH08_concept_modeling_WS1.pptЗагружено:Aham Gty
- WS-07 Beam Shell ModelingЗагружено:Aham Gty
- 92335159 Chapter 2 Parametric Analysis in ANSYS Workbench Using ANSYS FLUENTЗагружено:Tounsi Twensa

- M01 NSX Design NetworkingЗагружено:srikrishna1082
- A One Dollar Compound MicroscopeЗагружено:littlekitten
- iw3htp5_10.pdfЗагружено:kashifbilal
- FvDesigner_User_Manual_en.pdfЗагружено:Quipuscoa Roger
- At Commands Interface GuideЗагружено:Solomon Genene
- F-39795Загружено:Jorge Regalado
- Chapter 4 SlidesЗагружено:mekonen
- Cable boxЗагружено:VardaShahid
- Unit 1 Hydrology NotesЗагружено:siddhantkankrej
- TSM OnemarkЗагружено:porseena
- New Acorn 180Загружено:Anonymous KG9ThLMmA
- Chapter 6.1Загружено:03456940720
- RIL Placement PaperЗагружено:Ishit Dhada
- 293149557-Diaphragm-Wall.pdfЗагружено:gsoosu123
- Arraylist,Hashtable,DictionaryЗагружено:Manoj Kavedia
- 40007_Chapter8Загружено:asimi
- Myocardial Dysfunction in Malnourished ChildrenЗагружено:aandaku
- Document (6)Загружено:Febry Daulays
- Magnetic Susceptibility of Geologic MaterialsЗагружено:velkus2013
- 12A Dispatching Method for Trucks at Container Terminal by Using Fuzzy-CNP Concept.pdfЗагружено:Emanuel Almeida Pastl
- 1-Syringe-Siliconisation-Trends-Methods-Analysis-Procedures.pdfЗагружено:SofiaProtopsalti
- Ramsden-Thermal-Comfort-in-UK-Churches-AEES-MSc-Thesis.pdfЗагружено:Najam24
- 17. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (2010), 53(12), 4654-4667Загружено:James Tian
- Matiss MalahsЗагружено:Antonio Takeshi
- Hydrology Report FinalЗагружено:tobinare
- SalinityЗагружено:Emilio Guala
- ME2307 Lab Manual[1]Загружено:Radhaboy Karthi
- Metallurgy and Material Science - Module 1Загружено:Devasivan Csr
- Paper 3 Answering TechniquesЗагружено:Chithiran Cullen
- Annual Review MembranesЗагружено:aokay1123

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.