Search Results

Industry trends towards lighter, more aerodynamically efficient road vehicles have the potential to degrade a vehicle’s response to crosswinds. In this paper, a methodology is outlined that indirectly couples a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of the vehicle’s aerodynamic characteristics with a multi-body dynamics simulation (MBD) to determine yaw, roll and pitch response characteristics during a severe crosswind event. This one-way coupling approach mimics physical test conditions outlined in open loop test procedure ISO 12021:2010 that forms part of the vehicle sign-off criterion at Ford Motor Company. The methodology uses an overset mesh CFD method to drive the vehicle through a prescribed crosswind event, providing unfiltered predictions of vehicle force and moment responses that are used as applied forces in the MBD model. The method does not account for changes in vehicle attitude due to applied aerodynamic forces and moments.

Wind tunnel testing is conducted to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of a vehicle under controlled and well-defined boundary conditions. Differences in wind tunnel facility layout, design, and subsequent onset flow conditions may result in differing aerodynamic conditions being attained for the same test property in different test facilities. Several OEMs develop vehicles in different regions and utilize local test facilities during the vehicle design process. Understanding the flow characteristics and correlations between test facilities is therefore essential to ensure that global processes can utilize data obtained in any region. Typically, automotive facility correlations are derived by evaluating a fleet of production level test properties in each facility. Adopting a test fleet approach for facility correlation yields three key issues; firstly, there are significant logistics and timing constraints.

The DrivAer realistic generic car model is now established as one of the benchmark geometries to assess the aerodynamic flow field characteristics associated with passenger vehicles. Since its introduction in 2012, the database of experimental studies has grown and provides excellent validation opportunities for analytical methods. This paper compares Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations for integral forces, surface pressure distribution and velocity flow fields for the DrivAer model in the notchback configuration. Transient CFD data are obtained by employing hybrid Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Large Eddy Simulation methods (Detached Eddy Simulation - DES) using the finite volume solvers Simcenter Star-CCM+ and the openFOAM based flow solver IconCFD. Computational results are calculated using Wall Resolved Meshes (WRM), where y+ < 1, and Wall Function Meshes (WFM), where 30 < y+ < 100.

Three pickup truck variants of the Generic Truck Utility (GTU) are evaluated and compared using wind tunnel test data and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. The configurations analyzed are the short cab/long box, medium cab/medium box, and long cab/short box geometries, which all share a common vehicle length and wheelbase. Both cab and box length are known to influence the total bluff body drag through the interaction of the cab wake in the pickup box with the total vehicle wake, and the GTU provides an excellent test box to investigate the details of these interactions. Experimental testing was conducted at the WindShear wind tunnel on a full-scale GTU model, while transient CFD simulations were carried out with IconCFD®, an open-source based solver. Experimental and CFD results are used to describe the general flow field around the vehicle, and a comparison is made with the wind tunnel integral force data as well as centerline pressure tap data.

Traditionally, ground vehicle aerodynamics has been researched with highly simplified models such as the Ahmed body and the SAE model. These models established and advanced the fundamental understanding of bluff body aerodynamics and have generated a large body of published data, however, their application to the development of passenger vehicles is limited by the highly idealized nature of their geometries. To date, limited data has been openly published on aerodynamic investigations of production vehicles, most likely due to the proprietary nature of production vehicle geometry. In 2012, Heft et al. introduced the realistic generic car model ‘DrivAer’ that better represents the flow physics associated with a typical production vehicle.

Since the introduction of the DrivAer in 2012 this model has become the standard generic aerodynamic benchmark and aerodynamic research model used by automotive OEMs, software vendors and researchers. In 2017, the relevance of the DrivAer has been furthered by the inclusion of a simplified engine bay. Whilst the DrivAer has become the popular standard, the availability of detailed wind tunnel test data, a key enabler for more sophisticated aerodynamic benchmarking and research, remains limited. This paper presents a comprehensive set of wind tunnel test data of the notchback version of the Ford Open Cooling DrivAer, including aerodynamic force measurements, detailed surface pressure measurements and flow field measurements at 3 cross-sections in the vicinity of the model. In addition, the paper will discuss the sensitivity of the experimental data to wind tunnel repeatability and facility-to-facility variations.

The 2nd Automotive CFD Prediction workshop (AutoCFD2) was organized to improve the state-of-the-art in automotive aerodynamic prediction. It is the mission of the workshop organizing committee to drive the development and validation of enhanced CFD methods by establishing publicly available standard test cases for which high quality on- and off-body wind tunnel test data is available. This paper reports on the AutoCFD2 workshop for the Ford DrivAer test case. Since its introduction, the DrivAer quickly became the quasi-standard for CFD method development and correlation. The Ford DrivAer has been chosen due to the proven, high-quality experimental data available, which includes integral aerodynamic forces, 209 surface pressures, 11 velocity profiles and 4 flow field planes. For the workshop, the notchback version of the DrivAer in a closed cooling, static floor test condition has been selected.