Search Results

A computational process for early stage vehicle shape assessment for automotive front window buffeting and greenhouse wind noise is presented. It is a challenging problem in an experimental process as the vehicle geometry is not always finalized. For example, the buffeting behavior typically worsens during the vehicle development process as the vehicle gets tighter, leading to expensive late counter measures. We present a solution using previously validated CFD/CAA software based on the Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM). A CAD model with realistic automotive geometry was chosen to simultaneously study the potential of different side mirror geometries to influence the front window buffeting and greenhouse wind noise phenomena. A glass mounted mirror and a door mounted mirror were used for this comparative study. Interior noise is investigated for the two phenomena studied. The unsteady flow is visualized and changes in the buffeting and wind noise behavior are explored.

This paper describes the methodology used to design and perform a CFD analysis of a Chevrolet Impala SS Funny Car body. This body was designed for the purpose of making it available for teams to race it in the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) drag racing series beginning with the 2007 race season. Several challenges were presented in this project: (1) This was the first time a General Motors drag racing body for use in professional classes (Funny Car or otherwise) was ever designed in CAD. (2) The body was originally designed as a 2007 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. After the tooling was completed, changes in Chevrolet’s product lineup required that the body be changed to a 2007 Impala SS. (3) Budget constraints precluded CFD analysis until after the bodies were already being manufactured. There were several teams that raced the new body during the 2007 race season. One of these teams won the Funny Car Driver’s Championship.

A decade of industrial experience with Exa's CFD software, PowerFLOW, has matured the simulation software to the point where the geometric modeling process is now the bottleneck to efficiency and effectiveness. Simply put, the actual CAE simulation event is now fast enough and accurate enough to drive design intent; however, the geometric design process that supplies alternative models to the software is not fast enough to keep up with the critical path of the design cycle. If CAE tools in general are to play in important role in creating design intent rather than simply verifying completed design work, then the modeling process which drives them will have to improve. In the context of this paper, geometric design involves both Class A exteriors and under-hood geometries. Two pieces of software have been developed to help in this area: PowerWRAP and PowerCLAY.