Cooling drag, typically known as the difference in drag coefficient between open and closed cooling configurations, has traditionally proven to be a difficult flow phenomenon to predict using computational fluid dynamics. It was seen as an academic yardstick before the advent of grille shutter systems. However, their introduction has increased the need to accurately predict the drag of a vehicle in a variety of different cooling configurations during vehicle development. This currently represents one of the greatest predictive challenges to the automotive industry due to being the net effect of many flow field changes around the vehicle. A comprehensive study is presented in the paper to discuss the notion of defining cooling drag as a number and to explore its effect on three automotive models with different cooling drag deltas using the commercial CFD solvers; STARCCM+ and Exa PowerFLOW. The notchback DrivAer model with under-hood cooling provides a popular academic benchmark alongside two fully-engineered production cars; a large saloon (Jaguar XJ) and an SUV (Land Rover Range Rover). Initially three levels of spatial discretization were used with three steady-state RANS solvers (k-ɛ realizable, k-ω SST and Spalart-Allmaras) to ascertain whether previous work using RANS on the large saloon studying cooling flows could be replicated on other vehicle shapes. For both the full-production vehicles, all three turbulence models were capable of predicting the cooling drag delta within 5 counts (0.005 Cd). However, the DrivAer model was much more sensitive to both changes in turbulence models and mesh sizes. For the SA turbulence model only the drag coefficient was well predicted, for the other two RANS models no amount of grid refinement allowed the models to correctly predict the flow field. It was seen when comparing the k-ɛ realizable and SA turbulence models the difference in cooling drag was attributed to the rear of the vehicle. This highlighted that despite similar drag values from the cooling package, the cooling deltas were very different, suggesting that cooling drag cannot be thought of as open-closed drag with the addition of drag due to the cooling package. Further work on the DrivAer model expanded on the RANS simulations utilizing the eddy-resolving methods, IDDES and LBM, as validation cases. Oscillations which were seen in the SA and k-ω SST RANS turbulence models were shown to be of similar levels to those in the transient methods indicating a pseudo-unsteadiness present in the steady-state solvers and the importance of resolving it. Drag and lift coefficient absolute values were compared showing that only the IDDES method with sliding wheels and LBM method could obtain physical results for the majority of the tested criteria. Introduction Current and future regulations in the automotive industry place a high importance on the environmental impact of vehicles. It is becoming increasingly important to be able to calculate the drag of each vehicle specification and the affect of each changeable component on the final configuration. Wind tunnels can obtain all this information but it is difficult to create representative prototypes early enough in the development process. With ever increasing computational power available Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) provides the ability to simulate and calculate the drag configurations for a variety of models, while state-of-the-art multi-physics simulations with coupling of aerodynamics, thermal management and power-train simulations provide the potential to model real-time simulations. This paper focuses on increasing understanding of so-called cooling air drag, as applied to a fully engineered production large saloon and SUV, this is achieved by discussing the concept of cooling drag vs. complete body aerodynamic simulations and comparing against the popular benchmark DrivAer model.
[1]
M. Uddin,et al.
Simultaneous Improvement of Vehicle Under-Hood Airflow and Cooling Drag Using 3D CFD Simulation
,
2016
.
[2]
Wilko Jansen,et al.
Drive Cycle Simulation of A Tiered Cooling Pack Using Non-Uniform Boundary Conditions
,
2014
.
[3]
P. Spalart.
A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows
,
1992
.
[4]
Martin A. Passmore,et al.
A Fully Coupled, 6 Degree-of-Freedom, Aerodynamic and Vehicle Handling Crosswind Simulation using the DrivAer Model
,
2016
.
[5]
Adrian Gaylard,et al.
The Appropriate Use of CFD in the Automotive Design Process
,
2009
.
[6]
G. G. Stokes.
"J."
,
1890,
The New Yale Book of Quotations.
[7]
Nikolaus A. Adams,et al.
Introduction of a New Realistic Generic Car Model for Aerodynamic Investigations
,
2012
.
[8]
Engine Air Intake Thermal Modelling in Full Vehicle Underhood Environment
,
2013
.
[9]
Lennart Löfdahl,et al.
Effects of wheel orientation on predicted flow field and forces when modelling rotating wheels using CFD
,
2010
.
[10]
Alistair Revell,et al.
Comparison of RANS and DES Methods for the DrivAer Automotive Body
,
2015
.
[11]
R. H. Barnard.
Theoretical and experimental investigation of the aerodynamic drag due to automotive cooling systems
,
2000
.
[12]
D. Drikakis,et al.
Full Vehicle Aero-Thermal Cooling Drag Sensitivity Analysis for Various Radiator Pressure Drops
,
2016
.
[13]
T. Shih,et al.
A New K-epsilon Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows: Model Development and Validation
,
1994
.
[14]
F. Menter.
Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications
,
1994
.
[15]
Felix Wittmeier,et al.
The Effects of Cooling Air on the Flow Field around a Vehicle
,
2016
.
[16]
Thomas Indinger,et al.
A Numerical and Experimental Evaluation of Open Jet Wind Tunnel Interferences using the DrivAer Reference Model
,
2016
.
[17]
Felix Wittmeier,et al.
Open Grille DrivAer Model - First Results
,
2015
.
[18]
Jochen Wiedemann,et al.
Investigations in a Cooling Air Flow System under the Influence of Road Simulation
,
2008
.
[19]
Christian Oliver Paschereit,et al.
Experimental Study of Baseline Flow Characteristics for the Realistic Car Model DrivAer
,
2013
.
[20]
S. Lardeau,et al.
Validation of a turbulence methodology using the SST k-ω model for adjoint calculation
,
2016
.
[21]
Emmanuel Guilmineau.
Numerical Simulations of Flow around a Realistic Generic Car Model
,
2014
.
[22]
T. Shih,et al.
A new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model for high reynolds number turbulent flows
,
1995
.
[23]
Wilko Jansen,et al.
Cooling Airflow Simulation for Passenger Cars using Detailed Underhood Geometry
,
2006
.
[24]
Nikolaus A. Adams,et al.
Interference Effects of Cooling Air-Flows with External Aerodynamics
,
2011
.
[25]
Bing Xu,et al.
Simulation of Cooling Airflow under Different Driving Conditions
,
2007
.