UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE

CFD Analysis of Roll

Cages
MECH4580 Major Project
c3146568

Abstract

The following things can be resoundingly concluded from this investigation:

The drop in performance associated with adding a full cage is negligible

(at a max speed of 200km/hr only 2% of total power is lost), but comes
with a decrease in down-force of 12%
The addition of a thin roof in prescribed circumstances compensates for
the full cages drop in down force, while also introducing minimal
additional power loss.
Page 1 3146568

A domed structure will undoubtedly reduce passenger buffeting in the car.

Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 3
Modelling............................................................................................................... 3
Geometry........................................................................................................... 3
Half Cage......................................................................................................... 3
Half Cage Hooded......................................................................................... 4
Full Cage.......................................................................................................... 4
Full Cage Roofed........................................................................................... 5
Computational Fluid Dynamics...........................................................................5
Meshing and Statistics..................................................................................... 5
Results and Discussion.......................................................................................... 6
Addition of Full Cage........................................................................................... 6
Addition of a Roof............................................................................................... 7
Comparison of Half Cage, Full Cage, and Roof models.......................................7
Addition of Dome................................................................................................ 8
Flow Visualisations.............................................................................................. 8
Half Cage......................................................................................................... 8
Full Cage.......................................................................................................... 8
Half Cage Hooded......................................................................................... 8
Full Cage Roofed........................................................................................... 8
Conclusion............................................................................................................. 8
References............................................................................................................. 8
Appendix................................................................................................................ 9
Half Cage............................................................................................................ 9
Full Cage........................................................................................................... 10
Half Cage Hooded.......................................................................................... 10
Full Cage Roofed............................................................................................ 11

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 2 3146568

Introduction
A roll cage is a frame designed to form an exo-cage around the passenger of a
vehicle to protect them from injury, particularly pertaining to roll overs. There are
a number of varieties of roll cage offering varying degrees of encapsulation and
touting different safety standards. One such variety is a half roll cage, or simply
roll bar; essentially a hoop behind the headrests that triangulates the car when
upside down. A full roll cage generally has four pillars and cross supports that
enclose the occupant of the car.

The full roll cage is more beneficial from a structural and therefore safety
standing: it is more rigid and less prone to failure, and also physically blocks
more than the half cage. However, there is debate among kit car enthusiasts that
the addition of such a full roll cage introduces significant Aerodynamic drag,
which results in a tangible power loss and performance drop.

It is this reports intention to investigate whether adding a full cage causes any
significantly increases in drag forces (and thus, power losses). This problem is
obviously widely applicable to all racing automobiles, but the scope shall be
restricted to a Clubman kit car, modelled from a provided scale chassis model
and photographs.

As a further matter of interest, it is this projects intention to investigate the

optimisation of down force and the minimisation of passenger buffeting.

Modelling
The modelling approach in this investigation can be summarised as being
comparative, not replicative. The scope of the project focuses on establishing a
rough trend, but does not aim to find exact values for power losses. Therefore,
the models used do not need to exactly match a real life specimen, but are
intended only to mimic flow scenarios to compare the effects of key geometry
changes. With this in mind, the following simplifications and assumptions were
made in modelling

No complex cabin geometry was modelled: a square cavity was used

A passenger of appropriate stature was situated in the drivers side, with a
circular head and peak representing a helmet.
The rear of the car was modelled essentially the same as the chassis scale
model
The curves of the cars front were all approximated from photographs
Wheels were based on standard 600mm diameter wheels

Most geometry was generated from sensible estimation and kit car owner
forums.

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 3 3146568

Geometry
Creo Parametric 2.0 was used as the CAD modelling package for geometry
generation.

Half Cage
The dimensions of this model form the basis of all subsequent models. Changes
are only made to key components being examined. The windshield was
previously made to match reality more closely, but caused an inordinate number
of problems in ANSYS due to errors in meshing solids defined by surface
modelling. It was deemed that the windshield was reasonably insignificant to
comparative analysis, so was simplified to an extrude

Figure 1: Half Roll-Cage

Half Cage Hooded

The only main difference between the hooded model and the half cage model is
the addition of a dome behind the passengers back and head.

Figure 2: Half roll cage with head hooding

Full Cage
The full cage essentially extends the half cage to having four pillars and 2 cross
struts. The thicknesses of the beams were based on 45mm, an oft quoted figure
on locost forums and other open discussion boards related to clubman cars [1],[2].
The basic frame for the cage below taken from [3].

Figure 3: Full roll cage

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 4 3146568

Full Cage Roofed

The roofed model is essentially the same model as the full roll cage model, only
with an extruded 5mm thickness over the top. Again, this geometry is not
modelled on the exact form of the final product, but is more intended to capture
the general trend introduced when adding a roof.

Figure 4: Full roll cage with solid roofing

Computational Fluid Dynamics

ANSYS 15.0 CFX models were used for all CFD analysis. K-Epsilon was used as the
solver to minimise the computational and time demands of the simulations.
Speeds were based on the clubmans actual speeds. While max speed is
nominally 200km/hr or so [1], 300km/hr was investigated as well, largely out of
interest: this speed is unlikely to be reached in the physical world.

Domain size was chosen to be relatively small, again to keep computational

demands low. The domain touched the bottom of the tyres, and extended for half
the width of the car on either side, a 3 times the height of the car and about 6
times the length of the car.

4 geometries, each at 3 speeds, with each simulation running for about an hour
means approximately 12 hours was used to simulate (not counting all the
previous test simulations etc)

Meshing and Statistics

Half Half Cage - Full Full Cage -
Cage Hooded Cage Roof

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 5 3146568

Node 308,847 305,472 470,031 491,012

s
Table 1: Comparisons of node numbers in ANSYS meshes

For the full monitor plots and skewness metrics of each simulation, see the
Appendix.

Meshing
Inflation layers were placed on the roll cages and passengers in every simulation.
These were based on a first layer thickness of 0.5mm and a 1.15 growth rate, for
a max of about 20 layers. An inflation layer was also placed on passenger in the
hooded and half cage models, so that the forces on the passenger could be more
accurately compared.

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 6 3146568

Results and Discussion

Addition of Full Cage
The following table shows the drag and down forces for the half cage and full
cage models, to show the increase in drag this change incurs. As a means of
putting the drag results in perspective, the variable Power Sap is introduced.
Given

Ploss=V F d

The power loss associated with changing from the Half cage to the full cage is

Ploss=V (F d , full cageF d ,half cage )

This power loss can then be represented as a percentage of the clubmans max
power (given as 150 HP at the wheels, or 111kW).

Spee Half Full % Power % Drain of

d Cage Cage Increase Sap (kW) max
(km/h (N) (N) power
r)
Drag 308.17 318.21 3.258 0.279 0.25
Force
100 Down 171.96 146.64 -14.724 - -
Force
Y+ 677.44 734.75 - - -
Drag 1225.3 1265.3 3.265 2.222 2.001
Force
200 Down 696.69 606.76 -12.908 - -
Force
Y+ 1273 1378.7 - - -
Drag 2733.8 2812.3 2.871 6.542 5.894
Force
300 Down 1470.8 1253.3 -14.788 - -
Force
Y+ 1828.7 1979.7 - - -
Table 2: Comparisons between drag, down-force and associated power losses in the full
and half roll cage models

To put these percentage power losses in perspective, The Consumer Energy

Centre of California quotes the following percentage losses as standard for an
average car, and by reasonable extension, the car being considered:

2.6% from Aerodynamic drag

4.2% from Rolling Resistance

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 7 3146568

5.6%Driveline Losses
[5]
5.8% Braking and Inertial Losses

While these values would not exactly match that of the clubman, it is reasonable
to assume they are a good ballpark approximation. With that in mind, and
considering the clubman would realistically be maxing out at 200km/hr, a 2%
additional loss in power from the full cage is largely insignificant. The
performance loss is insignificant enough to be largely ignored in the
interest of improving safety with the full cage.

Addition of a Roof
Speed Half Full Cage % Power %Drain of
(km/h Cage with Roof Increas Sap max
r) (N) (N) e (kW) power
200 Drag 1225.3 1272.6 3.860 2.628 2.367
Force
Down 696.69 682.506 -2.036 - -
Force
Y+ 1273 3797.6 - - -
Table 3: Comparisons between drag, down-force and associated power losses in the half
cage and roofed models

It is clear that again, the % drain of max power is fairly low for the addition of a
roof. To better put this into perspective, compare the effects of power loss when
converting from a half cage below:

Speed Full Cage (% Power Full Cage with Roof (%

(km/hr) loss) power loss)
100 0.25 -
200 2.00 2.37
300 5.89 -
Table 4: Power losses in the 2 models

It is clear from Table 4 that the addition of a roof only adds 0.37% power loss
compared to converting from half to full cage. This investigation finds that for
these particular circumstances the addition of a thin roof benefits the
down force of the clubman with a minimal trade off in performance.
However, intensive analysis of the roofed model at different angles and wind
speeds will need to be carried out, and a more complex roof shaped devised for
these tests. In this way, the roofs effect in more complicated scenarios (cresting
a hill for instance) can be evaluated.

Speed Half to Full Cage Half cage to Full Cage

(km/hr (% change) with Roof (% change)
)
200 Down -12.91% -2.04%
Force

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 8 3146568

Table 5: Comparison of Down force between full cage and roof models

The table above shows the drops in down force when going from a half cage to
full cage, and also a half cage to full cage with roof. It is clear that a substantial
amount of down force is lost with the addition of the full cage: this is
most likely owing to the front bars of the cage disrupting the smoother flow over
the car which presses it down onto the road (see Flow Visualisations). In the
full cage with roof, the drop in down force is much less significant, and
would likely not affect the overall handling of the clubman. This is most
likely due to the fact that the roof angles downward facing the flow, which
pushes the structure down onto the road (see smoother streamlines in flow
visualisations).

Comparison of Half Cage, Full Cage, and Roof models

From the following figure, it is clear that there is minimal difference between the
three models in terms of total drag force. Recall that while these exact values are
dubious, the trends observed are sound, as the geometry modelled is
comparative.

Comparison of Drag forces

3000

2500

2000
Half Cage
Drag Force (N) 1500 Full Cage
1000 Roof Full Cage

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Speed (km/hr)

Figure 5: Comparing Drag forces with half cage, full cage and roofed models.

Addition of Dome
T
a
Speed Half Cage (Force Half Cage with Hood % b
l (km/hr) on Head N) (Force on Head N) Decre e
6 ase :
100 3.27 0.46 85.88%
200 12.73 4.10 67.82%
300 27.44 7.92 71.16%
Comparisons between drag, down-force and associated power losses in the domed and
half cage models

It is evident from the results above that the addition of a domed structure
behind the passengers head decreases the force on the passenger
substantially; the simulation suggests a 75% reduction on average. While this

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 9 3146568

exact value is fraught with potential error due to modelling simplifications, the
trend is undeniable. Further analysis would be again needed, with a more refined
and accurate model of a dome behind the passenger head.

Discussion on CFX analysis

The simulation monitor plots (included in the Appendix) did not converge to
1E04. This was not deemed overly important as the solutions were observed to
converge relatively well with only minor oscillations at extended times, and were
usually close to 1E04 when the solutions timed out at 100 iterations. For further
improvements to be made, the solution time should be increased to 150 to try
and get the simulations to converge.

The high Y+ values reported in the above results were global maximums: they
occurred in areas (particularly under the car where velocity tend to intensify due
to narrow openings) where geometries are largely ineffective on the desired. At
areas of interest such as the car body and roll cage, the Y plus maximum values
were always between 30 and 100. This means that the results on these areas are
valid for the K-Epsilon solver (the range of valid Y+ values for K-Epsilon is 30 to
100[4]). Further mesh refinement (beyond the scope of this report and the
hardware/time given) would be required to remove these high Y+ values.

Conclusion
The following things can be resoundingly concluded from this investigation:

The drop in performance associated with adding a full cage is negligible

(at a max speed of 200km/hr only 2% of total power is lost), but comes
with a decrease in down-force of 12%
The addition of a thin roof in prescribed circumstances compensates for
the full cages drop in down force, while also introducing minimal
additional power loss.
A domed structure will undoubtedly reduce passenger buffeting in the car.

The following things could be improved or need to be investigated in more depth

to draw any further conclusions:

Mesh statistics (namely lowering Y+ everwhere in the mesh)

More accurate modelling of geometry and additions of roofs, hoods etc
Use of more accurate turbulence modelling (i.e. use SST with a Y+<1)
Investigate the flow in a number of different driving scenarios (oscillating
wind, cornering or cresting a hill etc)

References
[1] http://www.locost.ozcarnut.com/

[2] http://www.prbaustralia.com.au/

[3] http://www.agi-precision.com.au/roll-cages/roll-cage/

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 10 3146568

[4] http://www.computationalfluiddynamics.com.au/tips-tricks-turbulence-wall-
functions-and-y-requirements/

[5]
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_ener
gy_losses.html

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 11 3146568

Appendix A CFD Results

Half Cage

Full Cage

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 12 3146568

Half Cage Hooded

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 13 3146568

Full Cage Roofed

Half Cage

control

Full Cage
Appendix B - Flow Visualisations -more extensive
breaking of flow
Vector Plots
than half cage.

Hooded Model

-note smooth flow

over car, +
different flow in
the cabin

Roof Model

-note smoother
flow curves than
the full cage.
MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages
Page 14 3146568

Pressure Iso-surfaces

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 15 3146568

These plots effectively

show areas greater than
an arbitrary pressure
value: here used as a
comparative metric to
show areas where
increased pressures are
introduced. Things to
note

Roll cages are

obvious areas for this,
and the full cage adds more bars.
The hooded model adds practically no more regions of high pressure
The roof adds only a few more regions of high pressure.

Additional Streamline Observations

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 16 3146568

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages

Page 17 3146568

Illustrates buffeting
on the passenger

Illustrates baffling
effect of roll cage

Illustrates buffeting
on the passenger

MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages