Turbulence modeling effects on the aerodynamic characterizations of a NASCAR Generation 6 racecar subject to yaw and pitch changes

The characterization of a racecar’s aerodynamic behavior at various yaw and pitch configurations has always been an integral part of its on-track performance evaluation in terms of lap time predictions. Although computational fluid dynamics has emerged as the ubiquitous tool in motorsports industry, a clarity is still lacking about the prediction veracity dependence on the choice of turbulence models, which is central to the prediction variability and unreliability for the Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes simulations, which is by far the most widely used computational fluid dynamics methodology in this industry. Subsequently, this paper presents a comprehensive assessment of three commonly used eddy viscosity turbulence models, namely, the realizable k − ϵ (RKE), Abe–Kondoh–Nagano k − ϵ , and shear stress transport k − ω , in predicting the aerodynamic characteristics of a full-scale NASCAR Monster Energy Cup racecar under various yaw and pitch configurations, which was never been explored before. The simulations are conducted using the steady Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes approach with unstructured trimmer cells. The tested yaw and pitch configurations were chosen in consultation with the race teams such that they reflect true representations of the racecar orientations during cornering, braking, and accelerating scenarios. The study reiterated that the prediction discrepancies between the turbulence models are mainly due to the differences in the predictions of flow recirculation and separation, caused by the individual model’s effectiveness in capturing the evolution of adverse pressure gradient flows, and predicting the onset of separation and subsequent reattachment (if there be any). This paper showed that the prediction discrepancies are linked to the computation of the turbulent eddy viscosity in the separated flow region, and using flow-visualizations identified the areas on the car body which are critical to this analysis. In terms of racecar aerodynamic performance parameter predictions, it can be reasonably argued that, excluding the prediction of the %Front prediction, shear stress transport is the best choice between the three tested models for stock-car type racecar Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes computational fluid dynamics simulations as it is the only model that predicted directionally correct changes of all aerodynamic parameters as the racecar is either yawed from the 0° to 3° or pitched from a high splitter-ground clearance to a low one. Furthermore, the magnitude of the shear stress transport predicted delta force coefficients also agreed reasonably well with test results.

[1]  Marc Wolf,et al.  Analysis of Turbulence Models Applied to CFD Drag Simulations of a Small Hatchback Vehicle , 2016 .

[2]  Neil Ashton,et al.  Investigation into the predictive capability of advanced Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes models for the DrivAer automotive model , 2015 .

[3]  P. Moin,et al.  Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows , 1988 .

[4]  Thomas Indinger,et al.  Moving Ground Simulation for High Performance Race Cars in an Automotive Wind Tunnel - CFD Approach on Moving Belt Dimensions - , 2017 .

[5]  Jiyuan Tu,et al.  Evaluation and improvements of RANS turbulence models for linear diffuser flows , 2013 .

[6]  F. Menter Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications , 1994 .

[7]  N. C. Markatos,et al.  Recent advances on the numerical modelling of turbulent flows , 2015 .

[8]  Mesbah Uddin,et al.  Turbulence modeling effects on the CFD predictions of flow over a NASCAR Gen 6 racecar , 2018 .

[9]  O. Cadot,et al.  On multistabilities of real car's wake , 2017 .

[10]  Lars Larsson,et al.  Structures of Flow Separation on a Passenger Car , 2015 .

[11]  F. Menter ZONAL TWO EQUATION k-w TURBULENCE MODELS FOR AERODYNAMIC FLOWS , 1993 .

[12]  Alistair Revell,et al.  Assessment of RANS and DES methods for realistic automotive models , 2016 .

[13]  B. Launder,et al.  The numerical computation of turbulent flows , 1990 .

[14]  Lennart Löfdahl,et al.  Effects of Ground Simulation on the Aerodynamic Coefficients of a Production Car in Yaw Conditions , 2010 .

[15]  Michel Visonneau,et al.  Cross wind effects on a simplified car model by a DES approach , 2013 .

[16]  Mesbah Uddin,et al.  Closed Wheel Race Vehicle Aerodynamic Lift-Off , 2017 .

[17]  Ivar S. Ertesvåg,et al.  Numerical modeling of turbulence above offshore helideck – Comparison of different turbulence models , 2015 .

[18]  Mofreh H. Hamed,et al.  A comparative study of turbulence models performance for separating flow in a planar asymmetric diffuser , 2011 .

[19]  Guglielmo Minelli,et al.  Partially-Averaged Navier-Stokes Simulations of Flows Around Generic Vehicle at Yaw , 2016 .

[20]  Jeff Howell,et al.  Aerodynamic Drag of Passenger Cars at Yaw , 2015 .

[21]  Gunther Ramm,et al.  Some salient features of the time - averaged ground vehicle wake , 1984 .

[22]  W. Jones,et al.  The calculation of low-Reynolds-number phenomena with a two-equation model of turbulence , 1973 .

[23]  T. Shih,et al.  A new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model for high reynolds number turbulent flows , 1995 .

[24]  Wilko Jansen,et al.  Complete Body Aerodynamic Study of three Vehicles , 2017 .

[25]  Ken-ichi Abe,et al.  A new turbulence model for predicting fluid flow and heat transfer in separating and reattaching flows—I. Flow field calculations , 1995 .

[26]  D. Wilcox Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models , 1988 .

[27]  Mesbah Uddin,et al.  Turbulence Models and Model Closure Coefficients Sensitivity of NASCAR Racecar RANS CFD Aerodynamic Predictions , 2017 .

[28]  Colin P. Britcher,et al.  Experimental and Computational Aspects of Ground Simulation for Vehicles in Strong Crosswind Conditions , 2014 .

[29]  Rajneesh K. Singh,et al.  CFD Simulation of NASCAR Racing Car Aerodynamics , 2008 .

[30]  Emmanuel Guilmineau,et al.  Effect of Side Wind on a Simplified Car Model: Experimental and Numerical Analysis , 2009 .

[31]  B. Launder,et al.  Application of the energy-dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc , 1974 .

[32]  L. Parras,et al.  Experimental study on Ahmed's body drag coefficient for different yaw angles , 2016 .

[33]  M. Elkhoury,et al.  Assessment of turbulence models for the simulation of turbulent flows past bluff bodies , 2016 .

[34]  Armagan Altinisik,et al.  Aerodynamic Analysis of a Passenger Car at Yaw Angle and Two-Vehicle Platoon , 2015 .

[35]  Alistair Revell,et al.  Key factors in the use of DDES for the flow around a simplified car , 2015 .

[36]  W. Jones,et al.  The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence , 1972 .

[37]  Jeff Howell,et al.  Aerodynamic Side Forces on Passenger Cars at Yaw , 2016 .

[38]  C. Rhie,et al.  Numerical Study of the Turbulent Flow Past an Airfoil with Trailing Edge Separation , 1983 .

[39]  F. Menter,et al.  Ten Years of Industrial Experience with the SST Turbulence Model , 2003 .

[40]  Bradley Duncan,et al.  Characterization of Separated Turbulent Flow Regions in CFD Results for a Pontiac NASCAR Race Car , 2004 .

[41]  John Brzustowicz,et al.  Experimental & Computational Simulations Utilized During the Aerodynamic Development of the Dodge Intrepid R/T Race Car , 2002 .

[42]  T. Barber,et al.  The aerodynamic effects on a cornering Ahmed body , 2016 .

[43]  Chao Yang,et al.  Aerodynamics of Open Wheel Racing Car in Pitching Position , 2018 .