Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 91

CFD STUDY OF DRAG REDUCTION OF A GENERIC SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE

Pramod Nari Krishnani


B.S., Mumbai University, Mumbai, India 2006

THESIS

Submitted in partial satisfaction of


the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

at

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

FALL
2009
CFD DRAG REDUCTION OF A GENERIC SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE

A Thesis

by

Pramod Nari Krishnani

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair


Dr. Dongmei Zhou

__________________________________, Second Reader


Dr. Ilhan Tuzcu

____________________________
Date

ii
Student: Pramod Nari Krishnani

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University

format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to

be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________


Dr. Kenneth S. Sprott Date

Department of Mechanical Engineering

iii
Abstract

of

CFD DRAG REDUCTION OF A GENERIC SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE

by

Pramod Nari Krishnani

In the history of aerodynamic research around the bluff bodies like SUV, trucks and

trailers, it has always been observed that their shapes with square base have served as an

obstacle improving vehicle fuel economy. When the air passes over the vehicle surface, it

makes the air over the surface change its behavior, resulting in a low pressure region

and a high pressure region. This pressure difference along with the vortex shedding

causes drag thereby increases the fuel consumption.

Researchers around the world have tried to reduce the drag of trailers or truck by

using external devices like spoilers, vortex strake device (VCD) and under-carriage flow

device (UFD). The purpose of this thesis is to check the feasibility of using such external

devices for reducing drag on the large size SUV. The generic SUV model created by

previous research experiments along with the Ahmed's reference model is considered as

a benchmark for validating all the simulation results.

Simple external devices like boat tail plate and the foot step are simulated and

optimized using commercial software packages like FLUENT, GAMBIT, T-grid and

Solidworks. Fifteen different angular combinations of upper and lower boat tail plates

are simulated and optimized to get the best angle suitable for drag reduction of Generic
iv
SUV model. The second external device commonly known as the foot step is simulated

with five configurations by varying the width of the foot step. The foot step bypasses the

air around the rear wheel and thereby reduces drag coefficient of the complete SUV

model compared to the original SUV model. The optimal sizes of the width favorable for

the drag reduction are discussed in this thesis.

_______________________, Committee Chair


Dr. Dongmei Zhou

_______________________
Date

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Dongmei Zhou for her guidance and

support in the completion of my thesis. My thesis would have never been completed

without her. I would like to thank Mr. Bahram Khalighi (Aerodynamic Manager, GM)

for sharing the results of the experiments. Also, I will like to thank Dr. C.P. CASE Van

Dam for his valuable advice at hard times of my Thesis. Lastly, I will like to thank the

Department of Mechanical Engineering at California State University, Sacramento for the

encouragement and help to complete my Master in Mechanical Engineering.

Pramod Nari Krishnani


B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Mumbai University, 2006
INDIA

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ x
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter
1. AUTOMOBILE AERODYNAMICS... ............................................................................... 1
1.1 What is Aerodynamics? ...................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of Automobile Aerodynamics .................................................................... 2
1.3 External flow phenomena of Automobile ............................................................ 4
1.4 Factors contributing to flow field around vehicle................................................. 6
1.5 Forces and moment on vehicle ................................................................................ 8

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF CFD IN VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS ................................. 12


2.1 What is CFD? ............................................................................................................ 12
2.2 Outline of Computational Fluid Dynamic Process ................................................... 12
2.3 Meshing or pre-processing ........................................................................................ 13
2.4 Numerical Solver ...................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Post processor ........................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Summary .................................................................................................................... 15

3. SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLE .......................................................................................... 16


3.1 Introduction to SUV .................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Historical Drag and Frontal Area trends ................................................................... 17
3.3 Shape changes affecting Drag ................................................................................... 19
3.4 Effect of Accessories on Drag.................................................................................... 21

vii
4. VALIDATION OR BENCHMARK OF CFD MODEL.................................................... 23
4.1 Introduction to Benchmarking procedure ................................................................. 23
4.2 Wind tunnel Experiment ............................................................................................ 24
4.2.1 Wind tunnel facility ........................................................................................... 24
4.2.2 SUV Generic Model .......................................................................................... 26
4.2.3 Experiment results ............................................................................................ 28
4.3 Numerical Simulation ................................................................................................ 31
4.3.1 CAD SUV Generic Model ................................................................................. 31
4.3.2 Virtual Wind Tunnel and Vehicle Orientation................................................... 32
4.3.3 Discretisation (or Meshing) setup ...................................................................... 34
4.3.4 Solver Setting ..................................................................................................... 38
4.3.5 Simulation results .............................................................................................. 40
4.4 Benchmark Conclusion .............................................................................................. 47

5. EFECTS OF BOAT TAIL PLATE ON OVERALL DRAG................................... .......... 48


5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 48
5.2 CAD Model of Boat tail plate .................................................................................... 48
5.3 Optimization Process details ...................................................................................... 50
5.4 Virtual Wind Tunnel and Vehicle Orientation ........................................................... 52
5.5 Discretisation (or Meshing) setup and Solver Setting ................................................ 52
5.6 Simulations results and discussion ............................................................................. 53
5.7 Summary .................................................................................................................... 60

6. EFFECT OF FOOT STEP ON OVERALL DRAG................................... ........................ 61


6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 61
6.2 CAD Model of foot step ............................................................................................ 62
6.3 Optimization Process details ...................................................................................... 63
6.4 Virtual Wind Tunnel and Vehicle Orientation ........................................................... 63
6.5 Discretisation (or Meshing) setup and Solver Setting ................................................ 64
6.6 Simulations results and discussion ............................................................................. 66
6.7 Summary .................................................................................................................... 71
viii
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK........................................................................... 72
7.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 72
7.2 Future work ............................................................................................................... 73

References ............................................................................................................................... 75

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page

1. Table 3.1 Typical increase in drag for the various accessories [1] ...22

2. Table 4.1 Solver setting.39

3. Table 4.2 Viscous model and Turbulence model settings.39

4. Table 4.3 Boundary condition settings..39

5. Table 5.1 Simulation details of Boat tail plates.51

6. Table 5.2 Drag and Lift results of all the simulations [26]59

7. Table 6.1 Dimensional details of all the simulation on SUV foot step..63

8. Table 6.2 Details drag value of each surfaces of SUV for all simulations69

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page

1. Figure 1.1 Spectrum of Task for vehicle Aerodynamics [24].....3

2. Figure 1.2 Typical Fuel Energy usage at urban and highway driving [24].....3

3. Figure 1.3 Streamline external flows around a stationary vehicle [25]...5

4. Figure 1.4 Sketch views of the various forces and moment on


vehicle body [24].....8

5. Figure 3.1 Twenty year trend of drag coefficient in SUV [1]...17

6. Figure 3.2 Twenty year trend of Frontal Area in SUV [1]........19

7. Figure 3.3 Shape changes to reduce the Drag Coefficient [1]..20

8. Figure 3.4 Loaded off-road SUV with all the accessories [1].......21

9. Figure 4.1 Wind tunnel experimental configuration at University of Michigan [22]


................................................................................................................................24

10. Figure 4.2 Schematic diagram of Experimental setup [2] ........25

11. Figure 4.3 Dimensions of the Generic SUV model[2]..27

12. Figure 4.4 Mean pressure coefficient plot on the symmetry plane of
SUV[2]...28

13. Figure 4.5 Downstream mean velocity profiles in the horizontal center
plane[2]..30

14. Figure 4.6 Surfaces of the SUV CAD model.31

15. Figure 4.7 SUV orientations in the first benchmarking simulation...33

16. Figure 4.8 SUV orientations in the second benchmarking simulation..34

17. Figure 4.9 Details view of unstructured cells near the


wheels[26]..35

xi
18. Figure 4.10 Hex core refinement regions of first benchmark
simulation[26]....36

19. Figure 4.11 Unstructured mesh refinement region view of second benchmark
simulation...38

20. Figure 4.12 Cab Cp plot comparison with experiment for first
benchmark[26]...40

21. Figure 4.13 Underbody Cp plot comparison with experiment for first
benchmark[26]...41

22. Figure 4.14 Cab Cp plot comparison with experiment for second
benchmark..42

23. Figure 4.15 Underbody Cp plot comparison with experiment for second
benchmark..42

24. Figure 4.16 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m
and X = 5.484m.44

25. Figure 4.17 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m
and X = 5.784m.45

26. Figure 4.18 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m
and X = 6.384m.45

27. Figure 4.19 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m
and X = 6.984m.46

28. Figure 4.20 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m
and X = 7.584m.....................46

29. Figure 4.21 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m
and X = 8.184m.47

30. Figure 5.1 Orientation of Boat tail plates...49

31. Figure 5.2 Side view of Boat tail plate along with dimensions.50

32. Figure 5.3 SUV orientation....52

xii
33. Figure 5.4 Hybrid Mesh near the upper boat tail plate..53

34. Figure 5.5 Total Pressure Contour of the Benchmark Simulation at symmetry
plane..54

35. Figure 5.6 Total Pressure Contour of the A10B10 Simulation at symmetry
plane..55

36. Figure 5.7 Total Pressure Contour of the A20B20 Simulation at symmetry
plane...55

37. Figure 5.8 Magnitude velocity path lines for simulation 1 to 10[26]... 57

38. Figure 5.9 Magnitude velocity path lines for simulation 11 to 15[26]..58

39. Figure 5.10 Drag and lift coefficient variation for all the simulations..59

40. Figure 6.1 Foot Step of SUV vehicle[5]... 61

41. Figure 6.2 Surfaces of the Foot step installed on SUV..62

42. Figure 6.3 SUV orientations for foot step simulations..64

43. Figure 6.4 Mesh view at the plane near the foot step65

44. Figure 6.5 Drag coefficient plot for all the simulations on foot step.66

45. Figure 6.6 Total Pressure contour for all the simulations at Y= 0.79m.67

46. Figure 6.7 Pressure coefficient variations for all foot step simulations ....68

47. Figure 7.1 Vortex strake device from DOE 2004 Paper[14] 74

xiii
1

Chapter 1

AUTOMOBILE AERODYNAMICS

1.1 WHAT IS AERODYNAMICS?

Aerodynamics is a branch of fluid dynamics concerned with studying the motion of

air, particularly when it interacts with a moving object. Aerodynamics is also a subfield

gas dynamics, with much theory shared with fluid dynamics. Aerodynamics is often used

synonymously with gas dynamics, with the difference being that gas dynamics applies to

all gases. Understanding the motion of air (often called a flow field) around an object

enables the calculation of forces and moments acting on the object. Typical properties

calculated for a flow field include velocity, pressure, density and temperature as a

function of position and time. By defining a control volume around the flow field,

equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy can be defined and used

to solve for the properties. The use of aerodynamics through mathematical analysis,

empirical approximation and wind tunnel experimentation form the scientific basis.

Aerodynamics and its analysis are basically divided into two major sub-categories,

namely the external and internal aerodynamics. External aerodynamics is the study of

flow around solid objects of various shapes. Evaluating the lift and drag on an airplane,

the shock waves that form in front of the nose of a rocket, or the flow of air over a wind

turbine blade are examples of external aerodynamics. On the other hand, internal

aerodynamics is the study of flow through passages in solid objects. For instance, internal
2

aerodynamics encompasses the study of the airflow through a jet engine or through an air

conditioning pipe.

Apparently, this thesis work concentrates more on the external category of the

aerodynamics related to Sport Utility vehicle.

1.2 SCOPE OF AUTOMOBILE AERODYNAMICS

The rapidly increasing fuel prices and the regulation of green house gasses to control

global warming have given tremendous pressure on the design engineers to enhance the

current designs of the automobile using minimal changes in the shapes. To full fill the

above requirements, design engineers have been using the concepts of aerodynamics to

enhance the efficiency of automobiles.

The Figure 1.1 shows the spectrum of task for vehicle aerodynamics. The figure

illustrates the various problems which can be solved using the aerodynamics of the

vehicle. Aerodynamics is used by design engineers for cooling the engines, improving the

performance of the vehicle, enhancing the comfort of the rider, stabilizing the car in

external wind conditions and also increasing the visibility of the rider.

Although aerodynamics has so many tasks in its basket, this thesis concentrates on

external devices which affect the flow around the automobile body to reduce the

resistance of the vehicle in normal working conditions.


3

Figure 1.1 Spectrum of Task for vehicle Aerodynamics [24]

Figure 1.2 Typical Fuel Energy usage at urban and highway driving [24]
4

The Figure 1.2 shows the description of the fuel energy used in a modern vehicle at

urban driving and highway driving. The shape of the vehicle uses about 3 % of fuel to

overcome the resistance in urban driving, while it takes 11% of fuel for the highway

driving. This considerable high value of fuel usage in highway driving attracts several

design engineers to enhance the aerodynamics of the vehicle using minimal design

changes. This brings the idea of using external devices which could be attached to the

present vehicle without changing the body. This thesis is based on the design and

developments of external devices which will let the manufacturers of Sport Utility

Vehicle (especially known as SUV) make the present vehicles more aerodynamically

attractive.

1.3 EXTERNAL FLOW PHENOMENA OF AUTOMOBILE

The Figure 1.3 shows the streamline of an external flow around a stationary vehicle.

When the vehicle is moving at an undistributed velocity, the viscous effects in the fluid

are restricted to a thin layer called boundary layer. Outside the boundary layer is the

inviscid flow. . This fluid flow imposes pressure force on the boundary layer. When the

air reaches the rear part of the vehicle, the fluid gets detached. Within the boundary layer,

the movement of the fluid is totally governed by the viscous effects of the fluid.
5

Figure 1.3 Streamline of external flows around a stationary vehicle [25]

The boundary does not exist for the Reynolds Number which is lower than 104. The

Reynolds number is dependent on the characteristic length of the vehicle, the kinematic

viscosity and the speed of the vehicle. Apparently, the fluid moving around the vehicle is

dependent on the shape of the vehicle and the Reynolds number. There is another

important phenomenon which affects the flow of the car and the performance of the

vehicle. This phenomenon is commonly known as Wake of the vehicle. When the air

moving over the vehicle is separated at the rear end, it leaves a large low pressure

turbulent region behind the vehicle known as the wake. This wake contributes to the

formation of pressure drag, which is eventually reduces the vehicle performance.


6

1.4 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO FLOW FIELD AROUND VEHICLE

The major factors which affect the flow field around the vehicle are the boundary

layers, separation of flow field, friction drag and lastly the pressure drag.

BOUNDARY LAYER: The Aerodynamics boundary layer was first defined by the

Aerodynamic engineer Ludwig Prandtl in the conference at Germany. This allows

aerodynamicists to simplify the equations of fluid flow by dividing the flow field into two

areas: one inside the boundary layer and the one outside the boundary layer. In this

boundary layer around the vehicle, the viscosity is dominant and it plays a major role in

drag of the vehicle. The viscosity is neglected in the fluid regions outside this boundary

layer since it does not have significant effect on the solution. In the design of the body

shape, the boundary layer is given high attention to reduce drag. There are two reasons

why designers consider the boundary layer as a major factor in aerodynamic drag. The

first is that the boundary layer adds to the effective thickness of the body, through the

displacement thickness, hence increasing the pressure drag. The second reason is that the

shear forces at the surface of the vehicle causes skin friction drag.

SEPARATION: During the flow over the surface of the vehicle, there is a point when the

change in velocity comes to stall and the fluid starts flowing in reverse direction. This

phenomenon is called Separation of the fluid flow. This is usually occurred at the rear

part of the vehicle. This separation is highly dependent on the pressure distribution

which is imposed by the outer layer of the flow. The turbulent boundary layer can
7

withstand much higher pressure without separating as compared to laminar flow. This

separation causes the flow to change its behavior behind the vehicle and thereby affect

the flow field around the vehicle. This phenomenon is the major factor to be considered

while studying the wake of the vehicle.

FRICTION DRAG: Each wall surface or material has a distinct friction which resists the

flow of fluids. Due to molecular friction, a stress acts on every surface of the vehicle. The

integration of the corresponding force component in the free stream direction leads to a

friction drag. If the separation does not occur, then friction drag is one of the main

reasons to cause overall drag.

PRESSURE DRAG: The blunt bodies like large size vehicle show different drag

characteristics. On the rear part of such vehicles, there is an extremely steep pressure

gradient which leads to the separation of the flow separation in viscous flow. The front

part of the flow field shows high pressure value, whereas on the rear part flow separates

leading to a high suction in the area. As we integrate the force component created by such

high change in pressure, the resultant is called as Pressure Drag. This factor is affected

by the height of the vehicle as well as the separation of the flow field.
8

1.5 FORCES AND MOMENT ON VEHICLE

When the vehicle is moving at a considerable speed, the air passing over it

imposes various forces and moment on the vehicle. The Figure 1.4 shows the details

sketch view of the various forces and moment acting on the vehicle body.

Figure 1.4 Sketch views of the various forces and moment on vehicle body [24]

The vertical force acting on the body indicated by the letter L is known as Lift

force. This force causes the vehicle to get lifted in air as applied in the positive direction,

whereas it can result in excessive wheel down force if it is applied in negative direction.

Engineers try to keep this value to a required limit to avoid excess down force or lift.
9

The formula usually used to define this force is written as:

1
= 2 2 ------------------------------------------ (1)

where:

= Lift Force

= Lift Coefficient

= Frontal Area of the Vehicle

Aerodynamic drag force is the force acting on the vehicle body resisting its

forward motion. This force is an important force to be considered while designing the

external body of the vehicle, since it covers about 65% of the total force acting on the

complete body. The Aerodynamic drag force is calculated by the following formula:
1
= 2 2 ------------------------------------------ (2)

where

= Aerodynamic Drag coefficient

= Frontal Area of the Vehicle

= Air Density

The sideforce is crosswind acting on the vehicle and under the steady state wind

conditions the equation for sideforce calculation is expressed as:


10

1
= 2 2 ------------------------------------------ (3)

where:

= Sideforce

= Total Wind Velocity

= Sideforce Coefficient (Function of the Relative Wind Angle)

= Frontal Area of the Vehicle

The pitching moment, N, transfers weight between the front and rear axles and is

represented by the following equation:


1
= 2 2 ------------------------------------------ (4)

where:

= Pitching Moment

= Pitching Moment Coefficient

= Frontal Area of the Vehicle

= Wheelbase

Crosswinds produce a sideforce on a vehicle that acts at the middle of the

wheelbase, and when the crosswinds do not act at the middle of the wheelbase a yawing

moment is produced. The yawing moment is represented by the following equation:


11

1
= 2 2 ------------------------------------------ (5)

where:

= Yawing Moment

= Yawing Moment Coefficient (Varies with Wind Direction)

= Frontal Area of the Vehicle

= Wheelbase

When the crosswind produces a sideforce at an elevated point on a vehicle, a

rolling moment is produced and is represented by the following equation:


1
= 2 2 ------------------------------------------ (6)

where:

= Rolling Moment

= Rolling Moment Coefficient (Varies with Wind Direction)

= Frontal Area of the Vehicle

= Wheelbase
12

Chapter 2

IMPLEMENTATION OF CFD SIMULATION IN VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS

2.1 WHAT IS CFD?

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is one of the branches of fluid mechanics

that uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve

fluid flows. Computers are used to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases with

surfaces defined by boundary conditions. Even with high-speed supercomputers only

approximate solutions can be achieved in many cases.

2.2 OUTLINE OF COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC PROCESS

Computational Fluid Dynamic codes are structured around the numerical

algorithms that can tackle fluid flow problems. All the CFD codes available in the market

have three basic elements which divide the complete analysis of the numerical

experiment to be performed on the specific domain or geometry.

The three basic elements are

(i) Pre-processor

(ii) Solver and

(iii) Post-Processor
13

2.3 MESHING AND PRE-PROCESSING

The pre-processing of the CFD process consists of the input of a flow problem by

means of user-friendly programs or software and the subsequent transformation of this

input into a form is made suitable to use by the solver. The pre-processor is the link

between the user and the solver. The user activity at the pre-processing stage of the CFD

process involves the following:

1) Definition of Geometry or region of Interest: This process involves several

computer aided design (CAD) software like CATIA, Solidworks, Pro-E and

much more. By the help of CAD software, the topology of the fluid flow

region of interest is defined. This software plays a major part of the design

and optimization process in research analysis.

2) Grid Generation or Meshing: Since the CFD process is a numerical

approximation method using finite volume method, the given domain or

region of interest needs to be divided into several structured elements. All the

elements or cells are connected to each other through nodes to form the

required region of flow. For this purpose, special meshing or grid generation

software like GAMBIT and T-grid are used. This stage is the key element in

the CFD finite volume numerical simulation and it also contributes to the

accuracy of the final results.

3) Definition of Fluid properties: Every fluid domain or surface has its own

distinct property. The properties of the fluid used in the CFD domain or region
14

of interest are defined at this stage of the CFD Process. Usually the CFD code

software has this facility.

4) Boundary Conditions: Every different setup of the CFD domain needs to have

an initialization, which is fulfilled by the boundary conditions input. The CFD

code usually has this facility to define the boundary conditions of the CFD

problem, where each cells at specific boundary are given finite values.

2.4 NUMERICAL SOLVER

The numerical solver is the key elements of the CFD process and covers the major

part of the CFD process. In the current market, the solvers usually use three distinct ways

of calculating the solutions, namely, the finite difference method, finite element method

and the finite volume method.

The finite difference and element method are usually suitable for stress and

structure analysis and does not suite the requirements of the CFD process. The finite

volume method is the most suitable method for the CFD process. As the name implies,

finite volume method is the numerical algorithm calculation process involving the use of

finite volume cells. The steps involved in this solving process are usually carried out in

the following sequence:

1. Formal integration of the governing equations of fluid flow over all the control

volumes or finite volumes of the solution domain.

2. The conversion of the integral forms of the equations into a system of algebraic

equations.
15

3. Calculations of the algebraic equations by an iterative method.

2.5 POST PROCESSOR

The post processor is the last phase of the CFD process which involves data visualization

and results analysis of the CFD process. This phase uses the versatile data visualization

tools of the CFD solver to observe the following results of the simulation:

1. Domain geometry and Grid display

2. Vector plots

3. Line and shaded contour plots

4. 2D and 3D surface plots

5. Particle tracking

6. XY plots and graphs of results

2.6 SUMMARY

In this thesis, the outline described in Chapter 2 is followed to complete the

analysis of each CFD simulation performed. The CFD process starts with defining the

geometry using the CAD software Solidworks and then it is followed by the meshing

software GAMBIT, which is used to create the surface mesh accordingly. After the

surface mesh is created, the resulting surface mesh is imported to special unstructured

volume meshing software, known as T-grid. This software creates a hybrid mesh in the

required domain of interest with the help of progressive boundary layer, tetra and Hex

core cells.
16

Chapter 3

SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLE

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO SUV

A sport utility vehicle (SUV) is a generic marketing term for a vehicle similar to a

station wagon, but built on a light-truck chassis. SUVs are usually equipped with four-

wheel drive for on- or off-road ability, and with some pretension or ability to be used as

an off-road vehicle, and some SUVs include the towing capacity of a pickup truck with

the passenger-carrying space of a minivan. Since SUVs are considered as light trucks and

often share the same platforms of pick-ups, they are regulated less strictly than passenger

cars under the two laws in the United States, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for

fuel economy, and the Clean Air Act for emissions.

In recent years there has been a phenomenal growth in the market for Sport Utility

Vehicles. The first vehicle, which would today be recognizable as a SUV, is generally

considered to have been the original Range Rover from Land Rover, which was launched

in 1970, an at the time was a unique concept. The sizes of the SUVs are available in a

wide range from small size weighing 1 ton to large sizes covering up to 3 tons. From the

mid 70s the growth in this sector was an almost exclusively North American trend, such

that today 25% of the total passenger cars sold in USA are SUVs [1]. This growing

popularity of the SUVs has pulled the attention of environmental organization due to the

amount of CO2 emission and the global warming concerns. The SUV, because of its size

and shape, is not fulfilling efficient body and engine requirement. Today designers have
17

been trying to build a good image of the SUVs by making them more efficient in shape

and engine. In this thesis, the external devices which reduce drag and make the body

designs more efficient are discussed. The other aspects of the aerodynamics like cooling

airflow, heat management and aero-acoustics along with engine performance will not be

included.

3.2 HISTORICAL DRAG AND FRONTAL AREA TRENDS

The Figure 3.1 shows the trend of drag coefficient in SUV vehicles during the

last twenty year. The open red spots indicate the SUV vehicles with high accessories

attachments and thereby are termed as the fully loaded SUVs which are often used for

off-road driving requirements. The open red spot indicates the general SUVs have made

the SUV market significant and competitive. These SUVs are not fitted with extra heavy

duty accessories and they have been kept in production for keeping the market

requirement for large size luxury passenger vehicles.

Figure 3.1 Twenty year trend of drag coefficient in SUV [1]


18

This data set, collected from Land Rover dataset and Motor Industry Research

Association (MIRA) aerodynamic surveys [1], shows a significant drop in the drag

coefficient in the last twenty years. This downward trend has surely proven the transition

to the softer shapes of SUV, which is helpful to increase the efficiency of the vehicle

aerodynamics. The lowering drag coefficient shows the taste of competitive environment

in the field of designing SUV, where every possible year there is a decrease in drag

coefficient due to improved techniques.

The drag coefficient of the early 1994 Range rover was about 0.40 and was

considered as the best design till then. Later the drag coefficient reduced and today the

new designs like BMW X5, X3 and Lexus RX 300 claim to have a drag coefficient of

0.35. The latest design of the Mercedes ML is the current class-leading vehicle with a

drag coefficient of 0.34. This lower trend in the aerodynamic drag coefficient shows that

in the future years, it is possible to achieve a much lower drag coefficient by

implementing new designs or external devices.

On the other hand, the Figure 3.2 shows the trend of frontal area for the same set

of vehicle described in the Figure 3.1, indicating that as the vehicles are showing a

decrease in vehicle drag, the size of the vehicles is increasing. This reflects that the

vehicle weight is also increasing along with the frontal area. This could be considered as

the disadvantage of the transition to the soft body of the SUVs for acquiring lower drag

coefficient.
19

Figure 3.2 Twenty year trend of Frontal Area in SUV [1]

3.3 SHAPE CHANGES AFFECTING DRAG

The Shape of the vehicle plays an important role in the drag reduction. Low drag

is achieved by a shape which avoids sudden changes in the cross sectional area and has a

degree of tapering towards the base of the vehicle. In practical design environment, drag

reduction comes from attention to detail and it results from the accumulation of small

incremental benefits in the development process. The shape changes which can affect the

performance of the vehicle body are shown in the Figure 3.3. The arrows show the

required direction to morph the surface to create drag reduction, although this is totally

dependent on the initial shape. So the direction is susceptible to change as the original

shape of the SUV could be aerodynamically friendly or filled with blunt edges.
20

Figure 3.3 Shape changes to reduce the Drag Coefficient [1]

The drag at the SUV base can be reduced by increasing the pressure in the base

area and reducing the base area. Tapering the body sides and roof has a significant effect,

but this will compromise the loading area at the tailgate and reduce rear passenger

headroom. If steps are made to make small chamfers at the rear end of the roof and the

side body, there will be a significant change in the drag. The foot step of the vehicle is

moved downward to decrease the ground clearance near the wheels and this makes major

changes in the drag of the vehicle. Lowering the front bumper and bonnet, inclining the

front windshield, rounding off the corners and sharp edges and lastly extending the front

bumper are some of the ways contributing to reduce drag. The aerodynamicist usually

works closely with the designers to use these ways with high level of compromises to

make the vehicle more comfortable for the customers. This thesis takes this point of
21

compromise in view and makes available several external devices which will fulfill the

requirement of the designs as well as the aerodynamicist.

3.4 EFFECT OF ACCESSORIES ON DRAG

The Figure 3.4 shows the general accessories which are attached on SUVs. All

the accessories used for an SUV have the tendencies to increase the drag and thus drag

coefficient. The Table 3.1 shows the typical increase in drag for the various accessories

used in SUVs. The Roof box covering about 0.3 m2 frontal area shows a drag increment

of about 0.075. The headlamp protectors show a drag increment of about 0.006. Even the

smallest accessories like the mud flaps show an increment in drag of about 0.011. The

drag penalties for a particular accessory will depend on the detail design and the vehicle

to which they are fitted.

Figure 3.4 Loaded off-road SUV with all the accessories [1]
22

Table 3.1 Typical increase in drag for the various accessories [1]

In this thesis, the accessories like the Side steps and the rear spoilers will be

optimized to get the lowest drag or reduction in drag from the original.
23

Chapter 4

VALIDATION OF CFD MODEL

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO VALIDATING PROCEDURE

Good engineering practice suggests that prior to using an analysis technique on a

new configuration, one should benchmark (validate) the technique against a known

(respected) test case similar to the new configuration. If no suitable test case exists, then

cross referencing with another analysis technique, such as a wind tunnel, is essential. The

benchmark test process is the process of numerical analysis performed on a case which is

replica of the real time testing or previous results of numerical simulations. While

performing the benchmark testing, the results of the test will be further compared with

other available results.

For CFD, the benchmarking process should result in guidelines for a specific class

of problems. The guidelines would describe the preferred boundary conditions,

turbulence model and meshing strategy (clustering and growth rate) required to achieve a

desired level of confidence and accuracy in the results.

For current benchmarking process, the SUV generic model will be simulated. The

Generic model is fabricated by Michigan State University with the help of General

Motors. They performed a wind tunnel test on this model using advance PIV techniques.

The results of this wind tunnel test are compared with the results of the numerical

simulations using advance solvers like Fluent. The model used by the wind tunnel test

was 3D printed and it will be used for all the numerical simulations.
24

4.2 WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENT

This section describes the details of the wind tunnel experiments performed at the

Wind Tunnel facility located at University of Michigan.

4.2.1 WIND TUNNEL FACILITY

The experiments over the proto-type scaled model of SUV Generic model were

conducted in the 2 x 2 wind tunnel at the Aerospace Engineering Department of the

University of Michigan. The wind tunnel was an open return suction wind tunnel

equipped with glass test section so that the optical measurements were possible.

Figure 4.1 Wind tunnel experimental configuration at University of Michigan [22]

The Figure 4.1 above demonstrates the wind tunnel facility and the setup of the

different components used inside the wind tunnel. The 1/12 scaled model is kept inside

the glass-walled wind tunnel with the wheels facing towards the top. The top wall of the
25

wind tunnel is holding the ground board which is about 0.1m below the upper wall. This

ground wall is used to create the ground effects of the road over the SUV model and it is

also used to equip the pressure sensor tubes to pass over it without affecting the flow. The

schematic diagram of the experimental setup is displayed in the Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2 Schematic diagram of Experimental setup [2]

The test section cross section area is approximately 0.60 x 0.60 m2. The tip of the

SUV model front bumper is considered as the origin of the co-ordinate measurements of

x-direction, y-direction and the z-direction. The inlet or test section entrance is about

383.79 mm in front of the SUV model and the length of the wind tunnel is approximately

2.1m long. The inlet of the wind tunnel is approximately 2.5 times base size of the SUV

model ahead of the front bumper and the exit is about 8 times base size behind the SUV
26

model. These empirical relations are used in the numerical simulations to define the wind

tunnel dimensions.

4.2.2 SUV GENERIC MODEL

The Generic model of the SUV is shown in the Figure 4.3 below with relevant

dimensions. The length of the model is 432 mm, the width of the model is 152 mm, and

the height of the model is 148 mm. The maximum cross section of this model is about

approximately 0.020 m2 giving the blockage area ratio of 5.2 %. The figure also shows

the origin of the coordinate system used. The x-axis is in the flow direction with its origin

at the front bumper. The y-axis is in the horizontal direction across the flow with its

origin at the symmetry plane of the model. The z-axis is in the vertical direction with its

origin at the underbody of the model. The model was fitted with 70 pressure taps which is

shown in Figure 4.3 as bubbles. These pressure taps measured the surface pressure

coefficient at the symmetry plane and the base. These measurements are discussed in

Section 4.2.3.

This Generic model of the SUV has a strong front shape which resembles the

typical shape of a modern sport utility vehicle or a pick-up truck. Apparently, the base

part of the vehicle has lower shape definition to make the analysis simple and easy to

simulate in numerical analysis. The base of the SUV is kept flat, while there is smooth

shape bending at the pillar A of the vehicle. The wheels of the SUV model are not given

many details. The wheel edges are given sharp angles and only half wheel is defined. The

underbody of the vehicle is also given flat faces with no details of the transmission line
27

and fuel tank. The geometry is defined in such a way that most of the aerodynamic

characteristics of the SUV are maintained, thereby minimizing the use of heavy

computational resource in the numerical analysis.

Figure 4.3 Dimensions of the Generic SUV model [2]


28

4.2.3 EXPERIMENT RESULTS

The pressure taps located at the symmetry plane of the SUV model measured the

mean pressures at the top and bottom surface of the SUV model. The wind tunnel tests

were conducted at a free stream velocity of 30 m/s which corresponds to a Reynolds

number of 2.88 x 105 (based on the height of the SUV model).

Figure 4.4 Mean pressure coefficient plot on the symmetry plane of SUV [2]

The Pressure coefficient (Cp) is a dimensionless number which describes the relative
pressures throughout a flow field in fluid dynamics. The pressure coefficient is used
in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics. Every point in a fluid flow field has its own
unique pressure coefficient, Cp.
29

-----------------------------------(7)

where:

p is the pressure at the point for which pressure coefficient is being evaluated

is the pressure in the free stream (i.e. remote from any disturbance)

is the free stream fluid density (Air at sea level and 15 C is 1.225 kg / m3)

is the free stream velocity of the fluid, or the velocity of the body through

the fluid

The experimental results presented by Mr. Khalighi from the reference paper [2]

are shown in the following context. The Figure 4.4 shows the mean pressure coefficient

on the symmetry plane of the SUV model. As shown in the Figure 4.4, the mean pressure

of the SUV engine hood and the passenger roof is marked by the term Cab while the

underbody is indicated by term Bottom. As the wind speed accelerates, the Cp over the

front bumper of the vehicle reflects a stagnation value of 1.0. There is a sudden drop to a

negative value of Cp as the air slips from the front bumper to the radiator. This negative

value of Cp changes gradually to a positive value as the air reaches the intersection of the

hood and windshield. This intersection is one of the two high pressure areas. Usually this

place is used for the inlet of the air conditioning of the vehicle. The mean pressure

coefficient of the air near the edge of the passenger roof entrance shows a significant

drop in pressure causing high velocity over the roof surface. Finally, the negative
30

pressure on the roof increases to a value near to the negative base pressure before

separation of air takes place at the end of the roof.

Although several experimental data is collected during the experiments, only the

pressure coefficient data at the symmetry plane and the horizontal center plane

downstream mean velocity in the wake region is considered for the validation process.

This decision was made to support the decision of using symmetry plane in CFD

analysis. The use of symmetry plane complies with the limited computational resources.

The second data used for the benchmark analysis is the downstream mean velocity

profiles of the flow in the horizontal plane (z = 69.2 mm) of the wake of the SUV.

The Figure 4.5 plots the downstream mean velocity profiles collected at 450mm,

500mm, 550mm, 600mm and 700mm measured by the PIV method in the wake region of

the SUV model at the horizontal plane. The distance of the measurements above are

measured from the origin of the SUV model.

Figure 4.5 Downstream mean velocity profiles in the horizontal center plane [2]
31

4.3 NUMERICAL SIMULATION

This section describes about the numerical simulations performed on the SUV

model using state of the art CFD techniques. The software used for the numerical

analysis was ANSYS FLUENT 6.3, GAMBIT, and T-grid 5.0 . Since the process of

CFD meshing is a learning process, several meshing were applied and tested. Due to

limited time and space, only two major benchmarking simulations will be described.

4.3.1 CAD SUV GENERIC MODEL

The SUV model used in the Wind tunnel experiment at University of Michigan is

3D printed using advance techniques to CAD format for numerical analysis.

Figure 4.6 Surfaces of the SUV CAD model


32

The Figure 4.6 above shows the details named to each distinct surfaces of the

SUV in the CFD simulations discussed in the later part of this thesis. This geometry was

shared from Mr. Khalighi who worked on the experimental analysis in wind tunnel. The

CAD model of the SUV was refined using GAMBIT, since the model had too many

intersecting surfaces and free edges. After the model was completely refined, Solidworks

was used to add the external devices for testing them. As seen from the figure above, the

radiator, the hood, the windshield and the passenger roof are indicated by a term Cab.

The term side includes the complete side surface of the SUV model including the doors

and the windows. The back surface of the SUV model is indicated by Base. The term

underbody is given to all the surfaces below the car except the wheels. The front wheels

are indicated by the term fwheel. The rear wheel surfaces are divided into two terms.

The front surface of the rear wheel is named as rwheel1 while the other surfaces are

named as rwheel2.

4.3.2 VIRTUAL WIND TUNNEL AND VEHICLE ORIENTATION

The SUV model shown above used in the wind tunnel is used for the simulation.

The location of the SUV model in the wind tunnel differentiates the two major

benchmarking described in this thesis. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the wind tunnel

used in the experiments had the cross section of 0.60 x 0.60 m2. If noticed, the ground

plate used actually separated the 0.60 x 0.10 m2 area from the complete cross section.

Due to this reason, the cross section of the virtual wind tunnel is approximately 0.60 x

0.50 m2.
33

In the first benchmarking simulation, which was used for the boat tail plate

simulation illustrated in Chapter 5, the inlet of the wind tunnel was placed two times the

length of the SUV model ahead of the SUV with origin defined in Section 4.2.2. The

pressure outlet of the wind tunnel was placed five times the length of the SUV model

behind the SUV base. The Figure 4.7 below shows a preview of the location of the SUV

model in the first benchmarking simulation.

5L L 2L

Figure 4.7 SUV orientations in the first benchmarking simulation

In the second benchmarking simulation, which was used for the foot step

simulation illustrated in Chapter 5, the inlet of the wind Tunnel was placed four times the

length of the SUV model ahead of the SUV with origin defined in Section 4.2.2. The

pressure outlet of the wind tunnel was placed four times the length of the SUV model

behind the SUV base. The Figure 4.8 below shows a preview of the location of the SUV

model in the first benchmarking simulation.


34

4L L 4L

Figure 4.8 SUV orientations in the second benchmarking simulation

The inlet of the Wind tunnel in the simulation is given maximum velocity of

about 30m/s, while the outlet pressure (gage) is defined as zero.

4.3.3 DISCRETISATION (OR MESHING) SETUP

Due to the complexity of the simulation with limited computer resources and

time, the complete domain was divided to half using a symmetry plane at Y = 0. Similar

to the strategy in Section 4.3.2, different meshing characteristics were used for the

different wind tunnel domains. Although the methods were different, the same mixed

configuration of triangular and hex core cells were used for both the domains. The

triangular shape surface mesh was used due to its proximity to changing curves and

bends. These elements easily adjust to the complex bodies used in automobile and

aerospace bodies. In both the benchmarking simulations, the vehicle component surfaces

were discretized with triangular mesh elements. A typical surface mesh size did not

exceed the value of 36mm on the first benchmarking simulation, while surface mesh

element size of 12mm was used for the second benchmarking simulation. The original

1/12th scale model of the SUV used in the experiment [2] was scaled up by the factor of
35

12. The surfaces of the virtual wind tunnel were discretized with a larger triangular mesh

to define course meshes near the surface of the wind tunnel surfaces away from the SUV

model. Cells of mixed cell type were used in the computational domain. Soon after the

surface meshes on the vehicle surfaces, seven layer prismatic layers were defined over

the vehicle surface and the floor to resolve the boundary layers over the surface of the

vehicle and the floor. The first layer of the boundary layer was set to approximately

0.2241684 mm using the NASA y+ online calculator [3]. The growth rate of these

prismatic layers was set to be1.1.

TETRA CELLS

HEX CORE CELLS

PRISMATIC
BOUNDARY
LAYER

Figure 4.9 Details view of unstructured cells near the wheels [26]
36

As seen in the Figure 4.9, next to these prismatic cells, tetra cells were generated

to connect the prismatic layers to the Hex core cells. The unstructured grid included the

Hex-core cells to fill the remaining computational domain as well as to accelerate the

simulation process. To increase the reliability and accuracy of the simulations, two

HEXCORE refinement regions were defined in the computational domain (as shown in

Figure 4.10). Hex core cells of size 2mm were used constantly over these entire

refinement regions.

Figure 4.10 Hex core refinement regions of first benchmark simulation [26]

Now it is time to describe the refinement region. In the first benchmarking

simulation, there were two refinement regions defined. The first refinement region was
37

placed right before the front bumper of the vehicle and had the purpose to solve the

stagnation pressure created at the first contact part of the SUV model i.e. the front

bumper. The second refinement region was placed at a location just behind the vehicle

which is most frequently termed as the wake of the vehicle. This space behind the SUV

model plays an important role in the aerodynamics of the vehicles. As shown in the

Figure 4.10 above, the refinement region used for resolving the stagnation pressure is

indicated by HEX A, while the second refinement region used for the wake region is

indicated by HEX B. The refinement regions are measured in terms of base height H.

The HEX A region is approximately 1H ahead of the SUV model, while the HEX B is

approximately 2H behind the Base of the SUV. The y+ value in this benchmarking exists

in the range of 60 to 150 over the surface of the vehicle.

For the second benchmarking simulation, the following details concentrate on the

unique changes made in the second benchmarking simulation. In this simulation, the two

refinement regions were combined to a single refinement region. The vehicle body

surfaces were more refined to a value of 1 mm all over the SUV model. The value of y+

over the body surfaces were maintained in the range of 1 to 8 for all the simulations as

shown in Chapter 6 and in the second benchmark simulation. The Cartesian box, which

included the refined and constant hex-core cells around the vehicle body, was measured

with 11.184m in the length, 2.64m in width, and 1.992m in height. The Figure 4.11

showed below gives the view of the domain mesh at the wheel center. For the Generic

SUV model simulation in the second benchmark simulation, the cell count was slightly

above the value of 5.8 million cells. After the completion of first convergent, the mesh
38

adaptation module in FLUENT was used to adapt the cells over the boundary of the SUV

model. Initially the y+ value was in the range of 150 to 200, but later the boundary cells

had values of y+ within 8. This value of y+ is really good for solving the boundary layer

near the surfaces and thereby solving the pressure near the surface of the SUV model.

Also, the value of the cells increased from 5.8 million cells to 7.2 million cells after the

adaptation.

Hex Core
Refinement
region

Figure 4.11 Unstructured mesh refinement region view of second benchmark

4.3.4 SOLVER SETTING

The problem of SUV numerical analysis requires the solver settings to be

completed before starting the simulations. The solver setting includes type of solver (3D

or 2D), the viscous model, boundary condition and solution controls. The inlet of the

wind tunnel is indicated by the term Velocity inlet, while the outlet of the wind tunnel is

termed as Pressure outlet. The fluid properties were calculated taking into account the

temperature and density of the average ambience condition of the area near the lab of

University of Michigan. The solver settings and boundary condition for both the

benchmark simulations are shown in the Table 4.1, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.
39

CFD Simulation 3ddp (3-D Double Precision)


Solver
Solver Segregated
Space 3D
Formulation Implicit
Time Steady
Velocity Formulation Absolute
Gradient Option Cell-Based
Porous Formulation Superficial Velocity
Table 4.1 Solver setting

Viscous Model
Benchmark # Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2
Turbulence Model k- (2 eqn) k- (2 eqn)
k-epsilon Model Standard Realizable
Near-Wall Treatment Standard Wall Functions Enhanced Wall Functions
Operating Conditions Ambient Ambient
Table 4.2 Viscous model and Turbulence model settings

Boundary Conditions
Velocity Magnitude (Measured normal to 30 ms (constant)
Inlet Boundary)
Turbulence Specification Method Intensity and Viscosity Ratio
Turbulence Intensity 1.00%
Turbulence Viscosity Ratio 20
Pressure 0 pascal
Gauge Pressure magnitude
Outlet
Gauge Pressure direction normal to boundary
Turbulence Specification Method Intensity and Viscosity Ratio
Backflow Turbulence Intensity 10%
Backflow Turbulent Viscosity Ratio 10
Wall Zones No Slip
Fluid Air
Fluid Type
Properties
Density = 1.175 (kgm^3 )
Kinematic viscosity v = 1.824710^(-5) (kg(ms))
Table 4.3 Boundary condition settings
40

4.3.5 SIMULATION RESULTS

The results of the simulations are described in this section. First the simulation

results of the first benchmark will be illustrated. A discussed earlier, only the Cp plots

over the cab and underbody was calculated for the first benchmark analysis. Figure 4.12

and Figure 4.13 show the plot of Cp over the cab and underbody respectively for the first

benchmark.

As seen in the figures below, the blue symbol indicates the experimental results

while the red symbol indicates the simulations results of the first benchmark. Although

the results of the pressure coefficient on the cab surface closely match the experimental

results, the underbody pressure coefficient shows a slight variation but the pattern of the

plot is similar. The maximum pressure coefficient is found near the front bumper of the

SUV model. The result of maximum coefficient on the front bumper was 0.97 for the

simulation which is quite close to the value for the experiments, i.e., 0.98.

Figure 4.12 Cab Cp plot comparison with experiment for first benchmark [26]
41

Figure 4.13 Underbody Cp plot comparison with experiment for first benchmark [26]

Next, the second benchmarking simulations will be discussed. In this simulation

model, some changes were made in the parameters of the turbulence model as well as

some finer surface mesh was used all over the SUV model. The Figure 4.14 and Figure

4.15 shown below illustrates the pressure coefficient plots extracted from the second

benchmark simulations.
42

Figure 4.14 Cab Cp plot comparison with experiment for second benchmark

Figure 4.15 Underbody Cp plot comparison with experiment for second benchmark
43

As shown in the figures above, the pattern and value of the results are much closer

to those of experiments than the previous benchmark simulations. Since the results of the

coefficient pressure plots are not sufficient enough to conclude the benchmark results,

mean velocity profiles in the downstream direction were plotted in the central horizontal

plane i.e. z=69.2 mm (1:12 scale) or Z = 0.8304 m (12:1 scale).

The figures from Figure 4.16 to Figure 4.21 shown below illustrate the

comparison of the mean velocity downstream profiles with the experimental results in the

wake region at distinct locations. The Figure 4.16 shows the comparison of the Mean

downstream velocity at 0.3 m behind the base of the SUV model. The value of the mean

velocities are very close at Y= 30, 67 and 77mm. The pattern of the plot is closely

matching the results of the experiments near the symmetry plane, but it shows a drastic

deviation near the outer edges of the SUV model (i.e. Y= 74mm). The Figure 4.17 shows

the comparison of the mean velocities at 0.6 m behind the SUV base. The results of the

benchmark at this wake spot moves closer to the experimental results at the symmetry

plane and overlaps at several point with the experimental results. This shows that the

wake profile is captured correctly at this distance from the base of the SUV model.

Similar to Figure 4.17, the Figure 4.18 illustrates that the values of the benchmark

results, the profile of the plot and the wake profiles are nearly matching the experimental

results at 1.2 m behind the base of the SUV model. The Figure 4.19, Figure 4.20 and

Figure 4.21 shows a similarity between them. The values of the mean velocities from the

benchmark simulations are very close to the experimental results near the symmetry

plane. At the same time they show huge deviations near Y= 74 mm. The comparison of
44

the mean velocities concludes that the profiles of the mean velocity profile are closely

matching the results of the experiments. Since the experiments are performed using the

symmetry plane, the downstream velocity are compared and benchmarked and the lateral

velocity component are neglected.

Figure 4.16 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m and X = 5.484m
45

Figure 4.17 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m and X = 5.784m

Figure 4.18 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m and X = 6.384m
46

Figure 4.19 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m and X = 6.984m

Figure 4.20 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m and X = 7.584m
47

Figure 4.21 Mean downstream velocity profiles of the flow at Z = 0.830184m and X = 8.184m

4.4 BENCHMARK CONCLUSION

From the simulation results and the setting shown above, the conclusion can be

drawn from the benchmarking process for the SUV model used. The results give us the

suitable turbulence model and the mesh settings to be used for the optimization process of

the boat tail plate and the side steps. The results of the simulation agree well with

experimental results for downstream components considered. If the results are to be made

completely reliable, the re-simulation is needed without using any symmetry plane. For

complete domain simulation, very competitive computer configuration and power will be

required, which is beyond the present thesis work.


48

Chapter 5

EFFECTS OF BOAT TAIL PLATE ON OVERALL DRAG

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In this section, first external device is tested and optimized to reduce the drag of

the complete SUV model benchmarked in the previous section. The external device used

is termed as boat tail plate. This external device is a simple device in a shape of flat

plate connected to the base portion of the SUV. The idea of using this device had

emerged from numerical and experimental simulations completed by P. Gilliron and F.

Chometon over the Ahmed Reference model at different angles of the rear windshield

[4]. The Ahmed Reference Model, also termed as ARM Model, showed large variation

in drag when the value of the angle of rear windshield changed from 5 to 40. When the

angle reached 12.5 , this value was expected to show the lowest drag and needed to be

simulated for the boat tail plate to investigate the effects on the flow behind the vehicle

and drag of the overall SUV model.

5.2 CAD MODEL OF BOAT TAIL PLATE

The CAD model of SUV model from the first benchmarking is modified using

CAD software Solidworks. The Figure 5.1 shown below gives the view of the boat tail

plate installed on the base of the SUV model. There are basically two plates installed on

the base of the SUV model. The top plate is termed as the Upper plate and the bottom

plate is termed as the Lower plate. This location of the boat tail plate is inspired from
49

the imaginary sketch created by Gaylard published in his published paper IMPROVING

SUV AERODYNAMICS at the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA)

conference [4]. The imaginary drag improving sketch of SUV is shown in Figure 3.3 in

Chapter 3.

Figure 5.1 Orientation of Boat tail plates

As seen in the Figure 3.3, the rear base of the SUV has a spoiler extension at a

particular angle. This spoiler angle is expected to play a major role in reducing drag for

the complete SUV. The base of the SUV is directly connected to the low pressure wake

region of the SUV. If the size of the SUV wake region is reduced, then the low pressure

at the wake region will have the tendency to increase. This will cause the pressure
50

difference of the vehicle in the flow direction to decrease. Eventually the pressure drag

on the SUV model will be reduced, giving advantage to the SUV model in propulsion.

5.3 OPTIMIZATION PROCESS DETAILS

Optimization is a process of getting the right solution or dimension required for

the particular problem. Every problem can achieve highly effective results if

optimizations are performed on its design variables. The design variables are the

variables which contribute to the performance of the device to be tested.

The design variables for the boat tail plate are horizontal length of the plate,

thickness of the plate and the angle of the plates. Since the angle of the plates were

considered as the prime design variable for the testing of this device on the SUV, all the

other design variables except the angle are kept at constant value throughout all the

simulations.

Figure 5.2 Side view of Boat tail plate along with dimensions [26]
51

The Figure 5.2 above shows the detail sketch view of the boat tails plates

installed on the base of the SUV. The horizontal length of the upper plate was kept at a

value of 18.75 mm (1/12 scale value) while the horizontal length of the lower plate was

kept at a value of 14.06 mm. These values were extracted after live measurements of the

five different SUV vehicle using spoilers in the current marker of year 2008. The

thickness of the plates were randomly selected as 2mm (1/12 scale value). The angle of

upper boat tail plate is termed as angle A, while the angle of the lower boat tail plate is

termed as angle B. These angles are incremented at a value of 5 degrees and simulated

at different combinations to determine the effects of it on the overall drag of the SUV as

well as to find the best angle for optimization. The Table 5.1 below shows the details

about the values of angle A and angle B for each simulation performed.

Simulation # Simulation Name Angle A Angle B


1 A-B- OR Benchmark Model - -
2 A0B0 0 0
3 A1B1 1 1
4 A5B1 5 1
5 A5B5 5 5
6 A10B5 10 5
7 A10B10 10 10
8 A15B15 15 15
9 A20B15 20 15
10 A20B20 20 20
11 A25B25 25 25
12 A30B25 30 25
13 A30B30 30 30
14 A35B30 35 30
15 A35B35 35 35
Table 5.1 Simulation details of Boat tail plates
52

5.4 VIRTUAL WIND TUNNEL AND VEHICLE ORIENTATION

The wind tunnel size and dimensions are adapted in the same way as used

for the first benchmark simulation discussed in Section 4.3.2. The inlet section of the

wind tunnel is approximately 0.60 x 0.50 m2. The inlet of the wind tunnel is placed at two

times the vehicle body length ahead of the SUV model and the velocity of the air at the

inlet is 30 m/s. On the other hand, the outlet of the wind tunnel is placed five times the

length of the SUV model measured from base of the SUV model. The pressure outlet is

set to be atmospheric value. The Figure 5.3 shows a preview of the orientation of the

vehicle.

5L L 2L

Figure 5.3 SUV orientation

5.5 DISCRETISATION (OR MESHING) SETUP AND SOLVER SETTING

The first benchmark, as discussed in Chapter 4, is considered as a reference of all

the mesh setting used in the all the simulations performed for the boat tail plates. As

described in section 4.3.3, two refinement regions were used in the simulation. The first

refinement box was implemented to resolve the stagnation pressure near the first contact

element of the SUV model i.e. the front bumper. Similarly, the second refinement box
53

was used to resolve the wake profiles of the SUV model. The second refinement in these

simulations helps to better understand the dynamics of the air flow over the SUV boat tail

plates. The Figure 5.4 below gives the view of the mesh generated at the symmetry plane

near the boat tail plate.

Figure 5.4 Hybrid Mesh near the upper boat tail plate

5.6 SIMULATIONS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Figure 5.5 shows the Total pressure contour at the symmetry plane of the

Benchmark simulation. There is very high pressure on the surrounding air which is

represented by dark red. As the air passes over the vehicle, a low pressure wake region is

formed. This wake region, along with the pressure inside it, plays a major role in

controlling the drag coefficient of the SUV model. If the size of the SUV wake region is
54

reduced, then the low pressure at the wake region will have the tendency to increase. This

will cause the pressure difference of the vehicle in the flow direction to decrease.

Eventually the pressure drag on the SUV model will be reduced, giving advantage to the

SUV model in propulsion.

Benchmark Simulation ORIGINAL SIMULATION

Figure 5.5 Total Pressure Contour of the Benchmark Simulation at symmetry plane

The Figure 5.6 shows the total pressure contour of the A10B10 simulation. The

drag coefficient of this simulation is the lowest among all the simulations performed on

the SUV model. The angle value of 10 is the optimum angle of upper and lower boat tail

plate for reducing drag of the complete SUV model. After comparing the Figure 5.5 and

Figure 5.6, it is seen that the pressure of the air above the SUV model has reduced. At

the same time, the pressure inside the wake region has increase drastically. The pressure

difference in the flow direction has decreased, thereby causing a decrease in the drag of

the SUV model.

The Figure 5.7 illustrates the Pressure contour of the simulations which has the

least lift coefficient. In this simulation, the SUV model gives the optimum lift coefficient.

The wake profile of this simulation is compressed, but the pressure around the top surface
55

of SUV model illustrates an increase in pressure value compared to benchmark

simulation in Figure 5.5. This high pressure on the top surface pushes the vehicle

towards the ground causing a decrease in the lift coefficient.

A10B10 Simulation LEAST DRAG COEFFICIENT

Figure 5.6 Total Pressure Contour of the A10B10 Simulation at symmetry plane

A20B20 Simulation LEAST LIFT COEFFICIENT

Figure 5.7 Total Pressure Contour of the A20B20 Simulation at symmetry plane

The Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 shows the magnitude velocity path lines for all the

angular combinations of boat tail plates described in the Table 5.1 in section 5.3. All the

simulations are named as A*B#, in which A represents the angle of the upper boat tail

plate and * symbol will replace with the angle used for the respective simulation.
56

Similarly, the B represents the lower boat tail plate angle and # represents the angle of

while lower
B. For example, A10B5 indicates upper plate inclined at an angle of 10

plate inclined at an angle of. 5From the Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9, it could be

concluded that the wake region is large for the original SUV model, which extends to

about 1.2 times the height of the base, behind the base of the SUV. As the angles A and

B increases, the distance between the two circulatory flow region in the wake decreases.

At the same time the length of the wake region increases, causing a smooth flow and

avoiding the instability of the wake region. This could be observed before the simulation

reaches angle of 10 for both the A and B angles. As soon as the angles are increased

above 10, the flow behind the wake region becomes more unstable, leading to a

deceased pressure at the wake region to cause the drag of the SUV model to increase.

The Figure 5.10 shows the drag and lift coefficient variation for different

simulations described in Table 5.2. After observing the Table 5.2 as well as the Figure

5.8 and Figure 5.9, it could be seen that the drag coefficient of the SUV model drops

from 0.349 to 0.324 after inserting the flat plates inclined at an angle of 10. The drag

coefficient drops down gradually as the angle reaches 10 for both A and B angles. At

the same time the lift coefficient of the SUV model has uneven drop and rise in its value

till the plate angles reach 10. As seen in Figure 5.10, the drag coefficient rises rapidly

till the plate angles reach 35 although the lift coefficient shows drastic drop in its value

. The result of opt imum value of the plate


as the angle values of A and B reaches 35

also agreed with the simulation results over the Ahmed reference model by Gillieron, P.,

Chometon, F. [4].
57

Figure 5.8 Magnitude velocity path lines for simulation 1 to 10 [26]


58

Figure 5.9 Magnitude velocity path lines for simulation 11 to 15 [26]


59

Figure 5.10 Drag and lift coefficient variation for all the simulations

Simulation # Simulation Name Angle A Angle B Cd Cl


1 Benchmark Model - - 0.3499433 0.09762
2 A0B0 0 0 0.324899 0.06942
3 A1B1 1 1 0.3222201 0.06484
4 A5B1 5 1 0.3137279 0.11064
5 A5B5 5 5 0.3156422 0.01446
6 A10B5 10 5 0.3092798 0.02745
7 A10B10 10 10 0.3069954 0.0324
8 A15B15 15 15 0.3115789 0.0324
9 A20B15 20 15 0.3147322 0.05957
10 A20B20 20 20 0.3211034 0.00219
11 A25B25 25 25 0.3356275 0.00651
12 A30B25 30 25 0.3404718 0.03433
13 A30B30 30 30 0.3484629 0.01831
14 A35B30 35 30 0.3481418 0.0114
15 A35B35 35 35 0.3599479 -0.0015
Table 5.2 Drag and Lift results of all the simulations [26]
60

5.7 SUMMARY

This thesis started by reproducing the experimental results of the SUV Generic model by

Bahram Khalighi [2] using CFD technique. After the validation of the CFD setup and

mesh settings, the results along with the original SUV CAD model were used for

installing new devices keeping the drag reduction concept referring Gaylards Paper [1].

15 simulations were performed for different angel combinations between upper plate A

and lower pate B. The results of the simulations performed showed that the optimum

angle for the boat tail plates lies between the angle of 10 and 15.
61

Chapter 6

EFFECT OF FOOT STEP ON OVERALL DRAG

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This Chapter describes about the simulation over the SUV model using the

external drag-reducing device usually termed as Foot Step. This device is generally

used by most of the SUV models in the market for the comfort of the passenger for easy

entrance. The idea of testing this external device came from the technical paper

IMPROVING SUV AERODYNAMICS published by Adrian Gaylard at the Motor

Industry Research Association (MIRA) conference [4]. The paper describes that the foot

step used by the Jaguar Land rover vehicle reduced the drag coefficient in the range of

0.003 and 0.006. The Figure 6.1 below describes about the device that will be tested and

optimized in the upcoming simulations.

Figure 6.1 Foot Step of SUV vehicle [5]


62

6.2 CAD MODEL OF FOOT STEP

The CAD model of SUV model from the second benchmarking is modified using

CAD software Solidworks. The Figure 6.2 shown below gives the view of the foot step

installed on the body of the SUV model. The shape of the Foot step is generalized to an

ordinary shape to make the simulation results more descriptive and easily understandable.

Each face of the foot step is given a specific term to illustrate the results of drag of each

faces in the following sections of the chapter. As shown in Figure 6.2, the top face of the

foot step is termed as steptop, while the bottom surface is termed as stepbottom. The

left face is termed as stepleft, while the right face is termed as stepright. Lastly the

front face of the foot step is named as stepfront, while rear face of the foot step is

named as stepback.

Figure 6.2 Surfaces of the Foot step installed on SUV


63

6.3 OPTIMIZATION PROCESS DETAILS

As described in the previous chapter, the design variables are the key elements in

the shape optimization process of the foot step device used on the SUV model. The

design variables used in the foot step are the length of the foot step, width of the foot step

and the height of the foot step.

Since width of the foot step is the focus of interest in the current simulation

optimization, all the other design variables are kept constant. The length of the foot step

is 2.07mm (scaled up value) and the height of the foot step is maintained at 0.096mm

(scaled up value). These values are average values of the five measurements of current

footsteps used in the market of SUV accessories. The width of the foot step is measured

in terms of width of the vehicle wheels. The Table 6.1 gives the details of the dimensions

of the foot step used for five different simulations performed on the vehicle.

Foot Step Width 'm'


Foot Step Wheel
Simulation Step Foot Step
Configuration Width(W)
Number Length Height 'm' Value Formula
Name m
'm'
1 STEP 1 0.2596 1.1 W
2 STEP 2 0.2832 1.2 W
3 STEP 3 2.07 0.096 0.3068 1.3 W 0.236004
4 STEP 4 0.3304 1.4 W
5 STEP 5 0.3540 1.5 W
Table 6.1 Dimensional details of all the simulation on SUV foot step

6.4 VIRTUAL WIND TUNNEL AND VEHICLE ORIENTATION

The wind tunnel size and dimensions are adapted in the same way as used for the

second benchmark simulation discussed in Section 4.3.2. The inlet section of the wind
64

tunnel is approximately 0.60 x 0.50 m2. The inlet of the Wind tunnel is placed at four

times the vehicle body length ahead of the SUV model and the velocity of the air at the

inlet is 30 m/s. On the other hand the outlet of the wind tunnel is placed four times the

length of the SUV model measured from base of the SUV model. The pressure outlet is

set to be the atmospheric value. The Figure 6.3 below shows a preview of the orientation

of the vehicle.

4L L 4L

Figure 6.3 SUV orientations for foot step simulations

6.5 DISCRETIZATION (OR MESHING) SETUP AND SOLVER SETTING

The second benchmark, as discussed in Chapter 4, is considered as a reference of

all the mesh setting used in the all the simulations performed for the foot step. As

described in section 4.3.3, one large refinement regions was used to cover the entire

vehicle in the simulation. This refinement box resolved the stagnation pressure near the

first contact element of the SUV model i.e. the front bumper. It extended to about 2 times

the base size of the SUV model ahead of the SUV model an 2 times the base size behind

the base of the SUV model. Thereby, this refinement box also resolved the wake profiles

of the SUV model. The second refinement in these simulations helps to better understand
65

the dynamics of the air flow over the SUV boat tail plates. The Figure 6.4 below gives

the view of the mesh generated at the plane near the foot step center parallel to the

symmetry plane.

Figure 6.4 Mesh view at the plane near the foot step
66

6.6 SIMULATIONS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Figure 6.5 below shows the drag coefficient variation for all the simulations

performed on the SUV at different configurations stated in Table 6.1 at section 6.3. As

the step width increased gradually to a width of 1.1W (where W indicates width of the

wheel in meters), the drag coefficient showed an increment from the benchmark value of

0.3545 to 0.3584. As the step width increased to 1.2W in the next simulation, the drag

started decreasing gradually and then stopped decreasing as the value of step width was

increased from 1.3W. Increase of drag coefficient approached a higher rate as the width

of the step reached 1.5W. The detail value of the drag coefficient for each surface is also

shown in Table 6.2 described later in this section.

Figure 6.5 Drag coefficient plot for all the simulations on foot step
67

The Figure 6.6 displays the total pressure contour for all the simulations plotted

at the plane where Y= 0.79m. The figure clearly shows the variation of the total pressure

above the cab surface and the wake region. By comparing the benchmark with Step 3, it

can be clearly seen that the wake region experiences a slight increase in pressure

indicated by the yellow color. Further examination indicates that simulation results using

Step 5 have a drastic increase in pressure in the air above the cab surface making the

color of the high pressure air darker. This high pressure adds more drag force on the cab

surface keeping the wake pressure constant, which thereby increases the drag coefficient.

Figure 6.6 Total Pressure contour for all the simulations at Y= 0.79m
68

The Figure 6.7 shows the variation of the pressure coefficient Cd plot over the

surface of the foot step. For the foot step, STEP 1, there is a high concentration of red

spot on the front outer surface of the foot step due to the blocked air. This high pressure

spot is darker in red, showing an increase in drag on the front surface of the foot step. For

STEP2, the red spot has the same intensity with reduction in pressure coefficient on the

back surface of the foot step. For STEP 3, the intensity of the red spot decrease and the

spread of the high pressure coefficient is more scattered in the front surface. The back

portion of the step shows an increment in pressure coefficient, thereby reducing the drag

of the foot step. In STEP 4 and STEP 5, the intensity of the pressure coefficient and the

spread area of high Cd value on the front surface of the foot step are high enough to cause

drag increment, which can be compared with the drag values in Table 6.2.

Figure 6.7 Pressure coefficient variations for all foot step simulations
69

From the Table 6.2, the changes in cab surface was first discussed. As the Step

size is changed from no step to STEP 1, the drag coefficient on the cab surface shows a

drastic decrease from 0.0827 to 0.0787. The drag coefficient shows a slight bump for the

cab surface as soon as the foot step extrudes to the size of 1.2W. After careful

observation from the Cd plot profile on the step in Figure 6.7, it concluded that the front

surface of the foot step had some impact on the cab surface of the SUV model. As soon

as the size of the foot step changes to STEP 3, the drag coefficient on the cab surface

shows a drop in the Cd value. This value goes on increase at a faster rate till the width of

the foot step reaches the value of 1.5W.

Body Surface
Drag Drag Drag Drag Drag
Total
Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.
Drag
Cd Cd Cd Drag Coeff. Cd Cd
Coeff.
on on on Cd on on
Cd
cab base fwheel on rwheel1 rwheel2 side
Benchmark 0.3545 0.0827 0.2276 0.0563 0.0135 0.0202 -0.0486
STEP 1 0.3584 0.0787 0.2491 0.0533 0.0068 0.0201 -0.0452
STEP 2 0.3576 0.0792 0.2486 0.0520 0.0065 0.0192 -0.0450
STEP 3 0.3508 0.0785 0.2432 0.0523 0.0072 0.0188 -0.0450
STEP 4 0.3546 0.0792 0.2439 0.0516 0.0063 0.0189 -0.0444
STEP 5 0.3847 0.1096 0.2378 0.0479 0.0058 0.0172 -0.0374
Body Surface Cont.
Drag Drag
Drag Drag Drag Drag Drag Coeff. Coeff.
Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Cd Cd
Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd on on
on on on on on Step- Step-
underbody Step-left Step-right Step-top Step-bottom front back
Benchmark 0.0027 - - - - - -
STEP 1 0.0016 .00032 .00050 .00006 0.00073 -.00742 -.00015
STEP 2 0.0019 .00037 .00043 .00014 0.00072 -.00689 .00040
STEP 3 0.0011 .00035 .00039 .00032 0.00074 -.00786 .00081
STEP 4 0.0022 .00040 .00046 .00041 0.00087 -.00660 .00127
STEP 5 0.0036 .00041 .00037 .00048 0.00050 -.00367 .00204
Table 6.2 Drag Coefficient on all surfaces of the SUV model
70

Now consider the base surface of the SUV model. The base surface has a major

impact on the SUV overall drag, since it is connected to the wake region of the SUV. The

value of the base Cd shows an increase in its value as soon as the foot STEP 1 is inserted.

This value of the base Cd remains approximately constant for the entire simulations from

STEP 2 to STEP 4; until it shows a drop to the value higher than the benchmark but

lower than the optimal solution of STEP 3. The value of the Cd plot on the front wheel

shows almost no change till the STEP 4 simulation. There is a drop in the Cd value of the

front wheel, when the final simulation STEP 5 is simulated. Since the rear wheel is the

only wheel which faces the air after the impact on the foot step, the rear wheel surface are

closely analyzed. The front face of the rear wheel is named as rwheel1, while the other

surfaces of the rear wheel are named as rwheel2. If closely observed, it is seen that the

front surface of the foot step shows minor increase in drag coefficient while there are

major decrease in drag of the rwheel2 surfaces. This is seen till the simulation of STEP

3. The side surface of the SUV model is constant for all the simulations. The underbody

of the SUV model also plays one of the major roles in reducing overall drag. The value of

the drag Coefficient on the underbody surface shows drastic changes till the STEP 3

simulation and then there is steeper increase in its value till the simulation reaches the

STEP 5 simulation.

Now consider the simulations of the foot step surfaces. The left and right surfaces

of the foot step are the surfaces which are parallel to the direction of the flow. Therefore

these surfaces show gradual decrease till STEP 3 simulation and then gradually increase

to higher value till simulation STEP 5. The top surface of the foot step shows a constant
71

increase in drag till the simulation STEP 5, while the bottom surface shows a constant

value till simulation STEP3. The value of Cd over the bottom surface increases

drastically until simulation of STEP 5. The front surface of the foot step adds negative

drag in all the simulations. This means that the front surface overcomes the resistance of

air and pushes the vehicle in the opposite direction of the flow of the air. The back

surface was showing negative drag till the STEP 1 simulation, but the Cd value show

gradual increment till simulation STEP 5.

6.7 SUMMARY

CFD technique was used to analyze the flow around the Generic SUV model

using steady state formulation. The objective of the present study in Chapter 6 was to

study the effect of foot step on the drag coefficient of the SUV model. The comparison

between the CFD results and the experimental test established a reliable benchmark. Five

simulations of the modified SUV model with different foot step sizes were simulated and

compared with the benchmark model. The results concluded that the optimum size for the

width of the foot step between the range of 1.3W and 1.4W (where W indicates the

wheel width). In the current study, the STEP 3 with foot step width of 1.3W had the

lowest drag and the percentage decrease of drag coefficient was more than 1% from the

original model.
72

Chapter 7

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

7.1 CONCLUSION

In todays world, SUVs are considered as one of the sources for all the problems

of fuel economy, global warming and unhealthy environment. Today the aerodynamicist

have a major challenge to change this image created on the minds of American and

worldwide customers. The efficiency of these large size cars are needed to be increased.

This can be achieved by efficient engines and good aerodynamic.

Aerodynamics plays a major role in the improvement and achievement of

efficient SUVs. In this thesis, various computational fluid dynamic simulations were

performed on the SUV using external drag reducing devices like boat tail plates and

spoilers. The state of the art software like FLUENT, GAMBIT, T-grid and Solidworks

were used to complete the numerical analysis and optimization process.

In this thesis, the experimental data extracted from the wind tunnel testing over

the Generic SUV model are compared with the numerical results of the SUV model. The

pressure coefficient over the SUV surface and the mean velocity profiles in the wake

region at distinct points are compared and thereby validating the CFD simulations. This

thesis effectively developed a validated CFD model of the SUV, which can be used to

further the improvement of vehicle design.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the boat tail plates were tested on the validated CFD

SUV model. The upper and lower boat tail plate angles of 10
illustrated a remarkable
73

decrease in drag from 0.349 to 0.306. This value is nearly 12.3 % decrease in drag from

the benchmark model. This will affect the performance of the vehicle and thereby save

some fuel energy.

The second device i.e. foot step for drag optimization. This device is used by

about 80% of the vehicles for the comfort of the passengers. After thoroughly analyzing

the complete simulation results, it could be observed that slight changes in its dimension

reduced the drag of the overall SUV from 0.354 to 0.350. This optimized shape of the

SUV foot step reduced the drag to about 1.12 % from the original benchmark model.

7.2 FUTURE WORK

Although this thesis focused on the aerodynamic of individual drag reducing

devices, there is more work needed to be worked upon. The two external drag reducing

device like Boat tail plate and Foot step were simulated and optimized in this thesis.

Combination of these both devices could be simulated as future work. Taking the basic

shape of the foot step simulated in this thesis, a more well-defined shape of the foot step

could be simulated in the future. Since the validation of the SUV model is completed,

various ideas of external devices could be tested on the Generic SUV model. Some of the

ideas could be Vortex Strake Devices which is commonly known as VSD. The Figure

7.1 below shows the detail view of the VSD device. This device was tested on the trailer

of the truck by the department of Energy in 2004. The wind tunnel and live road testing

of this device resulted in a decrease of drag for the trailer of the truck. Eventually, this

device could be tested on the SUV model, expecting the drag to be reduced.
74

Figure 7.1 Vortex strake device [14]


75

REFERENCES

1. Jeff Howell and Adrian Gaylard , IMPROVING SUV AERODYNAMICS

2. Abdullah M. Al-Garni, Luis P. Bernal and Bahram Khalighi, Experimental

Investigation of the Flow Around a Generic SUV SAE SAE2004-01-0228.

3. NASA y+ Calculator :: Website : http://geolab.larc.nasa.gov/APPS/YPlus/

4. P. Gilliron and F. Chometon, Modeling of Stationary Three-Dimensional

Separated Air Flows around an Ahmed Reference Model.

5. Side Step image :: Website : http://www.xenonxt.tatamotors.com/wp-

content/uploads/2008/12/aluminum-side-steps.jpg

6. C. H. K. Williamson, Three Dimensional Vortex Dynamics in Bluff Body

Wakes.

7. Hua Shan, Li Jiang, Chaoqun Liu, Michael Love and Brant Maines,

Numerical study of passive and active flow separation control over a

NACA0012 airfoil, Elsevier, 5 December 2007, ScienceDirect.

8. Mathieu Roumeas, Patrick Gillieron, and Azeddine Kourta, Analysis and

control of the near-wake flow over a square-back geometry.

9. P.W. Bearrnan, Near wake flows behind two- and three-dimensional bluff

bodies.

10. Kishan B. Shah and Joel H. Ferziger, A fluid mechanicians view of wind

engineering: Large eddy simulation of flow past a cubic obstacle, ScienceDirect

1997.
76

11. Richard M. Wood and Steven X. S. Bauer, Simple and Low-Cost

Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Devices for Tractor-Trailer Trucks, SAE 2003-

01-3377.

12. Kambiz Salari, et al, Heavy Vehicle Drag Reduction Devices :Computational

Evaluation & Design DOE April 18-20, 2006.

13. R. C. McCallen, K. Salari, J. Ortega, P. Castellucci, C. , Eastwood, J.

Paschkewitz, W. D. Pointer, L. J. DeChant, B. , Hassan, F. Browand, C.

Radovich, T. Merzel, D. Plocher, J. , Ross, B. Storms, J. T. Heineck, S.

Walker and C. J. Roy , DOE Project on Heavy Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag FY

2005Annual Report, DOE Annual Report, November 18, 2005.

14. R. C. McCallen, K. Salari, J. Ortega, P. Castellucci, C. , Eastwood, K.

Whittaker, L. J. DeChant, C. J. Roy, J. L. Payne, B. Hassan, W. D. Pointer,

F. Browand, M. Hammache, T-Y Hsu, J. Ross, D. Satran, J. T. Heineck, S.

Walker, D. Yaste, R. Englar, A. Leonard, M. Rubel and P. Chatelain , FY

2004 Annual Report: DOE Project on Heavy Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag, DOE

Annual Report 2004, November 30, 2004 .

15. R.C. McCallen, K. Salari, J. Ortega, LLNL; L.J. DeChant, C.J. Roy, J.L.

Payne, B. Hassan, SNL; W.D. Pointer, ANL; F. Browand, M. Hammache, T.-

Y. Hsu, USC; J. Ross, D. Satran, J.T. Heineck, S. Walker, D. Yaste, NASA

Ames; R. Englar, GTRI; A. Leonard, M. Rubel, P. Chatelain and Caltech,

FY2003 Annual Report: DOE Project on Heavy Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag,

DOE Annual Report 2003, November 1, 2003.


77

16. Abdullah M. Al-Garni, Luis P. Bernal and Bahram Khalighi, Experimental

Investigation of the Near Wake of a Pick-up Truck, SAE 2003-01-0651.

17. Bahram Khalighi, CFD Simulations for Flow over Pickup trucks, SAE 2005-

01-0547.

18. Masaru KOIKE, Tsunehisa NAGAYOSHI and Naoki HAMAMOTO,

Research on Aerodynamic Drag Reduction by Vortex Generator, Mitsubishi

Motors Technical Reviews, 2004.

19. Luis P. Bernal and Bahram Khalighi ANALYSIS OF THE NEAR WAKE OF

BLUFF BODIES IN GROUND PROXIMITY, ASME 2002-32347.

20. Bahram Khalighi, S. Zhang, C. Koromilas, S. R. Balkanyi, Luis P. Bernal G.

Iaccarino and P. Moin, Experimental and Computational Study of Unsteady

Wake Flow behind a Bluff Body with a Drag Reduction Device, SAE 2001-01B-

207.

21. S. Krajnovi c and L. Davidson, DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE-EDDY

SIMULATION FOR VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS, ASME International

Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2002-32833.

22. Abdullah M. Al-Garni, Measurements of the cross-flow velocity field in the

wake of an idealized pickup truck model using particle image velocimetry, 14th

Int Symp on Applications of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon,

Portugal, 07-10 July, 2008.

23. 2nd MIRA International Conference on Aerodynamics, 1998.


78

24. Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, Edited by Wolf-Heinrich Hucho, SAE

International, Warrendale, PA, 1998.

25. Image : http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2009/05/14-volkswagen-

polo/VW-New-Polo-Wind-Tunnel-Testing-1-lg.jpg

26. Pramod Nari Krishnani and Dr. Dongmei Zhou CFD ANALYSIS OF DRAG

REDUCTION FOR A GENERIC SUV, ASME 2009 International Mechanical

Engineering Congress & Exposition, IMECE2009-10170.

27. Amarddin Z. Maazouddin and Dr. Dongmei Zhou, DRAG REDUCTION ON

SUVS AND TRUCKS BY WAKE CONTROL, 2008 ASME International

Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, IMECE2008-68730.

28. Gerardo Franck and Jorge DEl, CFD modeling of the flow around the Ahmed

vehicle model.

29. Sagar Kapadia and Subrata Roy, Detached Eddy Simulation Over a Reference

Ahmed Car Model, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-

2003-0857.

30. A. Brunn and W. Nitsche, Active control of turbulent separated flows over

slanted surfaces, ScienceDirect, 15 June 2006

Вам также может понравиться