ASWC2013 Aero 4 ANSYS Germany Frank

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 41

DrivAer - Aerodynamic Investigations for

a New Realistic Generic Car Model using


ANSYS CFD

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Thomas Frank(*), Benedikt Gerlicher(*),


Juan Abanto(**)
(*) ANSYS Germany, Otterfing, Germany
(**)ANSYS Inc., Lebanon, NH, USA
[email protected]

Contents
The DrivAer Benchmark by TUM, Inst. Aerodynamics
Investigated DrivAer car model variants
The meshing process
CFD investigations for the DrivAer fastback car:
F_S_woM_wW
F_D_wM_wW
Comparison to TU Munich wind tunnel data
Cross-comparison of ANSYS CFX and ANSYS Fluent
Summary & Outlook

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Objectives
Automotive Aerodynamics
Validation of ANSYS CFD
Generic reference model
with modern car geometry
Investigation of meshing process and technologies
for contemporary and complex car body geometry
Including wheels
Including mirrors
Including detailed floor with exhaust system
Validation of ANSYS CFX & ANSYS Fluent
Comparison to TU Munich wind tunnel data
Turbulence model validation and data comparison
steady/transient SST and SAS-SST
3

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

DrivAer Geometry
Development of the DrivAer model by TU Munich
BMW 3 Series
Limousine

Audi A4
Limousine

Courtesy by TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics


4

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

DrivAer Geometry
Development of the DrivAer model by TU Munich
BMW 3 Series
Limousine

DriveAer Car Body

Audi A4
Limousine

Courtesy by TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics


5

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

DrivAer Geometry
Development of the DrivAer model by TU Munich
Total length

4613mm

Total width

1820mm

Total height

1418mm

Wheelbase

2786mm

Track width front

1520mm

Track width back

1527mm

Courtesy by TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics


6

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental Facility and Data


The experimental data is provided by the Institute of
Aerodynamics and Fluid Mechanics, TU Munich
Experiments are performed in a wind tunnel including
a moving belt @ 1:2.5 model scale

Courtesy by TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics


7

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Test Case Conditions


Model Scale

1:2.5

Inlet velocity

40 m/s

Air Temperature
Air Pressure

1.013 bar

Air Density

1.2047 kg/m3

Reference Length (Length of car model)


Resulting Reynolds number
Ground velocity

Courtesy by TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics


8

20

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

1.84 m
4.87*106
40 m/s

Investigated DrivAer Car Models


E_S_woM_woW
Estate_
Smooth underbody_
without Mirrors_
without Wheels

F_S_woM_wW
Fastback_
Smooth underbody_
without Mirrors_
with Wheels

F_D_wM_wW
Fastback_
Detailed underbody_
with Mirrors_
with Wheels
9

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Investigated DrivAer Car Models


E_S_woM_woW
Estate_
Smooth underbody_
without Mirrors_
without Wheels

F_S_woM_wW
Fastback_
Smooth underbody_
without Mirrors_
with Wheels

F_D_wM_wW
Fastback_
Detailed underbody_
with Mirrors_
with Wheels
10

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Geometry & Computational Domain


1:1

Model Scale to Car Size


Inlet velocity

16 m/s

Air Temperature

20

Air Pressure

1.013 bar

Air Density

1.2047 kg/m3

Reference Length (Car Length)

4.6
4.87*106

Resulting Reynolds number

16 m/s

Ground velocity
Dimensions of the Bounding Box
Model scale

1:1

1:1

Total length

10L

46.13 m

Total width

11B

20.02 m

Total height

8H

11.34 m

13

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Meshing Process
Meshing process using:
ANSYS DesignModeler 14.5
ANSYS TGrid in Fluent 14.5

ANSYS DM
Geometry
Cleanup

IGES CAD
Geometry

ANSYS DM
.agdb Geometry
Export

TGrid 14.5 :
CAD-import
conformal tesselation

ANSYS CFX
TGrid
Tet/Prism
Mesh Export
ANSYS Fluent
14

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

TGrid Meshing

Geometry Clean-up

15

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

F_D_wM_wW: Computational Mesh2

16

Full 3d model
SAS-SST
~110 Mill. Cells
Four refinement zones
20 Inflations on the car
15 Inflations on the road
y+<1 on the car body
MRF-Zones for the rims
(MRF=Moving Reference
Frame)

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS TGrid Meshing Details

17

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Simulation Matrix
Timestep

Mesh 1

Steady SST

t = 0.1ms

Steady SST

t = 1 ms

Steady SST

t = 10 ms

Transient SST

t = 1 ms

Transient SAS-SST

t = 1 ms

Transient SAS-SST

t = 0.2 ms

ANSYS CFX investigation


ANSYS Fluent investigation
18

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Mesh 2

Mesh 2 Full
Domain

Investigation Results F_S_woM_wW


F_S_woM_wW - Fastback_Smooth underbody_without Mirrors_with Wheels

19

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST CD Histories


CD, Experiment =0.2519
CD, mean, Fluent=0.2684
CD, mean, CFX =0.2834

20

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at Symmetry Plane y=0mm (top)

21

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at Symmetry Plane y=0mm (bottom)

22

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at z=0.15m

z=0.15m

23

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

Comparison of Q-Criterion
Fluent, SAS-SST
t=0.2 ms
15000 time steps
3.0 s total time

ANSYS Fluent

Q criterion level = 0.0005


ANSYS CFX

CFX, SAS-SST
t=0.2 ms
14419 time steps
2.884s total time
24

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Vortex Structure from Transient


Simulation, SAS-SST, t=0.2ms

25

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Vortex Structure from Transient


Simulation, SAS-SST, t=0.2ms

26

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Investigation Results F_D_wM_wW


F_D_wM_wW - Fastback_Detailed underbody_with Mirrors_with Wheels

27

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS CFD, URANS SST & SAS-SST


CD Histories

CD, Experiment =0.2927

CD, mean, Fluent=0.3114


CD, mean, CFX =0.3158

28

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at Symmetry Plane (top)

29

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at Symmetry Plane (bottom)

30

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at z=0.15m (left)
Better agreement
between CFD and data for
CP extracted from the left
side of the car

z=0.15m

31

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFD, SAS-SST


Cp at z=0.15m (right)

z=0.15m

32

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Experimental data by courtesy of TU Munich, Inst. of Aerodynamics

ANSYS CFX, URANS SST, t=0.2ms


Asymmetric wake

33

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS CFX, URANS SST, t=0.2ms


Asymmetric wake

34

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS CFX, URANS SST, t=0.2ms


Asymmetric wake

35

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS Fluent SAS-SST, t=0.2ms


Q-Criterion Isosurfaces
Q criterion level = 0.0005

36

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS Fluent SAS-SST, t=0.2ms


Lambda-2 criterion level = 0.01
Bottom view of F_D_wM_wW

37

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

ANSYS Fluent SAS-SST, t=0.2ms


Lambda-2 criterion level = 0.001
Bottom view of F_D_wM_wW

38

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Summary & Conclusions

39

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Summary & Outlook


Simulating the DrivAer car
is first of all a meshing
challenge!
Established a meshing
process, where ANSYS TGrid
in Fluent 14.5 and direct CAD
model tessellation was applied
Three different DrivAer cars meshed and simulated
(U)RANS SST and SAS-SST comparison
Applied feasible amount of CFD best practice related
investigations:
mesh and timestep dependence
iteration error convergence
steady vs. transient
(U)RANS vs. scale-resolving turbulence modeling
40

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Summary & Outlook (cont.)


Reasonable good agreement for CP
value comparison to data
Influence from the model support
system (MSS) on CP on the top of the
car roof observable
Differences at point of vortex
impingement in the rear of the car
CFD predicted slightly higher CD values in comparison to data

Influence from wind tunnel geometry


Quite high blocking ratio for this large model in TUM wind tunnel
Influence from road simulator vs. entirely moving road (CFD)

Desirable to have PIV data for flow field comparison


Good and very consistent comparison between ANSYS CFX and
ANSYS Fluent for investigated DrivAer car models
Further streamlining and refinement of the ANSYS TGrid in Fluent
based meshing process possible
e.g. longer extension of refined zones behind the car
41

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

Questions?

42

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

References
1. http://www.aer.mw.tum.de/abteilungen/automobilaerodynamik/drivaer/
2. http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/DrivAer_Model
3. A. Heft, T. Indinger, N. Adams: Experimental and Numerical
Investigation of the DrivAer Model, ASME 2012, July 8-12,
2012, Puerto Rico, USA, FEDSM2012-72272
4. A. Heft, T. Indinger, N. Adams: Introduction of a New
Realistic Generic Car Model for Aerodynamic Investigations,
SAE 2012 World Congress, April 23-26, 2012, Detroit,
Michigan, USA, Paper 2012-01-0168
5. P. Nathen: Investigation of the Complex Turbulent Flow
around a Generic Vehicle, MSc Thesis, TU Munich, Inst.
Aerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics, April 2012

43

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

September 19,
2013

You might also like