Search Results

Effects of the wind tunnel blockage in a closed-wall wind tunnel were investigated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Flow over three generic vehicle models representing a passenger sedan, a sports utility vehicle (SUV), and a pickup truck was solved. The models were placed in a baseline virtual wind tunnel as well as four additional virtual wind tunnels, each with different size cross-sections, providing different levels of wind tunnel blockage. For each vehicle model, the CFD analysis produced an aerodynamic drag coefficient for the vehicle at the blockage free condition as well as the blockage effect increment for the baseline wind tunnel. A CFD based blockage correction method is proposed. Comparisons of this method to some existing blockage correction methods for closed-wall wind tunnel are also presented.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used to simulate the flow field over a pickup truck. The simulation was based on a steady state formulation and the focus of the simulation was to assess the capabilities of the currently used CFD tools for vehicle aerodynamic development for pickup trucks. Detailed comparisons were made between the CFD simulations and the existing experiments for a generic pickup truck. It was found that the flow structures obtained from the CFD calculations are very similar to the corresponding measured mean flows. Furthermore, the surface pressure distributions are captured reasonably well by the CFD analysis. Comparison for aerodynamic drags was carried out for both the generic pickup truck and a production pickup truck. Both the simulations and the measurements show the same trends for the drag as the vehicle geometry changes, This suggests that the steady state CFD simulation can be used to aid the aerodynamic development of pickup trucks.

Effects of the pressure gradient in the wind tunnel test section on vehicle aerodynamic drag were investigated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The numerical study was used to obtain the aerodynamic drag of several vehicles in two virtual wind tunnels, one with a zero pressure gradient and another with a nonzero (but small) pressure gradient. A comparison of the vehicle aerodynamic drags in these two virtual wind tunnels, and investigation of the physical mechanisms causing these differences, have led to two correction formulas. These formulas can be used to correct for the pressure gradient effect on vehicle aerodynamic drag measurement in a wind tunnel that has a nonzero pressure gradient. In the first formula, the correction is given explicitly in terms of known variables. The correction is 80% accurate for passenger car, sports car, sports utility vehicle (SUV), and is 70% accurate for pickup truck.

The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based wind tunnel blockage correction method proposed in [1] was extended in the present study to production vehicles with detailed underhood and underbody components, fascia and grills. Three different types of vehicles (sedan, SUV, and pickup truck) were considered in the study. While the previous CFD based wind tunnel blockage correction method was for vehicle aerodynamic drag, the blockage effect on vehicle cooling airflow is also included in the present study, and a CFD based blockage correction method for vehicle cooling airflow is proposed. Comparisons were made between the blockage effects for the production vehicles and the blockage effects for the generic vehicles.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used to simulate the flow field over a pickup truck. The simulation was based on a transient state formulation and the focus of the simulation was to assess the capabilities of the current RSM (Reynolds Stresses Model) in CFD tools for vehicle aerodynamic development for pickup trucks. Detailed comparisons were made between the CFD simulations and the existing experiments for a generic pickup truck. It was found that the flow structures obtained from the CFD calculations are very similar to the corresponding measured mean flows. Furthermore, the surface pressure distributions are captured reasonably well by the CFD analysis. Comparison for computational results was carried out for both linear Pressure Strain model (Launder, Reece and Rodi, 1978) and Quadratic Pressure Strain model (Speziale, Sarkar and Gatski, 1991). The CFD results of Linear and Quadratic RSM are very close to the test data.