Search Results

Efforts in aerodynamic optimization of road vehicles have been steadily increasing in recent years, mainly focusing on the reduction of aerodynamic drag. Of a car's total drag, wheels and wheel houses account for approx. 25 percent. Consequently, the flow around automotive wheels has lately been investigated intensively. Previously, the authors studied a treaded, deformable, isolated full-scale tire rotating in contact with the ground in the wind tunnel and using the Lattice-Boltzmann solver Exa PowerFLOW. It was shown that applying a common numerical setup, with velocity boundary condition prescribed on the tread, significant errors were introduced in the simulation. The contact patch separation was exaggerated and the flow field from wind tunnel measurements could not be reproduced. This investigation carries on the work by examining sensitivities and new approaches in the setup.

Unsteady aerodynamic flow phenomena are investigated in the wind tunnel by oscillating a realistic 50% scale model around its vertical axis. Thus the model is exposed to time-dependent flow conditions at realistic Reynolds and Strouhal numbers. Using this setup unsteady aerodynamic loads are observed to differ significantly from quasi-steady loads. In particular, the unsteady yaw moment exceeds the quasi-steady approximation by 80%. On the other hand, side force and roll moment are over predicted by quasi-steady approximation but exhibit a significant time delay. Using hotwire anemometry, a delayed reaction of the wake flow of Δt/T = 0.15 is observed, which is thought to be the principal cause for the differences between unsteady and quasi-steady aerodynamic loads. A schematic mechanism explaining these differences due to the delayed reaction of the wake flow is proposed.

Unsteady aerodynamic flow phenomena are investigated in a wind tunnel by oscillating a realistic 50% scale model around the vertical axis. Thus the model is exposed to time-dependent flow conditions at realistic Reynolds and Strouhal numbers. Using this setup unsteady aerodynamic loads are observed to differ significantly from quasi steady loads. In particular, the unsteady yaw moment exceeds the quasi steady approximation significantly. On the other hand, side force and roll moment are over predicted by quasi steady approximation but exhibit a significant time delay. Part 2 of this study proves that a delayed and enhanced response of the surface pressures at the rear side of the vehicle is responsible for the differences between unsteady and quasi steady loads. The pressure changes at the vehicle front, however, are shown to have similar amplitudes and almost no phase shift compared to quasi steady flow conditions.